Post by: Orange Wizard on January 22, 2015, 10:34:24 am
Quote from: Some guy's sig that I can't find because Toady hates the wayback machine
There's a couple cans of gasoline nearby... one idiot can ruin things for everyone. - Bay12 does politics
This is a thread for discussing topics relevant to various religions and spiritual concepts. Please be respectful of other people's beliefs, even if you think said belief is foolish or blatantly incorrect.
First, some ground rules.
Please read the rules before posting.
If you do not read the rules before posting, I will summon voodoo demons to eat you.
- Make sure you've read the forum guidelines (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=27009).
- Flaming, trolling, bigotry, and so on are forbidden. No exceptions. No, not even then.
- As much as I hate to put a damper on humour, making jokes about beliefs, etc. in a derogatory manner is forbidden.
- Please do not make moral or ethical judgements on any given belief or practice, or the people who follow it. Everyone has a different set of morals, and this is not the place for it. I encourage you to discuss cultural implications, but stating that someone is a bad person because they do/believe X is forbidden.
- Being respectful of beliefs does not - and never will - preclude stating why you think a given belief is incorrect or inaccurate. If you are liable to get offended by people disagreeing with you, this thread may not be the best place for you.
Addendum: If someone disputes your claim, please be ready to provide sources. Stating "X is true and it's obvious so I don't need sources" is very close to flaming and only causes arguments. The exception to this is when something is common knowledge, like "the sky is blue". I trust you to understand the difference.
Addendum Addendum: Wikipedia is not a reputable source. - Do not post anything solely to see the reaction you will receive. That is almost the very definition of trolling.
- Do not bring up feminism or gender/identity politics. If you really need this explained to you, PM one of the many people who have been banned because of it.
- Necro-smut and other undead erotica is forbidden. Don't ask me how Bay12 keeps managing to derail conversations into this.
- Don't make me (or anyone else) call in Toady.
...
If there's something you'd like to know of another religious or spiritual group, ask away. If you belong to or have some knowledge of an obscure or minority group, feel free to share it with the rest of us.
Finally, polls. I'll be putting polls up periodically on some topics. If you have any suggestions, please PM me.
The purpose of this is to take stuff along the lines of "how many people believe X" out of the thread an into a more quantifiable format. I'll leave the results here so people can review them.
Spoiler: Religion/Faith poll results (click to show/hide)
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 22, 2015, 10:36:44 am
Post by: TD1 on January 22, 2015, 10:38:16 am
Rebirth makes for interesting feuds between religious leaders.
Edit:
PoH must take full responsibility for following conversation, even if he strategically snipped his post out.
Send the mobs to his house in future, not mine!
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 22, 2015, 10:40:27 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 22, 2015, 10:52:56 am
Post by: wobbly on January 22, 2015, 10:53:16 am
Just to answer the above: Obviously the Dalai Lama. Pope Francis dies, he's dead. Dalai Lama dies, he comes back as a younger model and takes on Pope Francis.
Rebirth makes for interesting feuds between religious leaders.
Well that's going to be interesting to see what happen there as I'm pretty sure China's made it clear there going to put a political appointment in the position. So 2 dalai lamas perhaps? or zero? multiple?
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2015, 11:05:52 am
Post by: TD1 on January 22, 2015, 11:08:18 am
Two el lama he's a Beast,
But I'll bet a silk pyjama
That there is no three el lama.
Can anyone tell me what this means? I've heard it once or twice (Heard it, hence why the spelling may be off for the "el lama" bit.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 22, 2015, 11:12:16 am
Lama with one l (hence "el") is a sort-of priest - the Dalai Lama, of course.
Llama with two ls is a farm animal.
There is no such thing as a lllama.
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2015, 11:13:14 am
One 'l' lama is a priest
Two 'l' llama is a beast
But I'll bet a silk pyjama
That there is no three 'l' lllama
edit: ninja-ed
Post by: Baffler on January 22, 2015, 11:17:58 am
Post by: i2amroy on January 22, 2015, 11:28:38 am
(Seriously though voodoo and its accompanying forms are pretty interesting if you can cut through most of the new age stuff that has recently been rather randomly placed on top. I wrote a paper on it for a final in one of my recent religions class. :P )
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 22, 2015, 11:32:30 am
Just to answer the above: Obviously the Dalai Lama. Pope Francis dies, he's dead. Dalai Lama dies, he comes back as a younger model and takes on Pope Francis.But maybe Pope Francis would miracously rise from the dead some days later and whoop down respawnLama.
Rebirth makes for interesting feuds between religious leaders.
Besides he said something somewhere about punching someone's mother recently. So he clearly has boxing experience.
Post by: TD1 on January 22, 2015, 11:35:46 am
Post by: Arx on January 22, 2015, 12:00:18 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on January 22, 2015, 12:25:39 pm
Atheist and dubious animist here, with high hopes for this thread.
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 22, 2015, 03:47:53 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 22, 2015, 03:57:44 pm
Nah, after his death a new Pope would be chosen. He wouldn't be Pope Francis anymore, he'd just be Zombie Francis, locked in an eternal battle with the ever-reborn Dalai Lama.
why? I mean Francis is pope despite his predecessor being alive. I think this sets a precedent that would allow Francis to remain Lich-Pope despite having an elected successor
Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama will both return to the collective spirit soon. Who cares whom arrives slightly sooner? Everyone wins!
Atheist and dubious animist here, with high hopes for this thread.
speaking of which, did you know that contrary to what the Chanson of Roland says, the historical Roland was not killed in a holy crusade against muslim hordes, but by basque marauders in a mountain ambush?
It's likely that at least some of them were pagan, if it's of any consolation.
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 22, 2015, 03:59:24 pm
Nah, after his death a new Pope would be chosen. He wouldn't be Pope Francis anymore, he'd just be Zombie Francis, locked in an eternal battle with the ever-reborn Dalai Lama.
why? I mean Francis is pope despite his predecessor being alive. I think this sets a precedent that would allow Francis to remain Lich-Pope despite having an elected successor
Benedict is known as Pope Emeritus - not a title frequently used, for fairly obvious reasons. I humbly propose the term Lich-Pope Emeritus when the inevitable occurs.
Post by: Silthuri on January 22, 2015, 04:18:57 pm
I am a solitary eclectic wiccan and a novice witch. And by novice I mean have only casted two circles and I'm not going to be working any spells until I feel I'm ready for what that entails. I don't want to accidentally turn someone into a toad. :P
Post by: TD1 on January 22, 2015, 04:21:30 pm
Post by: Silthuri on January 22, 2015, 04:26:25 pm
Do Wiccans study spells, then?
Not all of them. Not all wiccans are witches and not all witches are wiccans. Wiccans do cast circles, which is more of a ritual than a spell.
Post by: TD1 on January 22, 2015, 04:33:03 pm
And (forgive my ignorance :P) are the spells seen to actually do anything in the real world?
Post by: XXXXYYYY on January 22, 2015, 05:40:17 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on January 22, 2015, 06:53:02 pm
I don't want to accidentally turn someone into a toad. :P
B-But then Toady One can become Toady TWO~!
Ex-Catholic Christian, in case this is useful.
Post by: Silthuri on January 22, 2015, 08:02:11 pm
Are the rituals seen as a form of prayer?
And (forgive my ignorance :P) are the spells seen to actually do anything in the real world?
Not precisely. They're more of a way to honor the gods. Casting a circle is a preliminary step to other rituals because they amplify energy, purify and protect from negativity and all that jazz. We do have prayers, though.
We're not talking Harry Potter stuff or anything. Our spells are essentially focusing energy for specific purposes, be it protection, enchanting, healing, etc. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.
B-But then Toady One can become Toady TWO~!Yes. And the world would implode from sheer awesomeness. Destroying the world would severely damage my reputation.
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2015, 08:04:59 pm
Also, Wiccan got the second best religious music after the Islamic nasheeds.
Post by: Silthuri on January 22, 2015, 08:40:35 pm
How organized is Wiccan? Is there some kind of common creed, or is it more like a collections of various beliefs under one label, like animism for example?
Also, Wiccan got the second best religious music after the Islamic nasheeds.
Wicca is pretty disorganized. There are nearly as many versions as there are covens/churches/solitaries. There are a few churches scattered about, but many wiccans are in covens or solitary. There are many versions of it, but we all follow the Wiccan Rede (http://wicca.com/celtic/wicca/rede.htm) to some extent.
I love wiccan music. The Islamic nasheeds are pretty good. Unfortunately I don't speak the language and can't fully enjoy them...
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2015, 08:47:54 pm
Post by: Silthuri on January 22, 2015, 09:32:26 pm
Some of my favorite nasheeds comes in videos with ISIS flags on them, so I think I can actually enjoy them MORE because I don't speak the language. :p
That would make me curious as to what was being said, but it would probably be best to just enjoy the sounds at that point.
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2015, 09:36:19 pm
Post by: 4maskwolf on January 22, 2015, 10:12:17 pm
Enjoy your discussions, all.
Post by: Helgoland on January 22, 2015, 11:11:21 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on January 22, 2015, 11:13:08 pm
Also, Wiccan got the second best religious music after the Islamic nasheeds.
I rather like some of the Catholic hymns...
Although that's mainly because I can sing "In the Moun-tains of Mad-ness~!" to the tune of them perfectly, which is a great quality in almost any song.
Post by: Arx on January 22, 2015, 11:18:29 pm
Post by: mastahcheese on January 22, 2015, 11:26:03 pm
Currently resides somewhere closer to Buddhist beliefs, and is a firm believer in reincarnation.
Reporting, as much as that matters.
Post by: MaximumZero on January 23, 2015, 01:23:42 am
Post by: chaoticag on January 23, 2015, 03:16:38 am
Post by: UXLZ on January 23, 2015, 03:54:11 am
Post by: Vilanat on January 23, 2015, 04:10:08 am
Former Christian, technically still an ordained priest of the Latter Day Saints.
Currently resides somewhere closer to Buddhist beliefs, and is a firm believer in reincarnation.
Reporting, as much as that matters.
As a believer in reincarnation, what is it you believe reincarnate? our soul, meaning a distinct entity that gets reborn into another human being? what gets carried on through this distinct entity (or in other words, what are the qualities and characteristics of this entity)?
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 23, 2015, 04:14:17 am
Put me down as an Agnostic Nihilist, please.I'm not putting anyone down as anything. This isn't a structured question-answer thread, you're free to chat about whatever you wish (mostly).
In any case, I am also interested in hearing more about mastah's reincarnation beliefs.
Post by: UXLZ on January 23, 2015, 04:21:22 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 23, 2015, 04:23:24 am
Post by: mastahcheese on January 23, 2015, 09:56:40 am
Yes, I believe that there is some form of "soul" that persists between incarnations.Former Christian, technically still an ordained priest of the Latter Day Saints.
Currently resides somewhere closer to Buddhist beliefs, and is a firm believer in reincarnation.
Reporting, as much as that matters.
As a believer in reincarnation, what is it you believe reincarnate? our soul, meaning a distinct entity that gets reborn into another human being? what gets carried on through this distinct entity (or in other words, what are the qualities and characteristics of this entity)?
To better explain it: I believe that the "purpose" of life is simply to learn. There are many religions that believe this. In any case, it's not possible, in any sense, to learn all there is to know, or even all that you want to know, within a single lifetime.
So I do believe that there is some form of knowledge or information that resides within the soul, that could possibly be transfered to the present physical body. (Whether you'd realize it happening or not wouldn't really matter)
Obviously, though, you wouldn't remember them, because your ability to learn is skewed when you have prior experience, because you already think you understand how it works, and aren't as open to new ideas, as if you had a blank slate for your memory.
As I imagine it will inevitably be asked where souls come from, the Bhagavad-Gita (One of the many book of Hindu scripture, but it shares a lot of beliefs with Budhisim) does a better job of explaining than I could do, in that it explain that just as God is immortal, and has always existed, with no beginning, so too has every person's soul, always having been.
Post by: GannonDork on January 23, 2015, 02:50:36 pm
As before, Humanist/Atheist. If you want to, you can label me "Angry Atheist" or "New Atheist" or "Dawkins Atheist" or whatever. I have no use for the supernatural whatsoever.As a Christian (Presbyterian) what books and other media do you recommend to learn more about atheist beliefs, and to learn where an Atheist worldview is based off of?
Post by: Helgoland on January 23, 2015, 02:55:10 pm
atheist beliefsInb4 definition circlefap
Post by: Arx on January 23, 2015, 02:57:37 pm
Post by: Levi on January 23, 2015, 03:37:29 pm
We need to sort out the definitions somehow.
That way lies madness.
Let us define with song. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8)
Just kidding, I'm not one. Mostly.
Edit:
I'm an Atheist. Nothing to explain about my beliefs, I just don't believe in god/gods/supernatural/anything that can't be explained by science. I dislike religion because it often causes people to not think rationally, but I think people have a right to their beliefs no matter how crazy I think they are as long as their beliefs don't hurt others.
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 23, 2015, 03:51:26 pm
As before, Humanist/Atheist. If you want to, you can label me "Angry Atheist" or "New Atheist" or "Dawkins Atheist" or whatever. I have no use for the supernatural whatsoever.As a Christian (Presbyterian) what books and other media do you recommend to learn more about atheist beliefs, and to learn where an Atheist worldview is based off of?
I shall overlook the "belief" bit.... ;)
This is not an easy thing to answer, as Atheism is not "centralised" around any set of ideals or figureheads.
Well, anything by Dawkins, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, Hitchens or David G. MacAfee would be a good starting point. Atheism is not like theistic thinking, in that there are no real guidelines, or core dogmatic principles, save for the rejection of gods as a hypothesis. That is the sole world view. Everything else is optional and down to the individual. Basically, for me, my agnostic Atheism is a secondary function of being a rationally sceptical scientific thinker. It is a conclusion based on evidence, or a lack of evidence for competing claims. Maybe hang around on David G MacAfee's facebook page (it is a lot less unpleasant than most other theist/athiest discussion pages, and more concerned with rational scepticism rather than picking holes in any particular religion - you might even find me on there :P ), or have a look around on YouTube for some of Hitchens' legendary debates. FWIW Dawkins is a massive jerk (yeah, he says a lot of sensible things, but in a really unpleasant manner), but Hitchens had a sort of calm assurance about him that is less off putting.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 23, 2015, 04:08:00 pm
A multitude of overly specific definitions can seem like egotism (or "special snowflake"), but maybe it's actually a natural consequence of abandoning an entrenched idea...atheist beliefsInb4 definition circlefap
More and more people are saying "Hey, maybe *all* organized religions are a farce instead of all-1". But in response they're challenged (by others, but also themselves) to clarify what they *do* believe in. So they're encouraged to reach for new ideas, like transhumanism or extropianism, and clarify whether they actively disbelieve or simply lack belief, and what exactly they lack belief in...
The two most important definitions are, if I recall correctly from back when I cared a lot:
Agnostic: One who lacks belief in any god
Atheist: One who is currently convinced there are no gods
We could go on and on about what constitutes a "god", but it's mostly self evident. For most nonbelievers, a God is an all-powerful being who actively governs the world. Many people believe in a guiding force who (in the present day) takes no quantifiable action but provides comfort and conscience. Most "Easter Christians", for example. Such people are basically agnostic already.
But they still call themselves Christians or whichever, because society requires us to label ourselves. Even, or especially, nonbelievers. But nonbelievers aren't a unified group, which is why there are so many specific and overlapping subgroups.
Fakedit: Yeah, Dawkins is kinda a jerk. I used to watch videos of him just to feel better about my nonbelief. He makes good arguments, but he's also very sensationalist and probably not good to recommend for a believer.
Actual Edit: I do agree with Dawkins that religion is fundamentally bad for humanity, even though obsolete social instincts compel us to seek it out.
Post by: TD1 on January 23, 2015, 04:11:55 pm
Also, MZ, I associate the Dawkins atheist with the view that religion, whilst not only being tripe, is inherently bad for humanity. "Root of all evil" and all that. Is that what you think?
Personally, I'm sort of at the "Religion, in all its variety, is superstition." but I won't go as far as to say it's unhealthy. It can be wielded as such by those who need justification, but is not in itself inherently evil.
Post by: UXLZ on January 23, 2015, 05:19:37 pm
Quote
"The problem with asking these questions about meaning is that, when you keep asking them, you start to think that they actually have an answer."
And that's why I'm an (Agnostic) Nihilist. ;D
The thought can still be fun to entertain, however.
Post by: Helgoland on January 23, 2015, 09:59:55 pm
I also suggest Nietzsche. Why? Well, he was a brilliant man. You know what else? He had an awesome mustache.I fully second this.
Also I believe there's a great amount of truth in Marx's 'Religion is opium for the masses', as long as one remembers that opium can be used as medicine as well as for recreational purposes.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 23, 2015, 10:03:45 pm
I'm entirly fine with that
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 23, 2015, 10:08:00 pm
Post by: Helgoland on January 23, 2015, 10:11:53 pm
So you're saying in high on god?I'm saying I want to push God into other people's veins.
I'm entirly fine with that
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 23, 2015, 10:30:18 pm
You're glad you're euphoric because of some phony god's blessing?When did I say phoney?
Can I sig that?So you're saying in high on god?I'm saying I want to push God into other people's veins.
I'm entirly fine with that
Post by: Helgoland on January 23, 2015, 10:31:55 pm
And for the first part, you may want to go ahead and google 'phony god's blessing' ;)
Post by: Frumple on January 23, 2015, 11:18:18 pm
I probably wouldn't really recommend Nietzsche to someone curious about atheism, though, roughly in the same sense I wouldn't recommend Dawkins. N's a bit heavier than someone wanting an initial primer probably wants to deal with. There's definitely a few folks that fall under the general umbrella of existentialism (Well, re: Nietzsche, anyway. I forget what dawkins is besides an acerbic atheist and somewhat iffy writer on the philosophy of biology) that could provide some interesting words on the subject, though. I can't actually recall any of them at the moment, but they're out there.
I'd probably say just... ask questions. Hopefully folks here can softball the subject enough to not have it turn shrill :P
*Predisposed against religious organization -- if not necessarily spirituality or individual worship -- and of the belief the divine, to whatever extent they do or do not exist, are irrelevant, for those that want the definition.
Post by: Helgoland on January 23, 2015, 11:23:42 pm
Camus is pretty great as well.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 23, 2015, 11:48:08 pm
As a Christian (Presbyterian) what books and other media do you recommend to learn more about atheist beliefs, and to learn where an Atheist worldview is based off of?Atheism is defined purely by the lack of a belief rather than any specific movement, so there's not really any way to learn either of these things. Realistically you could probably work out what some popular humanist movements and writers think.
Post by: Baffler on January 24, 2015, 12:07:00 am
I probably wouldn't really recommend Nietzsche to someone curious about atheism, though, roughly in the same sense I wouldn't recommend Dawkins. N's a bit heavier than someone wanting an initial primer probably wants to deal with. There's definitely a few folks that fall under the general umbrella of existentialism (Well, re: Nietzsche, anyway. I forget what dawkins is besides an acerbic atheist and somewhat iffy writer on the philosophy of biology) that could provide some interesting words on the subject, though. I can't actually recall any of them at the moment, but they're out there.
They're also both massive assholes, by all accounts.
Post by: TD1 on January 24, 2015, 12:15:14 am
Closet right-winger :P
All you need to do is give Helgo a smaller regard of religion in society and he mirrors my views. Tweak his politics a bit, and I'd probably end up agreeing.
Damn it Helgo, why do you have to be so...amicably agreeable!
Post by: GannonDork on January 24, 2015, 12:35:12 am
Thanks for the help man. ;)As before, Humanist/Atheist. If you want to, you can label me "Angry Atheist" or "New Atheist" or "Dawkins Atheist" or whatever. I have no use for the supernatural whatsoever.As a Christian (Presbyterian) what books and other media do you recommend to learn more about atheist beliefs, and to learn where an Atheist worldview is based off of?
I shall overlook the "belief" bit.... ;)
This is not an easy thing to answer, as Atheism is not "centralised" around any set of ideals or figureheads.
Well, anything by Dawkins, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, Hitchens or David G. MacAfee would be a good starting point. Atheism is not like theistic thinking, in that there are no real guidelines, or core dogmatic principles, save for the rejection of gods as a hypothesis. That is the sole world view. Everything else is optional and down to the individual. Basically, for me, my agnostic Atheism is a secondary function of being a rationally sceptical scientific thinker. It is a conclusion based on evidence, or a lack of evidence for competing claims. Maybe hang around on David G MacAfee's facebook page (it is a lot less unpleasant than most other theist/athiest discussion pages, and more concerned with rational scepticism rather than picking holes in any particular religion - you might even find me on there :P ), or have a look around on YouTube for some of Hitchens' legendary debates. FWIW Dawkins is a massive jerk (yeah, he says a lot of sensible things, but in a really unpleasant manner), but Hitchens had a sort of calm assurance about him that is less off putting.
Post by: Bohandas on January 24, 2015, 02:09:02 am
Voodoo demons? Bah.
(Seriously though voodoo and its accompanying forms are pretty interesting if you can cut through most of the new age stuff that has recently been rather randomly placed on top. I wrote a paper on it for a final in one of my recent religions class. :P )
How is it that New Age bullshit keeps getting smeared on absolutely everything? It's a real problem.
Post by: Descan on January 24, 2015, 02:48:53 am
Post by: freeformschooler on January 24, 2015, 03:48:20 am
Why is it always Helgo that agrees with me?!?!?
Closet right-winger :P
All you need to do is give Helgo a smaller regard of religion in society and he mirrors my views. Tweak his politics a bit, and I'd probably end up agreeing.
Damn it Helgo, why do you have to be so...amicably agreeable!
One more amicable post and he'll have us all converted to Catholicism. Be on guard.
Speaking of which, I attended an RCIA meeting this week to find out whether they eat babies or not. Results are inconclusive, but there sure are a lot of Latino Catholics.
GannonDork: If it hasn't been recommended already, Carl Sagan should be on the list as well. Yes, he's not a popular figurehead for New Atheism (whatever that means), and yes, his image is bandied about on le reddit, but he had this wonderful warm, humble manner of speaking. Sagan wrote and spoke extensively on religion, atheism, and metaphysical naturalism, and it would do anyone good to experience some of his work.
Post by: scrdest on January 24, 2015, 04:44:41 am
You're glad you're euphoric because of some phony god's blessing?When did I say phoney?
That was a reference to a meme. 'At this moment, I'm euphoric' etc. etc.
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2015, 08:39:41 am
Why is it always Helgo that agrees with me?!?!?The thing is that we actually agree on most issues, except for the importance of the nation and our stance on immigrants. Since both are fairly unimportant in most discussions, they rarely come up.
Closet right-winger :P
All you need to do is give Helgo a smaller regard of religion in society and he mirrors my views. Tweak his politics a bit, and I'd probably end up agreeing.
Damn it Helgo, why do you have to be so...amicably agreeable!
Did you know that Orwell was quite a conservative chap when it came to little things? He may have been a socialist, but fuck the metric system.
Post by: That Wolf on January 24, 2015, 09:53:20 am
All major "organised religions" are about getting to godhead and being a good person and learning your individual place in one grand entity.
The Bhagavad-Gita is the most, and dare I say scientificly spiritual
Some personal spiritual experiences changed me and my life for the better.
Im very accepting of the fact that our life is finite and
Ive learnt to love life and the creatures in it, I still kill my brothers for sustenence, and you cannot live without killing (even plants and micro organisims live)
Ive felt much in the way of love and despair, and I would suggest some paths for all that believe they are ready. The first is to get people you love, an area you enjoy and psilocybin small dose.
And enjoy the company you are with.
And yes im a normal person and you wouldnt look at me twice if you walked past me...
Well maybe im pretty sexy
Post by: UXLZ on January 24, 2015, 06:49:04 pm
Quote
He may have been a socialist, but fuck the metric system
The metric system is the only system.
Quote
Some personal spiritual experiences changed me and my life for the better.
I'm glad that it changed your life better, but what makes events 'spiritual?' What made those events different from others?
Post by: TD1 on January 24, 2015, 06:54:29 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 24, 2015, 06:55:19 pm
Events that I would call spiritual are things like when you are almost guarenteeay going to die and something out of nowhere saves you.
Random realizations
(And for some people) visions
Others include just amazing and unexplainable things
Post by: TD1 on January 24, 2015, 06:59:33 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 24, 2015, 07:03:09 pm
There's not really any criteria to it
It can be quite a few things
E: things not thinks
Post by: UXLZ on January 24, 2015, 07:14:02 pm
When you say 'can't find an explanation to', do you mean something more along the lines of something where rationally there isn't really much of an explanation. Like seeing twin moons in the sky, or something.
Have any of the people here who have had spiritual experiences of the unexplained phenomena kind ever attempted to find the explanation on the internet or something? (Or at least look for similar cases), or do you simply say 'yep, that was a spiritual experience?'
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 24, 2015, 07:22:24 pm
They can be minor things I guess but ya it's open ended for a reason, a lot of things can happen that can change a person or just change their attention or other things
A spiritual (I'm not even sure this is the right word) experience for me was a near death experience a few years ago when the roads got iced over really bad and we got stuck in a ditch for 8 hours with light jackets, an almost dead car battery, and nothing else to keep us warm.
Several other cars almost hit us and we could have easily gotten hypothermia or some other cold related thing
(It was very cold)
But nope after 8 hours a two truck got us and we stayed at a family friend's house till the roads cleared
But ya seeing cars come so close to smashing into you while going down an icy hill at high speeds and just barely missing you, that's a bit life changing.
Oh and the freezing cold part too
Post by: MaximumZero on January 24, 2015, 07:42:14 pm
There is no common set of atheist beliefs. Atheism is simply not believing in any gods. Think of it like this: the abrahamic god is as important to me as Loki, or Dionysus, or Cu Chulainn, or Susano-o, or the Great White Buffalo is to you. Mythology is just religion that you don't believe in.As before, Humanist/Atheist. If you want to, you can label me "Angry Atheist" or "New Atheist" or "Dawkins Atheist" or whatever. I have no use for the supernatural whatsoever.As a Christian (Presbyterian) what books and other media do you recommend to learn more about atheist beliefs, and to learn where an Atheist worldview is based off of?
Also, MZ, I associate the Dawkins atheist with the view that religion, whilst not only being tripe, is inherently bad for humanity. "Root of all evil" and all that. Is that what you think?In as many words, yes. Religion was useful when people couldn't explain strange phenomena in the world, when people were still afraid of thunder and had no explanation for pork and shellfish killing them, because they didn't know about foodborne illnesses. The problem is, though, if you continue to use a crutch after your legs are healthy, you never really learn to walk.
Post by: Crashmaster on January 24, 2015, 07:56:57 pm
If one team thanks jesus for winning them the football game what does the other team think?
Post by: scrdest on January 24, 2015, 08:10:59 pm
I've noticed that spirituality is frequently associated with unexpected good fortune while equally statistically unlikely misfortune is rarely attributed to deistic involvement.
If one team thanks jesus for winning them the football game what does the other team think?
Actually, it goes both ways. Just look at HIV in the Eighties or Haiti a couple years back. It's just that it's used for different purposes.
Post by: That Wolf on January 24, 2015, 08:20:43 pm
QuoteSome personal spiritual experiences changed me and my life for the better.
I'm glad that it changed your life better, but what makes events 'spiritual?' What made those events different from others?
What makes a spiritual event different from others is that a realisation comes over you like a warm/cold blanket and you feel an emotion that is not easily attained in daily life. Alot of them came from my psilocybin experiences.
Not to say that I wasnt already a loving person but it made me see that love is not an emotion but a state of mind, and I have achived that state of mind many times.
I was a stupid kid who didnt know what he was doing but that changed on the day I took them. And many years later I still feel strongly about them and strongly suggest you try it if you know you are ready.
I have been changed for the better and so have my friends who I showed this 'gift' to.
I never met a deity, or saw dragons and elves. It made me see my wrong doing and that all life is beautiul.
Despite me needing to eat it I still love it
I love you. Yeah YOU the one reading this.
Post by: UXLZ on January 24, 2015, 08:59:18 pm
Quote
psilocybin
Is this some sort of drug? Not sure what a 'psilocybin' is or means.
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2015, 09:00:50 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on January 24, 2015, 09:01:04 pm
Post by: UXLZ on January 24, 2015, 09:02:28 pm
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2015, 09:05:54 pm
It's a damn shame I can't take the stuff, really. I've heard very few bad things about them all in all.
Post by: UXLZ on January 24, 2015, 09:08:26 pm
Post by: That Wolf on January 24, 2015, 09:38:15 pm
So they cause artificial epiphanies. Interesting...They make more nural pathways, the epiphanies come from yourself. I suggest dumb people never do them seeing its a waste and theyl just go "duude look at the colours, i feel good man, dont say stuff too deep or my buzz will be harsh"
If you fear your own demons then I suggest to not do them either.
Its atomic structure is really close to DMT (an extra carbon me thinks) and that is in every living thing and is released from the pineal gland upon death.
But yes I will accept that you could call it artificial, but dont judge it until youve been their because I used to think things like that are wrong and bad for you because they ram that stuff down your throat at school. When in fact its not bad for you.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 24, 2015, 09:52:32 pm
Post by: That Wolf on January 24, 2015, 10:06:29 pm
Nah im pretty sure it does make pathways.
I just read the wiki and it says the basics.
Most the research done in the late 40s to 50s proved to much for the govt to handle and they stopped it for some reason...
Maybe they are scared people will wake up and realise theres more to life than buying shit watching tv, and going to work to earn money just to give to a rich
Post by: TD1 on January 24, 2015, 10:53:15 pm
Actually, thought better of it. That's got nothing to do with religion.
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 24, 2015, 11:00:35 pm
Post by: That Wolf on January 24, 2015, 11:02:18 pm
Post by: UXLZ on January 24, 2015, 11:05:24 pm
But then, in what are they different from something like marijuana for instance? (Or are they considered similar?)
Morphine?
Post by: That Wolf on January 24, 2015, 11:21:44 pm
Mmm... Well, if it makes people happy and doesn't kill them or negatively effect others I can't see the harm in it...Marijuana can help with the nausea but that isnt bad for you, if you over do it (like anything) It can be bad for your health mostly with complacent thoughts.
But then, in what are they different from something like marijuana for instance? (Or are they considered similar?)
Morphine?
Things like opiates are just a pain killer and you cant get much spirituality when your brain is overloaded with feelgoods. I would suggest stay away from opiates and barbiturates. Also things like stimulants arnt any good.
psychedelics are good if you are ready and healthy. Lsd while has its uses is more for fun Ive found.
So no morphine isnt "spirtual"
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 24, 2015, 11:27:42 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 24, 2015, 11:37:42 pm
Actually, it goes both ways. Just look at HIV in the Eighties or Haiti a couple years back. It's just that it's used for different purposes.This kind of thing is my biggest problem with religious worldviews actually, even milder ones. If you start by assuming that everything was created by some omnibenevolent deity then the just world fallacy naturally follows ("anyone who's suffering deserves it").
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 24, 2015, 11:42:03 pm
IMO you shouldn't use the religion thread as a platform to promote drug usageEh. It's not too bad at this point. If people start focussing on it I'll ask that it's taken elsewhere.
Post by: That Wolf on January 24, 2015, 11:47:35 pm
What makes an experience spiritual (as opposed to fun, or ritualistic, or whatever) Wolf?A knowing that I am not my ego, that 'I' am part of something greater than my evolved senses can pick out.
An almost death in my old thinking, a change in the self. But it seems so obvious that before I was wrong. They can be both fearful and euphoric, but these feelings come from the realisation of the knowledge you receive and how you take it. Not from the psilocybin.
If this makes no sense just say and I will attempt to put it into better words.
IMO you shouldn't use the religion thread as a platform to promote drug usageYes I understand. But as you can see I havnt said you must do so, only if you are ready. And I in no way promote every drug to be used. I suggested the best for genuine spiritual experiences, the point of this thread.
And I will take it elsewhere if many ask for it.
Remember that all religions came from drug use
Post by: XXXXYYYY on January 24, 2015, 11:50:32 pm
Actually, opium dreams are quite common, and tend to be very vivid. They could be taken as spiritual, depending on the content of the dream. While hallucinogens might have the most sudden effects, other drugs can cause religious or spiritual feelings as well. Hell, tobacco, a stimulant, was used religiously at one point, and that causes no hallucinations at all. Basically anything that causes altered states or feelings will at one point or another have been attributed to a religious or spiritual influence, even such things as fasting and sleep deprivation, which cause intense visions without the use of any external drug.Mmm... Well, if it makes people happy and doesn't kill them or negatively effect others I can't see the harm in it...Marijuana can help with the nausea but that isnt bad for you, if you over do it (like anything) It can be bad for your health mostly with complacent thoughts.
But then, in what are they different from something like marijuana for instance? (Or are they considered similar?)
Morphine?
Things like opiates are just a pain killer and you cant get much spirituality when your brain is overloaded with feelgoods. I would suggest stay away from opiates and barbiturates. Also things like stimulants aren't any good.
psychedelics are good if you are ready and healthy. Lsd while has its uses is more for fun I've found.
So no morphine isn't "spiritual"
Post by: Frumple on January 25, 2015, 12:05:25 am
Have any of the people here who have had spiritual experiences of the unexplained phenomena kind ever attempted to find the explanation on the internet or something? (Or at least look for similar cases), or do you simply say 'yep, that was a spiritual experience?'Well... yeah? I mean, the major repeated experiences that most would call explicitly spiritual (talking to/being talked to by god stuff*) that I've been through were both extreme depressive breaks causing me to hallucinate like goddamn. The various awe/prayer states I've been in have all been (fairly trivially at this point, insofar as you can call it trivial when it's taking over a decade to reach this point) induced by meditative practice -- they're pretty straightforward low-tech mindhacking, so to speak. The various bits of unlikely coincidence, some of which involved near-death stuff, were, well. Coincidences. I'm okay with accepting that sometimes it's just the luck of metaphorical dice.
They can still be spiritual experiences, though, if you just equate "spiritual experience" to a certain mental state that's no more supernatural (or less, if you're feeling whimsical) than the ability to love. It's chemical cocktails and neurological pathways all the way down, so to speak.
That's more or less how I've internalized it over the years, anyway. I've had the divine talk to me, I've had the unlikely coincidences, I've been through pretty much the whole kit and kaboodle. I've chalked it up to the human brain having a really easy time of going haywire, and it hasn't caused a notable fluctuation in occurrences.
*FYI, according to the voices that were temporarily in my head when I was a pre-teen, and again as a young teenager, accompanying the overwhelming spiritual style emotional overload, and the thrashing, and the screaming and tongues and whatnot, mother earth is in pretty extreme suffering and we as a species are basically killing god.
Temporary insanity is a hell of a drug. Gods be buggered but I don't want to go through that again.
Post by: Cheeetar on January 25, 2015, 12:08:30 am
Remember that all religions came from drug use
[citation needed]
Post by: Arx on January 25, 2015, 12:21:47 am
Post by: That Wolf on January 25, 2015, 12:26:20 am
really? I thought it was common knowledge. Ok in the vedas they talk about this stalk of a plant soma that is a stimulant and it is the plant from the god of war (forgot his name) it gives you the light of said god and gives you power of a warrior.Remember that all religions came from drug use
[citation needed]
The pagans used stimulants and psychedelics and alot of religions stem from both of them.
The greeks had oracles that where on drugs to commune with the gods.
And the jews holy water has marijuana in it.
The drink of holi is milk and marijuana.
Its bloody everwhere.
Post by: MaximumZero on January 25, 2015, 12:29:40 am
Post by: Arx on January 25, 2015, 12:30:34 am
And the jews holy water has marijuana in it.
Citation? I've never heard that and holy water is never mentioned in the Bible.
Post by: That Wolf on January 25, 2015, 12:31:14 am
I'd also like to know why the psilocybin is necessary when I can induce a religious experience through a thirty-second ritual referred to as 'prayer'.Ok its not necessary at all, but it can help if you arnt religious. Religion qnd spirituality are two different things.
Please people dont take what I am saying out of context and I think we should stop nit picking. If you are happy with your spirituality im happy with that, and happy for you.
You dont see me poking holes in your coments.
Post by: mastahcheese on January 25, 2015, 12:32:22 am
If you're going to continue this line of conversation, please provide legitimate, unbiased sources. Without them, you may as well be telling us that your WiFi router is spying on you for the government on the moon.But what if it is, MZ?
WHAT IF IT IS?!?
Post by: MaximumZero on January 25, 2015, 12:33:26 am
But what if it is, MZ?Punch it through spacetime. That always works for mine.
WHAT IF IT IS?!?
Post by: That Wolf on January 25, 2015, 12:38:15 am
And the OP orange wizard set the rules so im following them.
Or id poke holes in all the scriptures like i do in real life.. literally i go into churches and poke holes in the books..
If you're going to continue this line of conversation, please provide legitimate, unbiased sources. Without them, you may as well be telling us that your WiFi router is spying on you for the government on the moon.But what if it is, MZ?
WHAT IF IT IS?!?
And this comment is so false. The base is obviously on titan.
Post by: Cheeetar on January 25, 2015, 12:40:51 am
Post by: MaximumZero on January 25, 2015, 12:42:58 am
Or id poke holes in all the scriptures like i do in real life.. literally i go into churches and poke holes in the books..Mhm. Totes believes you. Vandalism is 3edgy5me.
Look, even if you were to do that, it wouldn't make you clever, it'd just make you a destructive dick. Destroy arguments, not private property. If you can't make your point without pulling stupid stunts, you don't have much of a point.
Post by: That Wolf on January 25, 2015, 12:51:47 am
I did this in the wrong place didnt I...
No my religious beliefs are that you die, theres no god. There is an after life then you are reborn with no knowledge of past lives. The afterlife has paradoxes living in harmony. And it is a place of everything. Both a "hell" and "heaven" in one place. Obviously its not really a place but thats the best word for it.
It just is.
Like us. We just are.
I dont belive that there is bad or good. But I treat people well like I would be like to be treated.
But its up to you to decide your version of good and bad and how you want your life to go.
Dont be terrified of death is what I say when people ask me "are you religious"
I feel silly saying this
Post by: That Wolf on January 25, 2015, 12:53:56 am
Joking is my selfdefence mech.Or id poke holes in all the scriptures like i do in real life.. literally i go into churches and poke holes in the books..Mhm. Totes believes you. Vandalism is 3edgy5me.
Look, even if you were to do that, it wouldn't make you clever, it'd just make you a destructive dick. Destroy arguments, not private property. If you can't make your point without pulling stupid stunts, you don't have much of a point.
I felt pressure to describe what I meant so I hid in my mech and shot one of the guns
Post by: UXLZ on January 25, 2015, 01:17:22 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 25, 2015, 01:22:57 am
I STILL think my reinterpretation of the Christian God is the best theory. = \
Are we talking about how Christians see it or other people?
I missed it if you posted it .-.
Post by: UXLZ on January 25, 2015, 01:31:16 am
The conclusion I essentially came to was that God is/was literally 'human thought/consciousness. Possibly even 'spirituality''.
A lot of the time you can actually use it to make sense of stuff, as well. Though there are probably a lot of contradictions that I don't know about.
For instance, let's take the creation of Adam, supposedly the first human. God is said to have created Adam, and people usually imagine this as literal, like a sculptor chiseling a statue from marble, but what this theory posits is that God did not literally create Adam, but God was what made Adam human. Essentially, the creation of Adam was rather than a story of an architect constructing a building, the story of humans gaining sentience and their 'humanity'.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 25, 2015, 01:38:30 am
Doesn't that entirely contradict the
'Adam was made in the shape of god'
But of that
I mean god would have to be the one that made him to make him look human/in the image of god rather him becoming part of him to make him in the image of god
I say this because we look uniquely different from anything else on this planet because we look like god
Unless there is an alien race amongst us (they live!) that is subliminally trying to get us to be more human/think less till we are brainless slaves to them
*they live is a great movie but has nothing to do with religion, the whole second chunk can just be ignored for actual discussion use
Post by: Arcvasti on January 25, 2015, 01:41:41 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 25, 2015, 01:43:36 am
Post by: Arx on January 25, 2015, 01:45:33 am
I don't agree exactly with UXLZ, but I believe something similar.
Post by: That Wolf on January 25, 2015, 01:47:23 am
UXLZ that was beautifully written.
Im going to go away and contemplate what was said here today and hopefully I can make more sense.
Love That Wolf that killed your legendary adventurer.
Post by: UXLZ on January 25, 2015, 02:14:55 am
Quote
I mean it kinda fits with the Holy Spirit but there are a few bits in the bible specifically speaking about god and his interactions (see Job? IIRC) which mean he's not mans conciliate as but his own entity
That's if you interpret the bible as an entirely literal documentation of events exactly as how they occurred, though.
Can someone quote me the line where God destroys Gomorrah?
Post by: Baffler on January 25, 2015, 02:21:31 am
Worth noting is that I'm not actually Christian or even ascribe to these beliefs. It was just an extremely interesting way I discovered of interpreting the Bible and its ilk.QuoteI mean it kinda fits with the Holy Spirit but there are a few bits in the bible specifically speaking about god and his interactions (see Job? IIRC) which mean he's not mans conciliate as but his own entity
That's if you interpret the bible as an entirely literal documentation of events exactly as how they occurred, though.
Can someone quote me the line where God destroys Gomorrah?
It is written:
Quote from: Genesis 19:24-25
And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth.
Sounds to me that that's as dead as dead can be.
Post by: UXLZ on January 25, 2015, 02:29:36 am
Quote from: Genesis 19:24-25
And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth.
Right, so my interpretation of that with this theory would be this:
Their decadence destroyed them. Not in and of itself, but it caused their destruction.
Anyone here seen DBZ? Remember the original explanation for the destruction of Planet Vegeta, that its own good-hearted Guardian destroyed it due to the evil of its inhabitants?
Essentially, this: They were destroyed by the consciousness/humanity that 'God' represents/literally is. It may have been an army led by a kind-hearted leader who wished to see the cities purged. They may have been destroyed from within by some of their own inhabitants who despised them. There are quite a lot of possibilities, actually.
Post by: Descan on January 25, 2015, 02:46:10 am
I say this because we look uniquely different from anything else on this planet because we look like godHave you ever seen a shaved chimp? They look supremely human. Not entirely human, of course, but... especially the arms.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 25, 2015, 03:00:32 am
...
Google Image Search confirms this to be mostly false. Depends on how human is "supremely human".I say this because we look uniquely different from anything else on this planet because we look like godHave you ever seen a shaved chimp? They look supremely human. Not entirely human, of course, but... especially the arms.
I would have posted one here but I couldn't find one without a massive ballsack visible.
Post by: Frumple on January 25, 2015, 03:02:03 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 25, 2015, 03:07:04 am
Post by: Descan on January 25, 2015, 03:08:06 am
UXLZ: I must say your interpretation is very interesting. I'm not sure where to go with it, but it's certainly something worth considering.Human enough to say "Yeah, we're related."
...Google Image Search confirms this to be mostly false. Depends on how human is "supremely human".I say this because we look uniquely different from anything else on this planet because we look like godHave you ever seen a shaved chimp? They look supremely human. Not entirely human, of course, but... especially the arms.
I would have posted one here but I couldn't find one without a massive ballsack visible.
Same way you are your cousin are similar looking, even if they don't have a beard or an orange, they might be a lemon or a lime instead.
And maybe they're a programmer instead of a wizard. Either way, they can do magic.
Post by: Arx on January 25, 2015, 03:26:08 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 25, 2015, 04:04:17 am
There's a sixteen gene difference between us and chimpanzees. We're pretty darn close.
Another good way of looking at it is that we have 23 chromosomal pairs, and they have 24. 2 chimp chromosomes fused to make one human one. Fascinating reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29
Post by: Arx on January 25, 2015, 10:35:18 am
In as many words, yes. Religion was useful when people couldn't explain strange phenomena in the world, when people were still afraid of thunder and had no explanation for pork and shellfish killing them, because they didn't know about foodborne illnesses. The problem is, though, if you continue to use a crutch after your legs are healthy, you never really learn to walk.
So am I inherently less curious, less intelligent, or less human because I believe there is a god (which happens to be God)?
Also while I'm here:
The issue I see with UXLZ's theory as they lay it out is that it implies God is within, whereas They (I'm just going to use the gender neutral here) are stated to be without in the Bible. That humanity is in the image of God by our mind I am in agreement with.
Post by: Helgoland on January 25, 2015, 10:36:24 am
Should I make a Euphoria joke now, or would that be inappropriate?
Post by: Arx on January 25, 2015, 10:38:42 am
Post by: Vilanat on January 25, 2015, 10:47:12 am
Yes, I believe that there is some form of "soul" that persists between incarnations.Former Christian, technically still an ordained priest of the Latter Day Saints.
Currently resides somewhere closer to Buddhist beliefs, and is a firm believer in reincarnation.
Reporting, as much as that matters.
As a believer in reincarnation, what is it you believe reincarnate? our soul, meaning a distinct entity that gets reborn into another human being? what gets carried on through this distinct entity (or in other words, what are the qualities and characteristics of this entity)?
To better explain it: I believe that the "purpose" of life is simply to learn. There are many religions that believe this. In any case, it's not possible, in any sense, to learn all there is to know, or even all that you want to know, within a single lifetime.
So I do believe that there is some form of knowledge or information that resides within the soul, that could possibly be transfered to the present physical body. (Whether you'd realize it happening or not wouldn't really matter)
Obviously, though, you wouldn't remember them, because your ability to learn is skewed when you have prior experience, because you already think you understand how it works, and aren't as open to new ideas, as if you had a blank slate for your memory.
As I imagine it will inevitably be asked where souls come from, the Bhagavad-Gita (One of the many book of Hindu scripture, but it shares a lot of beliefs with Budhisim) does a better job of explaining than I could do, in that it explain that just as God is immortal, and has always existed, with no beginning, so too has every person's soul, always having been.
Sorry for the VERY late reply. finally someone brings some of the eastern wisdom into here! i have read the bhagavad gita few times over the years and while its quite a straight forward text, i can't even pretend i truly understand half of it. the birthless, deathless, unchanging characteristics of the soul in the bhagavad gita does not support your belief. a birthless, deathless, unchanging nature of the soul means it can not learn, since new knowledge, or new experiences are "qualities" of the ever changing mind and are its constructs. what changes the mind is the knowledge, the "soul" stays the same. it also says in the bhagavad gita that the Mokasha is when one fully realize his soul is one and the same as the Absolute one that is in everything which kinda negates the notion of individual knowledge that is passed through the soul between bodies. i am aware that the text also point to some sort of transmigration between bodies, but i have not understood what is it that transmigrates.
If you take the "selfless" view of the east, then each thought/concept that floats before "your" consciousness is temporary and less you than a drop of water is a river and in the same sense, its just as you as the drop of water is the river. so the thought, concept or cloud of concepts that passes to others (A-la Dawkins Memes) is something of you that got reborn in another person.
Speaking of Moksha / spiritual experiences / enlightenment and psychadelic drugs, U.G kirsnamurty, who described his own Moksha not as enlightenment but as a calamity (That is if you believe him that he has been enlightened, which is very understandable if you don't since he generally just fools around and nowhere near what you would expect from a spiritual man), because he said it destroyed "Him" completely and that its the last thing "anyone" would want, said that all the spiritual exercises are useless since you can just take a shroom and achieve exactly the same thing without all the hassle and time wasting. he maintains that if we ever invent machines that make us reach those experiences then there is no reason not to use those since the "way" to the experiences is utterly meaningless and that those experiences has nothing to do with the enlightenment.
I mean it kinda fits with the Holy Spirit but there are a few bits in the bible specifically speaking about god and his interactions (see Job? IIRC) which mean he's not mans conciliate as but his own entity
The book of job is part of the "Writings", especially what is considered the "Poetic" books, meaning, there is a very high chance its all a fable rather than attempt at historic recording.
Post by: MaximumZero on January 25, 2015, 11:05:07 am
Inherently? No. You're just not applying the same filters to your religion, or you're willing to give it a pass. You're very much just as human as any other human, and judging by your external thought processes, quite intelligent. There are a lot of things about christian mythology that don't make sense, or are contradictory, or go against modern/forward thinking, and those flaws weaken its base to the point where a lot of us can't believe in it, even if we wanted to, because it's rationally too weak.In as many words, yes. Religion was useful when people couldn't explain strange phenomena in the world, when people were still afraid of thunder and had no explanation for pork and shellfish killing them, because they didn't know about foodborne illnesses. The problem is, though, if you continue to use a crutch after your legs are healthy, you never really learn to walk.
So am I inherently less curious, less intelligent, or less human because I believe there is a god (which happens to be God)?
I'll try not to bore you with arguments that have been made thousands of times. I'm sure you've heard of Russell's Teapot. I'm sure you've heard the Epicurean Question. If you apply the scientific method to any religion, they fall apart.
Not doing that doesn't make you dumb, or less human, or less curious, or anything like that. It just means that you're willing to leave a blind spot in your intellectual integrity, which is less me trying to be insulting, and more just being a little disappointed.
Post by: Arx on January 25, 2015, 11:44:25 am
I was, I think, slightly put off by your crutch analogy. If it is a flaw (as in your paradigm), it's still confined only to one area (which is, frankly, not particularly relevant to most areas of life. I've once been asked about my religion) as opposed to my entire life.
Also, I'm sorry to have disappointed you MaximumDad/MaximumSenpai. :P
Post by: TD1 on January 25, 2015, 12:21:01 pm
Religion, whilst flawed, contradictory and in a lot of cases out-right disproven, does provide some form of help. It stops existential crises, helps people deal with death, gives them a meaning they believe they need. I mean, I understand the desire to reach out and find something else, something better. It's not surprising that religion is so powerful in all its varied forms. It is a crutch. One that "explains" (sorry, I had to put the quotation marks in :P) the universe and holds people together.
It is so full of interpretation that it only provides the smallest of bases on which to work, and is a reflection of the person and how they were taught. Morally speaking, anyway. It does have its uses, and its downsides. But then, as does everything.
Post by: Arx on January 25, 2015, 12:25:08 pm
I read the God Delusion. Dawkins is a huge ass. An intelligent one, with some compelling arguments, but still an ass.
Compelling enough for me to try to get hold of a copy despite the ass?
in a lot of cases out-right disproven
Can I see some of those cases?
Post by: Frumple on January 25, 2015, 01:05:16 pm
I'd probably say no, honestly. Dawkins is one of those ones where even if you overall agree with him, he's still fairly abrasive.I read the God Delusion. Dawkins is a huge ass. An intelligent one, with some compelling arguments, but still an ass.
Compelling enough for me to try to get hold of a copy despite the ass?
Mind you, his non-atheism stuff is notably less irritating. Still somewhat flawed, last I checked, but stuff like the Selfish Gene (which is a pretty decent book on evolution) is definitely pretty decent. Dude's got his problems, but he's both pretty influential and competent on the net of things. Hell, he's the guy that coined "meme".
Just don't bring up religion, basically.
Post by: Criptfeind on January 25, 2015, 01:13:14 pm
Can I see some of those cases?
Basically any time that a religion makes a testable claim that goes against reality? Faith healers come to mind, have you ever heard of Peter Popoff?
Post by: TD1 on January 25, 2015, 01:16:34 pm
Quote
Compelling enough for me to try to get hold of a copy despite the ass?Depends how much you like being insulted and held in contempt.
Can I see some of those cases?Geocentric universe.
Whilst not directly mentioned, it seemed held as Geocentric in the Bible. "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon." The sun being seen as what was moving. " the world stands firm, never to be moved." "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world."
Post by: scrdest on January 25, 2015, 01:21:42 pm
in a lot of cases out-right disproven
Can I see some of those cases?
Insects allegedly having four legs.
Post by: Arx on January 25, 2015, 01:34:21 pm
Can I see some of those cases?Geocentric universe.
Whilst not directly mentioned, it seemed held as Geocentric in the Bible. "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon." The sun being seen as what was moving. " the world stands firm, never to be moved." "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world."
The second two seem thoroughly figurative to me (especially considering the first is from a psalm; the second is also from a prayer, wherein Hannah says a bunch of stuff about God), and the first seems logical enough to me. If I was not an astronomer, and no-one else within my community was, I might well believe the sun went around the Earth; or at least describe it as such.
It seems to me that the first one there is the only one with literal merit, but by the measure that says that verse supports geocentrism, the Bible is fundamentally flawed because it's not a physics textbook.
in a lot of cases out-right disproven
Can I see some of those cases?
Insects allegedly having four legs.
That's from Leviticus, right? The verse I'm thinking of specifically dictates that locusts, for instance, are acceptable because they have another pair of legs carried lifted above the others when not hopping. The verse bars such things as house flies, which only walk on four of their six legs (the front two are raised).
Post by: TD1 on January 25, 2015, 02:06:31 pm
That the universe is geocentric fits in with Genesis. The earth was made, then everything else. The sun and stars were made after the earth- which would you suggest is more important?
I realised afterwards that this is a bit of a tangent from current discussion, so spoilered to separate it :P
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 25, 2015, 02:37:12 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 25, 2015, 02:38:51 pm
Post by: That Wolf on January 25, 2015, 03:38:48 pm
So many things have been disproven by science, and while you can say its a metaphoric meaning to it or that you have to contemplate the meaning, but if it gets the basics of science wrong then why do people cling to it?
Because we are people. Obviously that thunder was gods anger. Oh I stood on this plant and it rained, I sacraficed a human for the gods, all ritualistic and pointless
In a drought you wont see a dog praying for god to make it rain, you wont see it prepare a ritual to make the crops grow.
An animal isnt stupid enough to waste its energy in a fruitless task.
While we will and we get the same result as a dog does doing nothing.
This sums it up.Yes, I believe that there is some form of "soul" that persists between incarnations.Former Christian, technically still an ordained priest of the Latter Day Saints.
Currently resides somewhere closer to Buddhist beliefs, and is a firm believer in reincarnation.
Reporting, as much as that matters.
As a believer in reincarnation, what is it you believe reincarnate? our soul, meaning a distinct entity that gets reborn into another human being? what gets carried on through this distinct entity (or in other words, what are the qualities and characteristics of this entity)?
To better explain it: I believe that the "purpose" of life is simply to learn. There are many religions that believe this. In any case, it's not possible, in any sense, to learn all there is to know, or even all that you want to know, within a single lifetime.
So I do believe that there is some form of knowledge or information that resides within the soul, that could possibly be transfered to the present physical body. (Whether you'd realize it happening or not wouldn't really matter)
Obviously, though, you wouldn't remember them, because your ability to learn is skewed when you have prior experience, because you already think you understand how it works, and aren't as open to new ideas, as if you had a blank slate for your memory.
As I imagine it will inevitably be asked where souls come from, the Bhagavad-Gita (One of the many book of Hindu scripture, but it shares a lot of beliefs with Budhisim) does a better job of explaining than I could do, in that it explain that just as God is immortal, and has always existed, with no beginning, so too has every person's soul, always having been.
Sorry for the VERY late reply. finally someone brings some of the eastern wisdom into here! i have read the bhagavad gita few times over the years and while its quite a straight forward text, i can't even pretend i truly understand half of it. the birthless, deathless, unchanging characteristics of the soul in the bhagavad gita does not support your belief. a birthless, deathless, unchanging nature of the soul means it can not learn, since new knowledge, or new experiences are "qualities" of the ever changing mind and are its constructs. what changes the mind is the knowledge, the "soul" stays the same. it also says in the bhagavad gita that the Mokasha is when one fully realize his soul is one and the same as the Absolute one that is in everything which kinda negates the notion of individual knowledge that is passed through the soul between bodies. i am aware that the text also point to some sort of transmigration between bodies, but i have not understood what is it that transmigrates.
If you take the "selfless" view of the east, then each thought/concept that floats before "your" consciousness is temporary and less you than a drop of water is a river and in the same sense, its just as you as the drop of water is the river. so the thought, concept or cloud of concepts that passes to others (A-la Dawkins Memes) is something of you that got reborn in another person.
Speaking of Moksha / spiritual experiences / enlightenment and psychadelic drugs, U.G kirsnamurty, who described his own Moksha not as enlightenment but as a calamity (That is if you believe him that he has been enlightened, which is very understandable if you don't since he generally just fools around and nowhere near what you would expect from a spiritual man), because he said it destroyed "Him" completely and that its the last thing "anyone" would want, said that all the spiritual exercises are useless since you can just take a shroom and achieve exactly the same thing without all the hassle and time wasting. he maintains that if we ever invent machines that make us reach those experiences then there is no reason not to use those since the "way" to the experiences is utterly meaningless and that those experiences has nothing to do with the enlightenment.I mean it kinda fits with the Holy Spirit but there are a few bits in the bible specifically speaking about god and his interactions (see Job? IIRC) which mean he's not mans conciliate as but his own entity
The book of job is part of the "Writings", especially what is considered the "Poetic" books, meaning, there is a very high chance its all a fable rather than attempt at historic recording.
And Vilanat yes you should have been here earlier, youre much better with words than I
"Any religion that insists that you hold faith in its teachings is not worth learning, true knowledge requires you to ask the hard questions even if they dont have answers"
Post by: TD1 on January 25, 2015, 03:56:17 pm
This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30919259) made me facepalm afterwards.
Post by: Silthuri on January 25, 2015, 09:02:15 pm
This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30919259) made me facepalm afterwards.
That's just messed up.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 25, 2015, 10:23:55 pm
Post by: UXLZ on January 25, 2015, 11:02:06 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on January 25, 2015, 11:03:14 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 25, 2015, 11:12:21 pm
Post by: UXLZ on January 25, 2015, 11:18:34 pm
Even if it's something that God supposedly said, I wouldn't consider it a quote unless they actually quoted it.
Post by: Arx on January 25, 2015, 11:30:39 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 25, 2015, 11:33:42 pm
I'd be very surprised if a Christian didn't recognise the first commandment. (Barring children, or very recent converts, or people with memory problems, or whatever.)
Post by: Bohandas on January 25, 2015, 11:37:42 pm
I read the God Delusion. Dawkins is a huge ass. An intelligent one, with some compelling arguments, but still an ass.
Religion, whilst flawed, contradictory and in a lot of cases out-right disproven, does provide some form of help. It stops existential crises, helps people deal with death, gives them a meaning they believe they need. I mean, I understand the desire to reach out and find something else, something better. It's not surprising that religion is so powerful in all its varied forms. It is a crutch. One that "explains" (sorry, I had to put the quotation marks in :P) the universe and holds people together.
Respite from existential crises can be obtained much more easily and more safely for everyone around via TV, videogames, and pornography. If necessary liquor can be added; it's not gonna be worse for your reasoning and critical thinking ability than religion.
That said, I still agree that Dawkins is a pretentious and ironically sanctimonious ass.
Post by: Baffler on January 25, 2015, 11:38:22 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 25, 2015, 11:40:21 pm
Post by: Descan on January 26, 2015, 12:11:16 am
According to the article, the thieves left a crucifix in place of the statue with a message reading "You shall have no other gods before me".Nah, that was just them exchanging. They saw this wicked-ass statue, thought "Well, out with the old!" and left their crucifix there and took the new guy home!
Post by: UXLZ on January 26, 2015, 12:40:51 am
That's one of the ten commandments, and one of the better-known verses in the Bible. Most Christians would (I hope) immediately recognise it. They don't really need to include chapter and verse.
That's It speaking specifically to the Israelites (or whatever they were, I don't know bible-lore very well.)
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 26, 2015, 12:50:58 am
Yes, but they still apply to Christians. (and everyone else, but that's another matter)That's one of the ten commandments, and one of the better-known verses in the Bible. Most Christians would (I hope) immediately recognise it. They don't really need to include chapter and verse.That's Him speaking specifically to the Israelites (or whatever they were, I don't know bible-lore very well.)
Post by: UXLZ on January 26, 2015, 12:55:29 am
What I'm curious about is to whether the people who took the statue were doing it because they didn't like the statue personally, or actually liked the statue there but believed it was something that 'had to be done.'
The first point is moot because it's just once again a bunch of people using religion to justify themselves.
The second one is actually quite scary, if religion can cause people to do things that are against their own moral inhibitions.
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 04:52:47 am
If religion can cause people to do things that are against their own moral inhibitions.The only law that can govern a man is that which he places upon himself.
Post by: UXLZ on January 26, 2015, 05:06:19 am
Post by: Arx on January 26, 2015, 05:33:41 am
Yes, but they still apply to Christians. (and everyone else, but that's another matter)That's one of the ten commandments, and one of the better-known verses in the Bible. Most Christians would (I hope) immediately recognise it. They don't really need to include chapter and verse.That's Him speaking specifically to the Israelites (or whatever they were, I don't know bible-lore very well.)
That's not necessarily true. You can make a strong Biblical case for it not even applying to Christians.
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 05:38:07 am
Its a good read, if you are good at reading alot of it makes sense.
Post by: Magistrum on January 26, 2015, 07:48:59 am
Yes, but they still apply to Christians. (and everyone else, but that's another matter)That's one of the ten commandments, and one of the better-known verses in the Bible. Most Christians would (I hope) immediately recognise it. They don't really need to include chapter and verse.That's Him speaking specifically to the Israelites (or whatever they were, I don't know bible-lore very well.)
That's not necessarily true. You can make a strong Biblical case for it not even applying to Christians.
I would like to point out that the whole "applies to christians too" is true, but not for the reason you may think.
Christianity is heavily dependent on god's personality, and is almost devoid of rules. Christians are not supposed to follow the old commandments because it's stated that Christ is the end of law, but if god has made such commandment before it means that he despises the worshiping of other god's.
It's also stated Jahwe (Or Jehova or Yahweh or however you call the bible's god) is a Jealous god, since it's part of his personality and christians want to make god happy then worshiping other gods is wrong, because Jahwe don't like it.
Post by: Helgoland on January 26, 2015, 07:54:22 am
Post by: Sheb on January 26, 2015, 07:59:25 am
Post by: MaximumZero on January 26, 2015, 08:02:27 am
Post by: Helgoland on January 26, 2015, 08:03:34 am
Post by: MaximumZero on January 26, 2015, 08:05:16 am
Post by: Arx on January 26, 2015, 08:49:12 am
Arx are you open to reading the Bhagavad gita?
Its a good read, if you are good at reading alot of it makes sense.
That's the Hindu holy text, yes?
I am open to that. Do you recommend it (and on what basis)?
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2015, 08:55:59 am
I'd recommend most of the hindu holy texts, honestly, on the basis that a lot of them are beautiful writings that contain many truths, regardless of whether you agree with the overall metaphysical assumptions. They're worth reading just to read, basically.
Post by: Arx on January 26, 2015, 08:59:43 am
*Thicker than most novels, but...
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 11:17:40 am
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on January 26, 2015, 11:19:59 am
Post by: Vilanat on January 26, 2015, 11:20:26 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 26, 2015, 11:24:10 am
i'm curious now, are there other gods that exist in Christianity that just aren't higher than God himself?
Well, the wording in the old testament can be easily interpreted as stating that there are. Presumably this is a reference to each faith having its own god(s).
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2015, 11:25:18 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 11:25:57 am
Satan?Satan is a creation of God, an angel.
He is actually God's most beautiful creation IIRC, might be what makes him so coercive
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2015, 11:29:57 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 11:32:10 am
I'll have to ask, I could have sworn it said he was God's most beautiful creation .-.
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on January 26, 2015, 11:36:42 am
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2015, 11:40:51 am
Satan isn't even the critter's name, it's a derivative of what amounts to an adjective or descriptor, coming from an old word for Adversary -- to the extent it's actually a thing, no specific name is given. Similarly, there's only two angels named in the bible. Stuff like that's fairly common, insofar as the main texts go. The supplementary fanfiction is where most of that stuff gets drawn from, heh.
Post by: Magistrum on January 26, 2015, 11:41:34 am
Do note the bible doesn't really say that :PI as just about to mention it, according to the bible Satan is a regular angel. Probably one of the higher ranks tough... it doesn't really tells which.
The only detailed creation is the archangel which is mentioned to be the most powerful angel ( name) and Jesus wich was the first thing made.
What is that thing about Jesus being the "end of the Law"? I'm fairly certain it says the exact opposite, and that the basis for disregarding much of the ancient testaments comes from a passage in the Acts, where a group of Church elders state that gentiles converted to Christianity only have to respect a few laws.The old law as reposed after christ, but even then, it's obsolete, since most of it was a set of rules for the nation of Israel. You can take the whole giving the tenth part of your gains as a example. Any church that enforces this is apostate.
Post by: Cthulhu on January 26, 2015, 11:56:50 am
Post by: Descan on January 26, 2015, 12:02:24 pm
Post by: Arx on January 26, 2015, 12:04:42 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 12:05:24 pm
Aye, ninja'd. Honestly, most "knowledge" of angels, demons, etc., etc. comes from stuff that's not of the primary texts, that-which-is-called-satan (which could actually be several different things rolled into one, or, as USEC notes, something more symbolic than actual) included. The biblical texts themselves are really sparse on anything explicit regarding that sort of thing.
Satan isn't even the critter's name, it's a derivative of what amounts to an adjective or descriptor, coming from an old word for Adversary -- to the extent it's actually a thing, no specific name is given. Similarly, there's only two angels named in the bible. Stuff like that's fairly common, insofar as the main texts go. The supplementary fanfiction is where most of that stuff gets drawn from, heh.
His real name is Lucifer
though it might not be scripture so im going to be asking around
While there are some polytheistic hints in the old testament (We're really getting into the definition of a "god" here which is a central problem to the whole thing. Is the serpent of Eden a god? A demigod? Something else? Why, and by what metric are we determining this?) the Old Testament isn't the main text of Christianity and Christianity is pretty firmly monotheistic.Do you mean satan?
the one that tempted Adam and Eve into eating the forbidden fruit?
Christianity could be considered polytheistic depending on how you view the trinity, whether you consider the Son, the Father, and the Spirit to be the same entity or different entities, whether they have the same will/mind or have different wills, and (if they're different entities/different minds) if the Son and Spirit are subservient to the Father or if they are all on equal footing.
In my belief they are just three faces of the same deity
NINJA'S!!!
Post by: Descan on January 26, 2015, 12:06:35 pm
Post by: Arx on January 26, 2015, 12:08:01 pm
... Nnnoo, that's a pretty standard theological question, leading to a fair number of disagreements and splits between churches.
Source? Never heard of it, and it's a pretty big thing.
Post by: Descan on January 26, 2015, 12:10:04 pm
:3
Post by: Baffler on January 26, 2015, 12:13:08 pm
This should give you a good starting location. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology)
:3
Wait what? Is Arianism still a thing? In any case, this gives me an excuse to bring out one of my favorite pictures on the internet.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on January 26, 2015, 12:16:18 pm
His real name is Lucifer
though it might not be scripture so im going to be asking around
Nope, Lucifer is only mentioned once in the bible and is definitely a separate entity from Satan. Or at least until the two were associated in later centuries.
Do you mean satan?
the one that tempted Adam and Eve into eating the forbidden fruit?
Again, Satan is not specifically mentioned to be the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve in the bible. That association came later.
... Nnnoo, that's a pretty standard theological question, leading to a fair number of disagreements and splits between churches.
Source? Never heard of it, and it's a pretty big thing.
The closest thing I can think of is all of the early Christian debates on how divine Christ was, which is to say whether he was purely God on earth, or just some lowly human. But those debates never associated Christ as a separate deity from God, so I can't see how you'd get polytheism from that.
Post by: Arx on January 26, 2015, 12:19:33 pm
This should give you a good starting location. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology)
:3
The only thing mentioned in there is that the Nicene Creed and the Orthodox Church support the divinity of Christ. Not much about serious, current, schisms, unless I'm misreading something.
Post by: ggamer on January 26, 2015, 12:33:59 pm
This should give you a good starting location. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology)
:3
The only thing mentioned in there is that the Nicene Creed and the Orthodox Church support the divinity of Christ. Not much about serious, current, schisms, unless I'm misreading something.
ifimaybuttin
The thing nowadays is that there aren't serious schisms within the church anymore, at least not like they had in the old days. This is mainly because in the old days, a change in the way people worshipped meant a change in the fundamental political makeup of Eurasia, as religion and politics were so intertwined. So, chances are most people are going to refer to things like the Protestant Reformation, the Orthodox Split, and several politically minor heresies in the church when you ask for info about schisms.
Let's be thankful for that, or else we'd have a huge civil war in america over every majour theological split, of which there tend to be a few nowadays.
Post by: Bohandas on January 26, 2015, 12:51:14 pm
Yes, but they still apply to Christians. (and everyone else, but that's another matter)That's one of the ten commandments, and one of the better-known verses in the Bible. Most Christians would (I hope) immediately recognise it. They don't really need to include chapter and verse.That's Him speaking specifically to the Israelites (or whatever they were, I don't know bible-lore very well.)
That's not necessarily true. You can make a strong Biblical case for it not even applying to Christians.
I would like to point out that the whole "applies to christians too" is true, but not for the reason you may think.
Christianity is heavily dependent on god's personality, and is almost devoid of rules. Christians are not supposed to follow the old commandments because it's stated that Christ is the end of law, but if god has made such commandment before it means that he despises the worshiping of other god's.
It's also stated Jahwe (Or Jehova or Yahweh or however you call the bible's god) is a Jealous god, since it's part of his personality and christians want to make god happy then worshiping other gods is wrong, because Jahwe don't like it.
It also says that he's not the end of the law.
Post by: Bohandas on January 26, 2015, 12:59:39 pm
Nah, satan's entirely subservient to god insofar as anything actually biblical is concerned. Just like everything else.
Abrahamic religions have an unusual definition of what qualifies as a deity. Satan and most angels would qualify under more conventional systems.
Post by: Arx on January 26, 2015, 01:04:09 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 26, 2015, 01:06:34 pm
Post by: Arx on January 26, 2015, 01:14:51 pm
I don't think it says where. For what is for attempting to overthrow God.
Post by: Bohandas on January 26, 2015, 01:16:08 pm
Quite possibly. The thing is, unlike in Greek, Norse, Babylonian, or a number of other theologies, rebellion against God ended swiftly, which is the primary difference. The Bible says that Lucifer is bound until Judgment Day, when presumably they will be burned with the chaff or be deemed to have repented and will be gathered up.
Yeah, but his stay in hell is generally depicted in a manner comparable to Al Capone's stay in Eastern State Penitentary, actually calling the shots and whatnot.
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2015, 01:16:36 pm
The Bible says that Lucifer is bound until Judgment Day, when presumably they will be burned with the chaff or be deemed to have repented and will be gathered up.It... kinda' doesn't, because lucifer isn't... isn't the thing. From the strictly biblical perspective. What people have taken to calling lucifer may be, depending on whether the thing being talked about in that particular passage is actually the same thing talked about in others (which is significantly debatable). But lucifer (halel) is mentioned something like precisely once, and not in relation to that.
Poor ol' scratch is shoehorned into doing so very much nowadays ;_; Mistaken identities, mis-attributed acts, slander of character... if the thing existed, it could totally sue the blazes out of the churches for libel. Critter would have enough grounds for civil suits to rebuild babel. And all that mostly for being one of YWHW's test proctors.
I don't think it says where. For what is for attempting to overthrow God.... you actually have a quote for that latter bit?
Post by: Arx on January 26, 2015, 01:19:08 pm
Edit: yup. The quickest one I can find (although not the one I had in mind) is that Satan will be bound for a thousand years in the end times, where a thousand symbolises completion in Jewish numerology, which can be interpreted as eternally bound. In the Abyss.
Post by: TD1 on January 26, 2015, 01:20:28 pm
XD
Post by: Sheb on January 26, 2015, 01:28:56 pm
Post by: chaoticag on January 26, 2015, 01:34:29 pm
Doesn't the bible passages afterwards just point it as a title for King Nebuchadnezzar in Issia 14? Is there anyone else Lucifer might be?The Bible says that Lucifer is bound until Judgment Day, when presumably they will be burned with the chaff or be deemed to have repented and will be gathered up.It... kinda' doesn't, because lucifer isn't... isn't the thing. From the strictly biblical perspective. What people have taken to calling lucifer may be, depending on whether the thing being talked about in that particular passage is actually the same thing talked about in others (which is significantly debatable). But lucifer (halel) is mentioned something like precisely once, and not in relation to that.
Poor ol' scratch is shoehorned into doing so very much nowadays ;_; Mistaken identities, mis-attributed acts, slander of character... if the thing existed, it could totally sue the blazes out of the churches for libel. Critter would have enough grounds for civil suits to rebuild babel. And all that mostly for being one of YWHW's test proctors.
Post by: Helgoland on January 26, 2015, 01:34:45 pm
If we're going to discuss trinity, I have to post this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw)Cooome ooon, Paatrick!
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2015, 01:39:50 pm
Doesn't the bible passages afterwards just point it as a title for King Nebuchadnezzar in Issia 14? Is there anyone else Lucifer might be?Vaguely remember something along those lines, for that first bit. As for the second, well, people've mangled it into all sort of things over the years, apparently. As demonstrated by th'fact it's commonly assumed to be th'adversary's name, ha.
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 02:29:46 pm
I highly recommend it, as far as the you shall worship no gods before me etc it has a phrase that goes something like.Arx are you open to reading the Bhagavad gita?
Its a good read, if you are good at reading alot of it makes sense.
That's the Hindu holy text, yes?
I am open to that. Do you recommend it (and on what basis)?
Why water the leaves when you can water the roots.
Its a beautiful text and I would suggest it to all open to reading about religons.
And for the sake of arguement. Why has this turned into a christianty thread
Is it a majority thing? Not offended, I just grew up with the stuff and its very... boring.
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 26, 2015, 02:38:23 pm
I highly recommend it, as far as the you shall worship no gods before me etc it has a phrase that goes something like.Arx are you open to reading the Bhagavad gita?
Its a good read, if you are good at reading alot of it makes sense.
That's the Hindu holy text, yes?
I am open to that. Do you recommend it (and on what basis)?
Why water the leaves when you can water the roots.
Its a beautiful text and I would suggest it to all open to reading about religons.
And for the sake of arguement. Why has this turned into a christianty thread
Is it a majority thing? Not offended, I just grew up with the stuff and its very... boring.
Most posters here are westerners, so most of us will run into one of the many forms of Christianity far more than any other faith.
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2015, 02:39:24 pm
Post by: Arx on January 26, 2015, 02:44:08 pm
I don't blame them. These threads can get quite hostile.
Post by: TD1 on January 26, 2015, 02:48:21 pm
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 03:05:19 pm
So seeing you know the 'rights and wrongs' of the world, why do you read pointless texts when you could be in contemplative meditation like all the great sages of this world who wrote many of the texts?.
why water the leaves when you can water the roots?
Post by: Rolan7 on January 26, 2015, 03:06:08 pm
The Trinity's the same way. You have the vengeful god of war, death and authority (Odin), the valiant savior with ties to farming (Thor), and the nebulous spirit which watches over daily life. Then there's the eeevil antagonist who betrayed the others and tries to lead people astray, don't fall for his lies (Loki).
In this way the missionaries didn't have to convince people that their gods were false, just misunderstood. They were able to ease people in to monotheism by stages. The celebration of lengthening days
Never mind that none of those inventions are based on scripture. The local people couldn't read Latin, only the clergy had that skill. Which is why a major part of the Reformation was the Church trying to stop the Bible from being translated... It *needed* to be kept secret, or people would question all the embellishments which made it palatable. Or so the Church feared.
Instead, hundreds of years later, Christians are desperately guarding co-opted pagan celebrations like Christmas as vital tenets of their faith. And blaming everything on Lucifer, or Satan the
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 03:19:27 pm
Post by: scrdest on January 26, 2015, 03:33:22 pm
Lucifer's kinda like Christmas and Easter. A really cool story which resonates with pagans - because it was almost entirely taken from pagans - and incorporated into Christianity to convert pagans.
The Trinity's the same way. You have the vengeful god of war, death and authority (Odin), the valiant savior with ties to farming (Thor), and the nebulous spirit which watches over daily life. Then there's the eeevil antagonist who betrayed the others and tries to lead people astray, don't fall for his lies (Loki).
In this way the missionaries didn't have to convince people that their gods were false, just misunderstood. They were able to ease people in to monotheism by stages. The celebration of lengthening daysbecomeswas always a celebration of the birth of Jesus (the farmer god). The Spring equinox celebrates the reincarnation ofdormant flowersJesus. They were actually worshiping Jesus all along, they just didn't know it yet.
Never mind that none of those inventions are based on scripture. The local people couldn't read Latin, only the clergy had that skill. Which is why a major part of the Reformation was the Church trying to stop the Bible from being translated... It *needed* to be kept secret, or people would question all the embellishments which made it palatable. Or so the Church feared.
Instead, hundreds of years later, Christians are desperately guarding co-opted pagan celebrations like Christmas as vital tenets of their faith. And blaming everything on Lucifer, or Satan thesatyrgoat-hooved carouser and troublemaker. They wildly overestimated how important the Bible was to actual Christians, compared to the traditions they invented.
I would be cautious with making parallels between Norse mythology and Christianity. The main, major problem with Norse mythology the scholars encountered is that the most common sources we have are works of Christian-era writers documenting them. Even assuming impartiality of the writer, they were written at a time where the original stories have been heavily influenced by Christianity itself; so it very well might be not that Christians co-opted Norse gods' attributes but instead Norse myths have been co-opting elements from Christianity.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 26, 2015, 03:36:30 pm
...
You forgot holyspirit of reicarnation which is baldurWell, the series did drag on a fair bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur%27s_Gate_%28series%29)...
...
Much like any discussion thread, though. And most of the time it's absolutely fine.I WILL CRUSH THE HOSTILITY
Post by: TD1 on January 26, 2015, 03:40:34 pm
Possibly by crushing you!
Also, the whole warrior god/farming god was also very much seen in Ares/Mars. The Romans associated him with agriculture as well as war.
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 03:42:47 pm
I always found it funny that Easter still has the rabbit eggs (or whatever they're supposed to be) while the lengthening of days has been replaced by a fat guy in a red suit and the "spirit of giving". Because these things are totally relevant, right guys?
...You forgot holyspirit of reicarnation which is baldurWell, the series did drag on a fair bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur%27s_Gate_%28series%29)...
...Much like any discussion thread, though. And most of the time it's absolutely fine.I WILL CRUSH THE HOSTILITY
Ughh orange wizard, the baldurs gate reference was terrible, bought back memories though.
And yeah so far theres being no hostility but the first sign of it would mean ignorance. The opposite of this thread.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 26, 2015, 03:43:14 pm
No, I will crush the hostility!STOP BEING SO HOSTILE THIS SECOND
Possibly by crushing you!
Also, the whole warrior god/farming god was also very much seen in Ares/Mars. The Romans associated him with agriculture as well as war.I wonder if that's related to the levy system, as opposed to standing armies? But I got the impression Greeks and Romans used full-time soldiers instead so idunno.
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 03:44:13 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 26, 2015, 03:58:04 pm
I imagine they would have drafted spares during war-time.Also, the whole warrior god/farming god was also very much seen in Ares/Mars. The Romans associated him with agriculture as well as war.I wonder if that's related to the levy system, as opposed to standing armies? But I got the impression Greeks and Romans used full-time soldiers instead so idunno.
Post by: Helgoland on January 26, 2015, 03:59:11 pm
That was under the Empire - in the times of the Roman Republic, they had an army of free citizen, the abolishion of which is sometimes considered to have contributed to the eventual downfall of Rome.Also, the whole warrior god/farming god was also very much seen in Ares/Mars. The Romans associated him with agriculture as well as war.I wonder if that's related to the levy system, as opposed to standing armies? But I got the impression Greeks and Romans used full-time soldiers instead so idunno.
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 05:03:37 pm
Quote from: Helgoland
Good stuff though, or so I hear. Much easier than the more hardcore synthetic hallucinogens.
It's a damn shame I can't take the stuff, really. I've heard very few bad things about them all in all
Forgot to ask a few days ago so Il do it now.
Why cant you take the stuff.
Sorry in advance if this is to personal or seems pushy.
Post by: UXLZ on January 26, 2015, 05:06:10 pm
Nah, satan's entirely subservient to god insofar as anything actually biblical is concerned. Just like everything else.
Abrahamic religions have an unusual definition of what qualifies as a deity. Satan and most angels would qualify under more conventional systems.
One God to rule them all
One God to find them
One god to bring them all and in the darkness faith bind them
Post by: TD1 on January 26, 2015, 05:33:02 pm
Quote from: HelgolandGood stuff though, or so I hear. Much easier than the more hardcore synthetic hallucinogens.
It's a damn shame I can't take the stuff, really. I've heard very few bad things about them all in all
Forgot to ask a few days ago so Il do it now.
Why cant you take the stuff.
Sorry in advance if this is to personal or seems pushy.pushy for a reason
Probably a medical reason.
Personally, I wouldn't take them if you paid me.
Well, depending on the sum.... :P
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 05:54:26 pm
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 05:58:36 pm
Probably a medical reason.Personally I wouldnt force you to do anything, like I wouldnt want you to force your religion on anyone, if its not for you its not for you.
Personally, I wouldn't take them if you paid me.
Well, depending on the sum.... :P
And no sum should make you do anything. And even I had, after you would most probably say that I dont need to pay you.
Dont judge until you have been changed by it just like I wont judge you religions.
We all know the true deity.
ARMOK
why magma the elves when you can magma the trees
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 06:05:51 pm
'Judge others with the same metric you would want to be judged'
Or something along those lines
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2015, 06:17:28 pm
Gods know I wouldn't and don't judge most people by the metrics I judge myself.
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 06:35:23 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 26, 2015, 06:50:53 pm
I like when cristians get fussyThat's... neither here nor there.
...
Anyway, re: Judging. The actual verse is "Judge not, lest ye be judged", at least in the KJV. Which is slightly different from this:
'Judge others with the same metric you would want to be judged'in the sense that Christ tells us not to judge others, because that's his job and not ours.
There's no reason this should preclude stuff like competitions or jury trials, though. The word "judgement" generally refers to divine punishment in the Bible.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 06:59:28 pm
I think the verse from the bible, from (Jesus?) was
'Do not judge others for I will judge you with the same severity with which you judge others' or something along those lines...
I know I have a problem of quoting the bible with no verse numbers or whatever they are called, sorry
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 26, 2015, 07:00:53 pm
I know I have a problem of quoting the bible with no verse numbers or whatever they are called, sorryIt's alright, I can never remember the verses either :P.
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2015, 07:01:54 pm
*Murphy's golden rule is, of course, "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 07:39:10 pm
Think C was looking for the "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" (Non-Murphy* Golden Rule.)bit, however it ends up being translated, but m'not entirely sure on that. Though apparently not, so *shrugs*
*Murphy's golden rule is, of course, "He who has the gold makes the rules."
No I was not looking for that
Post by: Arcvasti on January 26, 2015, 07:47:04 pm
Post by: mastahcheese on January 26, 2015, 08:02:59 pm
[1] It's nice to be able to talk about it, since it's hard with being pretty much the only one here that has views that way. (At least as far as I can tell)[8] "Any religion that insists that you hold faith in its teachings is not worth learning, true knowledge requires you to ask the hard questions even if they dont have answers"-snipping a ton of stuff here, but still want to leave the links intact-
[1]Sorry for the VERY late reply. finally someone brings some of the eastern wisdom into here! [2] i have read the bhagavad gita few times over the years and while its quite a straight forward text, i can't even pretend i truly understand half of it. the birthless, deathless, unchanging characteristics of the soul in the bhagavad gita does not support your belief. [3] a birthless, deathless, unchanging nature of the soul means it can not learn, since new knowledge, or new experiences are "qualities" of the ever changing mind and are its constructs. what changes the mind is the knowledge, the "soul" stays the same. [4] it also says in the bhagavad gita that the Mokasha is when one fully realize his soul is one and the same as the Absolute one that is in everything which kinda negates the notion of individual knowledge that is passed through the soul between bodies. [5] i am aware that the text also point to some sort of transmigration between bodies, but i have not understood what is it that transmigrates.
[6] If you take the "selfless" view of the east, then each thought/concept that floats before "your" consciousness is temporary and less you than a drop of water is a river and in the same sense, its just as you as the drop of water is the river. so the thought, concept or cloud of concepts that passes to others (A-la Dawkins Memes) is something of you that got reborn in another person.
[7] Speaking of Moksha / spiritual experiences / enlightenment and psychadelic drugs, U.G kirsnamurty, who described his own Moksha not as enlightenment but as a calamity (That is if you believe him that he has been enlightened, which is very understandable if you don't since he generally just fools around and nowhere near what you would expect from a spiritual man), because he said it destroyed "Him" completely and that its the last thing "anyone" would want, said that all the spiritual exercises are useless since you can just take a shroom and achieve exactly the same thing without all the hassle and time wasting. he maintains that if we ever invent machines that make us reach those experiences then there is no reason not to use those since the "way" to the experiences is utterly meaningless and that those experiences has nothing to do with the enlightenment.
[2] Personally, my favorite part of the Bhagavad-Gita is where Arjuna just flat out tells Krishna to speak clearly, and stop talking in circles. :P
[3] That is correct. This is why I do not base my beliefs on the Bhagavad-Gita. I simply site parts from it where my beliefs are similar.
[4] Another part where I disagree with the book. I've yet to conclude any sort of "end" to reincarnation. There is simply no end to what can be learned. (I've entertained the idea that it's actually impossible to learn everything, because one of the things you'd have to learn to be knowing of everything, would be to know what it's like to be God. And even if the "final life" is to be God, then you're stuck being immortal, and hence, there is no end. I don't believe this, though, I just think it'd be a cool idea for a book or something.)
[5] I have no answer for this. :P If you figure this out, let me know.
[6] Yeah... I don't really believe in the idea they have that all souls are basically the same. I think souls are far more individual, and unique, and you wouldn't be able to just splash them together in some soul river.
[7] I've never heard of this, but I like this guy's thinking. More logical than a lot of the things I've read.
[8] This so much. I didn't start believing in reincarnation after reading a book, or hearing someone's story, or anything like that. I came to that conclusion on my own, and I still disagree with many ideas behind reincarnation that other people believe (such as many large parts of the Bhagavad-Gita, for an example.)
Also, as an aside, I have come to the conclusion that Lord Krishna is actually Cthulhu.
In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna reveals to Arjuna his "True Form", which is an infinitely large being, comprised of an infinite number of twisting arms, each covered with, not just regular mouths, but flaming mouths, that feast on the souls of entire dimensions, along with a numberless amount of eyes, each one the size of a star.
The very sight of this monstrosity causes Arjuna to temporarily lose his fucking mind, and he begs Krishna to turn back into his human form, after which Krishna explains that had anyone else in the world seen that, they would have been annihilated.
Hence, Lord Krishna is actually Cthulhu.
Post by: Descan on January 26, 2015, 08:03:09 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 08:08:09 pm
Post by: Descan on January 26, 2015, 08:10:47 pm
Post by: Uristides on January 26, 2015, 08:12:03 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 08:13:18 pm
Didn't make the connection to the
I don't post verses thing
I'm out of sorts today
Sorry
Post by: mastahcheese on January 26, 2015, 08:15:05 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 08:16:58 pm
Post by: Magistrum on January 26, 2015, 08:35:51 pm
It also says that he's not the end of the law.Yes, kind of.
I'm referring to romans 10:4, mind you to state where it's said that he isn't?
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 26, 2015, 08:56:21 pm
Post by: Helgoland on January 26, 2015, 09:03:35 pm
Yeah - I'm on lithium, and lithium combined with hallucinogens (well, 5-HT2A agonists, but whatever) tends to cause seizures. Not pretty.Quote from: HelgolandGood stuff though, or so I hear. Much easier than the more hardcore synthetic hallucinogens.
It's a damn shame I can't take the stuff, really. I've heard very few bad things about them all in all
Forgot to ask a few days ago so Il do it now.
Why cant you take the stuff.
Sorry in advance if this is to personal or seems pushy.pushy for a reason
Probably a medical reason.
Post by: Quartz_Mace on January 26, 2015, 10:32:12 pm
Post by: Bohandas on January 26, 2015, 11:14:09 pm
It also says that he's not the end of the law.Yes, kind of.
I'm referring to romans 10:4, mind you to state where it's said that he isn't?
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -Matthew 5:17
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 11:27:22 pm
And stop trying to correct eachother with the quotes.
Like I said at the beggining this thread is an interesting topic but we you are all quoting eachother quoting eachother quoting a dead man/book.
I know the title says religion and spirituality but it does not make you seem at all enlightend but just a follower and unable to find your own peace inside you.
Helgoland you sound the most logical one here and you are the craziest here, take as much offence as you will, I suffer terrible deppresion and social anxiety myself, i feel the drugs they give me for it dull me to much and I feel druged. So its easier for me to not take the medication.
I gave my advice and many will not take it. I just hope that one person reads what I said earlier and tries. And then realises that I may have been right and thank a stranger for some genuine advice that helped them.
Post by: Arx on January 26, 2015, 11:31:29 pm
If you have other stuff you want to talk abou, fire away, but by and large Christianity is both the most accessible and the most attacked here, the latter because of the former.
Post by: UXLZ on January 26, 2015, 11:44:56 pm
Spoiler: OOC (click to show/hide)
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 26, 2015, 11:45:48 pm
Anywho I was wondering how do Muslims view Jesus? I know they call him a prophet but is he still gods son in their belief or just another prophet?
............Spoiler: OOC (click to show/hide)
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2015, 11:47:11 pm
E: Though you could probably stand to put that just in scare quotes. It's not like being a prophet is some kind of small thing, exactly.
Post by: UXLZ on January 26, 2015, 11:49:24 pm
Obviously you don't know who Khorne is.
Or W40K (very well), for that matter.
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2015, 11:50:52 pm
Post by: That Wolf on January 26, 2015, 11:58:14 pm
Spoiler: OOC (click to show/hide)
It was inevitable.
It's less a matter of that and more a matter of it just being in poor taste, UX.My condolences.
But in bad taste it was not.
Its the same as saying a deity is benevolent and all loving.
BTW
If you swap the I and the E in deity it spells diety, and that is something to lose weight about
Post by: UXLZ on January 27, 2015, 12:03:48 am
It's less a matter of that and more a matter of it just being in poor taste, UX.
Oh my bad then, would it have been better had I said 'Atheists' instead?
What about 'Agnostics'?
'Hindus'?
'Buddhists'?
'Monks'?
'Asians'?
'Africans'?
'Europeans'?
'Americans'?
'Bay12ers'?
'Agnostics'?
'Everyone'?
On a more serious note, does anyone here believe that the universe is geocentric?
Post by: Baffler on January 27, 2015, 12:08:08 am
So in history class we are starting to learn about Islamic nations, this is going to be fun :).
Oh hey, so did mine! Well, we started learning about Mohammed (damn there are a lot of ways to Romanize that) in the context of Middle Eastern history, but some guy decided to derail the proceedings partway through with really passive aggressive digs at the precise origins of the Koran (another word with an annoying variety of Romanizations) and the legal status of Christians and Jews in the Abassid Caliphate. I don't know where he got his beef, but I wonder what he got out of it that was worth making everyone lose out on about 20 minutes of class.
On a more serious note, does anyone here believe that the universe is geocentric?
Probably not, and I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who seriously does.
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 27, 2015, 12:09:18 am
Post by: UXLZ on January 27, 2015, 12:14:18 am
It's less a matter of that and more a matter of it just being in poor taste, UX.
Oh my bad then, would it have been better had I said 'Atheists' instead?
No, it's a shitty post no matter what group you substitute. Find another thread to goof off in.
And what if I was truly a devout follower of Khorne quoting my scriptures?
Which, rather conveniently, leads into my next question.
What do you guys think about stuff like people putting down 'Jedi' as their religion on censuses? Do you think they're just 'fake' religions, or can they be considered genuine?
Post by: That Wolf on January 27, 2015, 12:30:21 am
You cant hate on khorne just because he would kill your god.
Imagine the skull throne with another deity resting beside the mortal skulls and other skulls of the old dead gods.
He didnt mean it in trolling.
He was stating scripture from a book of a god, like many of you are doing.
Except this one makes sense. EAT OR BE EATEN.
Nothing like "and john walked over a mountain and tears filled his eyes because the sun was bright"
Post by: Rolan7 on January 27, 2015, 01:01:04 am
It wasn't a very good jest but hey, I quote WH40K too much too... Well, so my friends say. The heretics!
Pretending that Khorne worship is a valid belief and should be quoted alongside actual religious texts... not a good defense. Some philosophies found in fiction can be interesting to practice. A Khorne follower would just be insane.
Post by: Bohandas on January 27, 2015, 01:33:59 am
It's fine because it was clearly a jest, it was even labelled as "OOC".
It wasn't a very good jest but hey, I quote WH40K too much too... Well, so my friends say. The heretics!
Pretending that Khorne worship is a valid belief and should be quoted alongside actual religious texts... not a good defense. Some philosophies found in fiction can be interesting to practice. A Khorne follower would just be insane.
It's supported by SubGenius dogma. Lurid sci-fi is considered holy.
Post by: UXLZ on January 27, 2015, 01:57:58 am
It's fine because it was clearly a jest, it was even labelled as "OOC".
It wasn't a very good jest but hey, I quote WH40K too much too... Well, so my friends say. The heretics!
Pretending that Khorne worship is a valid belief and should be quoted alongside actual religious texts... not a good defense. Some philosophies found in fiction can be interesting to practice. A Khorne follower would just be insane.
Except I'm not pretending that it's a valid belief, I'm asking why it isn't (beside the obvious evilness), and I'm asking if other things like 'Jedi' are.
Post by: smjjames on January 27, 2015, 01:59:24 am
On a more serious note, does anyone here believe that the universe is geocentric?
Probably not, and I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who seriously does.
As far as we know, the center of the universe could very well be everywhere, omnispatial. It just seems geocentric because we happen to be observing from the Earth and the universe is so vast that we're a tiny point in the whole thing. To get a significantly different perspective of the universe, you'd have to either go to the other side of the galaxy or maybe go to another galaxy, not sure if Andromeda is far enough away.
Also, whats with the WH40k derail?
Post by: That Wolf on January 27, 2015, 02:11:01 am
It because of the over polution of bible quotes so we started quoting other LEGITIMATE religions like following khorne or nurgle. Or the worst chaos god of all, The Emperor. Yes right under the dirty imperiums snot nose.On a more serious note, does anyone here believe that the universe is geocentric?
Probably not, and I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who seriously does.
As far as we know, the center of the universe could very well be everywhere, omnispatial. It just seems geocentric because we happen to be observing from the Earth and the universe is so vast that we're a tiny point in the whole thing. To get a significantly different perspective of the universe, you'd have to either go to the other side of the galaxy or maybe go to another galaxy, not sure if Andromeda is far enough away.
Also, whats with the WH40k derail?
Basicly we need more religious representation here, instead of bible scipture.
More blood for the blood thread
Post by: smjjames on January 27, 2015, 02:15:30 am
Post by: That Wolf on January 27, 2015, 02:37:54 am
What about Armok and The Flying Spaghetti Monster?More marinara for the pasta god.
meat balls for the meating place.
Sorry im gettin carried away.
But it seems to be alot of the same old shit with pointless quotes.
Id like to hear more about any other religions and spiritual ideas.
And less on the quotes, or I will provide you with books full of logical quotes.
Please for the sake of this thread, try to open your minds and share ideas and let us all grow as people.
Post by: Bohandas on January 27, 2015, 03:24:42 am
It because of the over polution of bible quotes so we started quoting other LEGITIMATE religions like following khorne or nurgle. Or the worst chaos god of all, The Emperor. Yes right under the dirty imperiums snot nose.On a more serious note, does anyone here believe that the universe is geocentric?
Probably not, and I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who seriously does.
As far as we know, the center of the universe could very well be everywhere, omnispatial. It just seems geocentric because we happen to be observing from the Earth and the universe is so vast that we're a tiny point in the whole thing. To get a significantly different perspective of the universe, you'd have to either go to the other side of the galaxy or maybe go to another galaxy, not sure if Andromeda is far enough away.
Also, whats with the WH40k derail?
Basicly we need more religious representation here, instead of bible scipture.
More blood for the blood thread
Besides, Nurgle is totally legitimate
http://www.piney.com/BabMarNergal.html
http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/myths/texts/classic/ereshner1.htm
Post by: Bohandas on January 27, 2015, 03:31:15 am
It's fine because it was clearly a jest, it was even labelled as "OOC".
It wasn't a very good jest but hey, I quote WH40K too much too... Well, so my friends say. The heretics!
Pretending that Khorne worship is a valid belief and should be quoted alongside actual religious texts... not a good defense. Some philosophies found in fiction can be interesting to practice. A Khorne follower would just be insane.
Except I'm not pretending that it's a valid belief, I'm asking why it isn't (beside the obvious evilness), and I'm asking if other things like 'Jedi' are.
Again, it sort of is under the mythos of the Church of the SubGenius, which states that enlightenment is to be found in lurid science fiction.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 27, 2015, 03:52:59 am
...
Quoting religious texts is a guaranteed part of discussing those religions, which is literally the point of this thread. This is like going to an ice cream shop and complaining about them selling ice creams to other people when you're there for an empty cone.What about Armok and The Flying Spaghetti Monster?More marinara for the pasta god.
meat balls for the meating place.
Sorry im gettin carried away.
But it seems to be alot of the same old shit with pointless quotes.
Id like to hear more about any other religions and spiritual ideas.
And less on the quotes, or I will provide you with books full of logical quotes.
Please for the sake of this thread, try to open your minds and share ideas and let us all grow as people.
Post by: chaoticag on January 27, 2015, 04:24:40 am
So in history class we are starting to learn about Islamic nations, this is going to be fun :).Just another prophet, along with Moses, Joseph, Noah, etc. Every prophet worked some miracles to show that they carried God's message. Jesus is something of a special case though since he ascended to high heavens before he was crucified, but since everyone will die someday, he's expected to make a return, where he'll rule the world. So there is that, and yes, this is part of what I was raised to believe as a Muslim, not a Christian
Anywho I was wondering how do Muslims view Jesus? I know they call him a prophet but is he still gods son in their belief or just another prophet?
Post by: Helgoland on January 27, 2015, 05:01:01 am
Wolf, go look at the old Christianity Discussion Thread - this thread is its successor, and I can assure you that the endless stream of bible quotes is one of the most interesting things about this sort of thread. The key to productive discussion is discussing specific aspects of specific religions within the context of that religion, not discussing religion in a sweeping and general manner.But it seems to be alot of the same old shit with pointless quotes.Quoting religious texts is a guaranteed part of discussing those religions, which is literally the point of this thread. This is like going to an ice cream shop and complaining about them selling ice creams to other people when you're there for an empty cone.
Id like to hear more about any other religions and spiritual ideas.
And less on the quotes, or I will provide you with books full of logical quotes.
Please for the sake of this thread, try to open your minds and share ideas and let us all grow as people.
Post by: That Wolf on January 27, 2015, 06:51:06 am
What I have said I have lived through.
Why follow a fairy tale when you can make a legend yourself.
Dont contemplate a book contemplate your mind, and if it speaks of nothing you are a lucky man indeed.
We all yearn for freedom yet we can never attain it. Your mere exsistance relys on you to be trapped. True freedom is no bounds.
Post by: Magistrum on January 27, 2015, 07:58:47 am
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -Matthew 5:17Oh, indeed, it's just what I thought you were talking about.
He doesn't has the main objective of invalidating the old law, but fulfilling it.
The part he is accomplishing are the prophecies about the messiah, about he being a successor the throne of Judah and how he lives and how he dies and how whatever else that was in the old testament, that is what they mean when they talk about the old law. Does that explains my point better?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 27, 2015, 08:09:17 am
So in history class we are starting to learn about Islamic nations, this is going to be fun :).Just another prophet, along with Moses, Joseph, Noah, etc. Every prophet worked some miracles to show that they carried God's message. Jesus is something of a special case though since he ascended to high heavens before he was crucified, but since everyone will die someday, he's expected to make a return, where he'll rule the world. So there is that, and yes, this is part of what I was raised to believe as a Muslim, not a Christian
Anywho I was wondering how do Muslims view Jesus? I know they call him a prophet but is he still gods son in their belief or just another prophet?
So in Muslim faith Jesus will still return just like in Christian faith, maybe with a bit of different context as to why, but still Jesus coming back to rule the earth around the time of judgement?
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 27, 2015, 08:40:18 am
Post by: smjjames on January 27, 2015, 08:47:02 am
So in history class we are starting to learn about Islamic nations, this is going to be fun :).Just another prophet, along with Moses, Joseph, Noah, etc. Every prophet worked some miracles to show that they carried God's message. Jesus is something of a special case though since he ascended to high heavens before he was crucified, but since everyone will die someday, he's expected to make a return, where he'll rule the world. So there is that, and yes, this is part of what I was raised to believe as a Muslim, not a Christian
Anywho I was wondering how do Muslims view Jesus? I know they call him a prophet but is he still gods son in their belief or just another prophet?
So in Muslim faith Jesus will still return just like in Christian faith, maybe with a bit of different context as to why, but still Jesus coming back to rule the earth around the time of judgement?
Where does that leave Muhammad though? No idea if he is supposed to come back or something.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 27, 2015, 09:15:06 am
So in history class we are starting to learn about Islamic nations, this is going to be fun :).Just another prophet, along with Moses, Joseph, Noah, etc. Every prophet worked some miracles to show that they carried God's message. Jesus is something of a special case though since he ascended to high heavens before he was crucified, but since everyone will die someday, he's expected to make a return, where he'll rule the world. So there is that, and yes, this is part of what I was raised to believe as a Muslim, not a Christian
Anywho I was wondering how do Muslims view Jesus? I know they call him a prophet but is he still gods son in their belief or just another prophet?
So in Muslim faith Jesus will still return just like in Christian faith, maybe with a bit of different context as to why, but still Jesus coming back to rule the earth around the time of judgement?
Where does that leave Muhammad though? No idea if he is supposed to come back or something.
IIRC he was another prophet, like God's right hand man. Sent to give another important message
Post by: Descan on January 27, 2015, 10:08:27 am
Of course, originally it was so that his image (and him) would not be worshipped as idolatry in place of Allah, and that's kind of been... twisted, so it's more like he's a divine figure to be protected and that would be blasphemy to depict.
Post by: chaoticag on January 27, 2015, 10:15:44 am
So in Muslim faith Jesus will still return just like in Christian faith, maybe with a bit of different context as to why, but still Jesus coming back to rule the earth around the time of judgement?Yes.
Where does that leave Muhammad though? No idea if he is supposed to come back or something.Well, Mohammed's time has come, he was just the last to be a prophet. Might differ a bit between Sunni's and Shia's here, since the Shia muslims do believe in some sort of imams coming around I think. Don't think I can elaborate more here other than it being possibly different.
Post by: scrdest on January 27, 2015, 10:15:57 am
The whole "don't make images of Mohammed" thing is because of the idea that Mohammed was just a man, not divine in any way.
Of course, originally it was so that his image (and him) would not be worshipped as idolatry in place of Allah, and that's kind of been... twisted, so it's more like he's a divine figure to be protected and that would be blasphemy to depict.
Ah, the ironing is delicious.
Post by: smjjames on January 27, 2015, 10:33:44 am
The whole "don't make images of Mohammed" thing is because of the idea that Mohammed was just a man, not divine in any way.
Of course, originally it was so that his image (and him) would not be worshipped as idolatry in place of Allah, and that's kind of been... twisted, so it's more like he's a divine figure to be protected and that would be blasphemy to depict.
Ah, the ironing is delicious.
Did you know that Christianity actually went through a period where views about depicting Jesus were similar to that about depicting Muhommad? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm
Edit: Two actually, one during the Byzantine era and one during the Protestant Reformation.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 27, 2015, 11:12:04 am
Post by: TD1 on January 27, 2015, 12:03:16 pm
Dont judge until you have been changed by it just like I wont judge you religions.
Feel free to judge my...hrm...religion all you want :P
And children seeing Santa Claus are changed by it, too. Whether or not an experience has changed you in no way adds to its validity. Especially when brought about by physical means.
Post by: Levi on January 27, 2015, 02:08:36 pm
Did you know that Christianity actually went through a period where views about depicting Jesus were similar to that about depicting Muhommad? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm
I like to think if there is a god, he still enforces that commandment literally and everybody who has a little jesus on a cross in their home is going to hell for it. :P
Post by: TD1 on January 27, 2015, 02:16:16 pm
Post by: Arx on January 27, 2015, 02:30:54 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 27, 2015, 03:40:14 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 27, 2015, 03:45:45 pm
If they don't see it as a sin, they won't repent. Asking for forgiveness doesn't instantly give you a universal by.
Post by: Baffler on January 27, 2015, 04:12:46 pm
Anyway in the news, this might be a thing that happens. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/6/supreme-court-asked-to-defend-seal-of-confession-i/?page=all) This article is somewhat sensational, but it was the best I could find. I'm not looking forward to the shitstorm that results from whatever they decide to do, in any case.
Post by: TD1 on January 27, 2015, 04:16:59 pm
Then again, my info may be out of date, I read that in a history book on Chaucer's time.
Edit: Mixed up penance and penitence :P
Post by: Arcvasti on January 27, 2015, 05:33:17 pm
Anyway in the news, this might be a thing that happens. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/6/supreme-court-asked-to-defend-seal-of-confession-i/?page=all) This article is somewhat sensational, but it was the best I could find. I'm not looking forward to the shitstorm that results from whatever they decide to do, in any case.
What I'M wondering is why on earth the whole sexual abuse thing came up in HER confession. Pretty sure confession's are supposed to be about what YOU did wrong, not someone else. It'd be nice if someone official called the Catholic Church out on their victim blaming policy in these matters. Sigh.
Post by: Frumple on January 27, 2015, 05:48:12 pm
*Not exactly universal, but it's a thread of thought you see pop up in this country with a disturbing frequency and pervasiveness.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 27, 2015, 06:13:45 pm
Confessions work a bit different at my church
You walk up to the alter and pray forgiveness from god, confess sins and all and the act of going up there shows the church you're asking forgiveness from god and them for whatever it is.
People will sometimes also talk to the pastor and ask forgiveness and how and all, other times they will directly ask forgiveness infront of the church (this is usually really bad stuff) with help from the pastor.
Only once or twice have I seen someone do that before and let's just say it was not good, he didn't directly say what it was just that he felt extreme guilt and had to ask the church for forgiveness if it came to light. Though saying it infront of everyone doesn't clear it for you and god though it does get you forgiveness from your church community, or at least this one... We are very forgiving and accept just about anyone who walks through the doors, by just about I say that because I'm not sure if we have any restrictions on who can attend or not.
We also have not dress code (little tangent here) just whatever covers it all up and makes you feel comfy, the youth is usualy in casual wear as well as some of the adults and a few people show up in suits and dresses
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 27, 2015, 06:36:29 pm
Post by: mate888 on January 27, 2015, 06:37:16 pm
Is... Is this heaven?
Also, regarding Catholic confession, I remember that when I was doing the catechism the priest told me that when you confess your sins, you have to be truly repented of what you made, the priest would say that he absolves you of your sins, but only God would know if you are actually sorry for what you did. And he would forgive you only if you were. He also told me that the priest that hears the person confessing the sins can't tell anyone the sins that that man confessed. If a person came to the church, truly repented about what it did, went to confess and said "Father, I killed a person". The priest would not be allowed to tell anyone, even if the police came to ask he would not be allowed to tell them. If the man truly repented of what he did, God would forgive him, but he would still go to jail if discovered.
Also, when you confess in a Catholic church, apart from telling the sins to the priest and he telling you that you are absolved from them, he would tell you to pray X Ave Marias and/or Ours Fathers.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 27, 2015, 06:40:24 pm
In the Reformed church, we confess that we are sinners, and that we cannot keep track of everything we do wrong. It's always kept private, though. Prayers of confession are silent (as are all prayers, unless someone is leading a group in prayer). The only time someone would go to the front of the church because of sin is to apologise to the congregation, not asking forgiveness.
I suppose I didn't word right
Ya it's to apologize to the congregation (I use that and church interchangeably) but the congregation usualy gives forgiveness for it here. And ya most of it is private but new members (that's also something I forgot to say) will sometimes ask help for how to pray for forgiveness because they genuinely don't understand how it goes.
Post by: Helgoland on January 27, 2015, 06:42:25 pm
In the Reformed church, we confess that we are sinners, and that we cannot keep track of everything we do wrong.We Catholics do that do, in the beginning of mass. Confession with a priest is a completely different matter though.
Post by: TD1 on January 27, 2015, 06:48:07 pm
I would tend to agree, mainly because God is supposedly spiritual and therefore an outward confession in the physical sense makes little impact. Still, I see how it could possibly help someone think through their sin, and come to a better internal confession.
Post by: TheDarkStar on January 27, 2015, 09:44:05 pm
-realizing/admitting you made a wrong choice
-often, just admitting to God that you sinned
-privately talk to congregation leader (called a bishop) about it if it's serious or if you feel you need it - he'll give advice and support if necessary (including recommended counseling or medical aid if applicable)
-apologize
-fix the problem if possible/applicable
-Repay damages, fix what you broke
-don't repeat the mistake
Post by: mastahcheese on January 27, 2015, 10:25:44 pm
A religious thread on the internet in a site that's not religious or atheist and not sparking a flamewar?!No.
Is... Is this heaven?
This.
IS
BAY12
*Kicks mate88 down the pit of doom*
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 27, 2015, 10:35:26 pm
Stop throwing people in my garbage disposal!A religious thread on the internet in a site that's not religious or atheist and not sparking a flamewar?!No.
Is... Is this heaven?
This.
IS
BAY12
*Kicks mate88 down the pit of doom*
:P
Post by: That Wolf on January 27, 2015, 10:36:16 pm
No I just started to say things like that after my journey.Proverbs are always platitudes until you have personally experienced the truth of them.
What I have said I have lived through.
Why follow a fairy tale when you can make a legend yourself.
Dont contemplate a book contemplate your mind, and if it speaks of nothing you are a lucky man indeed.
We all yearn for freedom yet we can never attain it. Your mere exsistance relys on you to be trapped. True freedom is no bounds.
Are you on mushrooms right now
Its a bit wordy and arogant, but thats me an arogant little shit. Thats my most endearing feature
Post by: mate888 on January 27, 2015, 10:56:43 pm
A religious thread on the internet in a site that's not religious or atheist and not sparking a flamewar?!No.
Is... Is this heaven?
This.
IS
BAY12
*Kicks mate88 down the pit of doom*
It
was
w
o
o
o
o
r
t
h
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
*thud*
Oh, look, there's goblinite here.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 27, 2015, 11:54:59 pm
Tell me if I'm missing something that I have said on the matter without proper biblical backing.
Satan and lucifer are the same
Satan and other angels fell from heaven
Satan is one of god's most beautiful creations
Satan hates man
Satan is a generaly evil entity
E: autocorrect is dumb
Post by: mastahcheese on January 27, 2015, 11:58:12 pm
[1]Satan and lucifer are the same[1] I think?
[2]Satan and other angels fell from heaven
[3]Dayan is one of god's most beautiful creations
[4]Satan hates man
[5]Satan is a generaly evil entity
[2] That's what I thought.
[3] What is this? I've never heard of this.
[4] Seems that way. I kinda seem to get that it's less "hate", and more "jealous that God's paying less attention to him"
[5] Seems that way.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 28, 2015, 12:01:28 am
E: found the right chapter
Post by: mastahcheese on January 28, 2015, 12:07:07 am
((If the confusion was in it not being spell correctly I fixed it, if not then I would direct you in the general location of Ezeikiel chapter 20~30 I think))Ok, yeah, it was mostly the spelling that confused me.
But even with the right spelling, I'm still confused. I've never read through Ezekiel, and I don't know where a bible is. (I should probably look it up online, I'm sure there's an online bible somewhere...)
Actually, that makes me think.
OW, would you be willing to put links to online religious sources in the OP, if we find them?
That may help.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 28, 2015, 12:08:24 am
Post by: mastahcheese on January 28, 2015, 12:18:11 am
I wonder if Budhism has any texts?I think it does somewhere? I haven't checked.
The only texts I've read have been Hindu ones, so it's similar, but nowhere actually the same.
Ok, so I found an online King James Bible, and read Ezekiel 28.
It...
I'm not getting that it says that Satan was the most beautiful thing god ever made, but that he's saying he was "Perfect", at least until he sinned.
Which... I'm not entirely sure how much is "perfect" by cherub standards. It could be that all cherubs are viewed that way, who knows.
In any case, god seems like a bit of a dick in that chapter, to me.
Not only does he kick Satan out (which is rather understandable), but he lights Satan on fire from the inside, with the intent of spreading Satan's ashes before the feet of kings, so that all would know how fucking mighty God is.
I didn't read beyond chapter 28, so I'm not sure how well that went for him, but shit. Maybe it's that I'm reading it too literally, but man, I'd be bitter as hell, too, if someone wanted to do that to me.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 28, 2015, 12:23:16 am
Post by: Frumple on January 28, 2015, 12:35:19 am
((If the confusion was in it not being spell correctly I fixed it, if not then I would direct you in the general location of Ezeikiel chapter 28. It also explains a few other things about the devil))That is, of course, assuming the king of tyre is satan (as well that, if it is, that what's described there is what is described elsewhere). Which seems to be a common assumption, but... it is an assumption, and there's some weird stuff going on there anyway.
E: found the right chapter
I'm going to do a bit of research into the possibly wrong information I have on satan/devil.[1]Yeah, that's significantly arguable, and as mentioned earlier (check what chaoticag mentioned (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=147792.msg5986226;topicseen#msg5986226)) there's decent grounds to say the morning star (halel, which as noted is what eventually got corrupted into Lucifer) was referring to something different than satan.
Tell me if I'm missing something that I have said on the matter without proper biblical backing.
Satan and lucifer are the same
Satan and other angels fell from heaven
Satan is one of god's most beautiful creations
Satan hates man
Satan is a generaly evil entity
E: autocorrect is dumb
From what I recall, there's at least three or four different things that may be the entity known as the adversary (at least one of which is a straight up, non-fallen, angel [that which is termed outside of the main texts as Samael, the wrath of god]), assuming that it's an entity at all (and as others have noted in the thread, there's grounds to assume otherwise, instead being a state of mind).
And it's again worth noting for redundancy that Lucifer isn't actually a name at all -- it's a corruption of the latin translation of halel, which just means morning star (i.e. the planet Venus). Nor is Satan, which is just the anglicization of a hebrew word meaning adversary (or a corruption of shaitan, depending on how you look at it). Neither of them are actually names, heh.
[2]Somewhat questionable, yes, and the general narrative surrounding that is highly influenced by extra-biblical texts, so it's definitely something to be careful about if you're trying to stick to the bible itself. Iirc, there's something like literally one line in the bible that can even be construed as such. Maybe two.
[3]See the bit at the start of this post. And also [1], here, because there's no guarantee that everything that gets called satan nowadays is actually the same critter.
[4]There's not really any grounds for that at all, that I can recall. The Adversary is definitely depicted as acting against mankind fairly often, but YWHW being YWHW it's very much hard to say whether that's because of hate or something else, like being ordered to.
[5]Satan is a servant of god, and is of god, as are all things. It's certainly questionable whether all the biblical depictions could be called evil. Antagonistic, almost certainly, but that is one thing and evil is quite the other.
===
As for the buddhist text things, sure there are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_texts)... sorta'. There's a fair amount of variation between sects, and no central holy text. But there's plenty written, and plenty worth reading even if you have no intention of converting or whathaveyou. There's nice stuff in those writings.
Post by: That Wolf on January 28, 2015, 12:47:38 am
Not only once but many times god has created failings, if anything has failed anyone. Its god. And you cant say its a test, because if anything I would give the throne to lucifer and work behind the scenes through him. God didnt create angels with free will. They are his tools, so the 'fallen' angel are a fallen god. Is this wrong?
Seems legit.
Post by: Arcvasti on January 28, 2015, 12:52:02 am
Why would an omnipitent being that knows the future create something that would fail it by wanting to take its throne?
Because creating a being which cannot disobey you is morally wrong?
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 28, 2015, 12:55:30 am
Post by: Arcvasti on January 28, 2015, 12:58:05 am
None of the remaining good angels have free will or are capable of doing wrong. God clearly has no problem with that.
Source, please? You could very well be right, Biblical lore on angels/Lucy isn't my strong point. I just don't recall that being mentioned.
Post by: Frumple on January 28, 2015, 01:00:55 am
... it's, uh. Well, folks are welcome to discuss it, obviously, but I'd probably recommend steering away from the morality of the christian god or the general problem of evil thing as a whole. It's really something that could stand its own thread, I'd say. Is a subject that cooks off really easily, as well as being a very large topic on its own.
Post by: smjjames on January 28, 2015, 01:14:54 am
Post by: Frumple on January 28, 2015, 01:25:08 am
You unfortunately can't apply a human-normal morality system to the biblical god without it coming up "horrific monster".
...
Kinda' one of the reasons I'd suggest shying away from trying, honestly. It's more interesting to consider other aspects of the faith. Less abhorrent, y'know?
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 28, 2015, 03:54:21 am
...
In all honesty, I find it very hard to read the Bible and see that anything has autonomy under God. As demonstrated in Job, Satan/the Devil/Lucifer/whateveryouwanttocallhim has to ask permission of God before he can act. We've also discussed in previous threads about the difficulties in having both an omniscient god and free will.None of the remaining good angels have free will or are capable of doing wrong. God clearly has no problem with that.Source, please? You could very well be right, Biblical lore on angels/Lucy isn't my strong point. I just don't recall that being mentioned.
God "hardens Pharaoh's heart" in Exodus, so that he'd prevent the Israelites from leaving, which is a fairly direct violation of free will. Unless you bring up that it was Ra in some translations, but then I'd think the point about Satan still applies - these guys are subservient to God. They might have rebelled, but they sure as hell (pun intended) didn't get very far.
...
OW, would you be willing to put links to online religious sources in the OP, if we find them?Sure thing. PM it to me, though. I might miss it posted in the thread.
Post by: UXLZ on January 28, 2015, 04:05:06 am
Quote from: OW
In all honesty, I find it very hard to read the Bible and see that anything has autonomy under God.
This has always been my biggest issue. The conflict between the existence of an Utterly Perfect entity like God and the concept of free will is, in my opinion, irreconcilable
It's always led me to believe that either free will is a lie, or God is not Utterly Perfect. God essentially makes free will impossible simply by being, ever. Even if God (somehow) retroactively removed Itself from existence free will would still be impossible.
If you take God as literally being 'human' thought then it makes a bit more sense, but even in that case...
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 28, 2015, 07:49:16 am
Post by: Arx on January 28, 2015, 08:59:42 am
This has always been my biggest issue. The conflict between the existence of an Utterly Perfect entity like God and the concept of free will is, in my opinion, irreconcilable
It's always led me to believe that either free will is a lie, or God is not Utterly Perfect. God essentially makes free will impossible simply by being, ever. Even if God (somehow) retroactively removed Itself from existence free will would still be impossible.
It's impossible to distinguish between choice and the illusion of choice. I favour the theory that God is unrelated to time, and thus effectively He could set up chains of events, view each part, and adjust the chain of events to give each person their preferred choice (within reason. I still don't have a pony) in that scenario. It's the illusion of choice, but it's absolutely indistinguishable from free will and functionally the same.
Also if there is no God you don't necessarily have free will either. It's a topic that came up in one of the previous threads.
Post by: TD1 on January 28, 2015, 12:46:05 pm
One of my bible teachers (youth pastors what have you) always says something along the lines of, 'Being humans as we are, we will never comprehend God in his entirty, here on earth'
And that argument holds no weight, unfortunately. Not in this context, anyway. Not being able to comprehend God is silly in my opinion. Actions speak louder than words, and we can most certainly judge God through his actions.
Any impartial judge on earth, I'm sure, would long ago have condemned God to...well, hell.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 28, 2015, 12:47:34 pm
I didn't say we couldn't see his actions
Post by: TD1 on January 28, 2015, 12:52:18 pm
To say that morally wrong actions are acceptable because the being that committed them is above our reproach or knowledge isn't a good argument. Even were we to be incapable of understanding his divinity, not fully, it does not give him a by. Try applying that logic to a criminal on Death Row. "We can't understand him or his motives...so he is exempt, and must not be judged by our laws.
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 28, 2015, 02:13:47 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 28, 2015, 02:58:52 pm
*Woman turns to salt*
That type of thing?
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 28, 2015, 03:05:32 pm
"Turn the other cheek"
*Woman turns to salt*
That type of thing?
Yeah, the whole "thou shalt not kill" while murdering everyone kind of thing. The double standard of "do as I say but not as I do" does not sit well with me.
Post by: Descan on January 28, 2015, 03:06:24 pm
Post by: UXLZ on January 28, 2015, 03:20:25 pm
Quote from: Arx
It's the illusion of choice, but it's absolutely indistinguishable from free will and functionally the same.
God could distinguish. It's perfect, remember?
It specifically says we have free will (or free will is at least considered integral to the teachings because... Whatever reason.)
This leads to the conclusions that God is
A) Lying.
B) Imperfect.
C) Wrong.
D) Two/All Of The Above(?)
Which one of these fits It?
Quote from: Descan
Everything is in his power
And that's my issue with the Christian God. I cannot accept the existence of a Truly Perfect entity (at least the Christian one), bcause 'Perfection' is nebulous and the God in the bible clearly does not change Its mind or 'self'... Ever. Well, and 'other' reasons... But the fact remains that God cannot be truly perfect because I don't think It can be[/b] if that makes any sense. I'm out of time so I'll explain it later, but it works.
Post by: TheDarkStar on January 28, 2015, 05:50:16 pm
A) Lying.
B) Imperfect.
C) Wrong.
D) Two/All Of The Above(?)
Or E) Your perception of perfect is not what perfect is or is meant as.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 28, 2015, 06:23:01 pm
It specifically says we have free willWhat? Where?
Yeah, the whole "thou shalt not kill" while murdering everyone kind of thing. The double standard of "do as I say but not as I do" does not sit well with me.So, newer translations use the word "murder" instead of "kill", and the Hebrew word is indicative of unlawful killing. Effectively, God is not opposed to his followers killing people, as long as it's lawful.
'Course, that applies to the Old Testament, where God commanded many people to be stoned to death and whatnot. New Testament has Jesus telling everyone that the old law is over (kind of) and they should love everyone.
Post by: TD1 on January 28, 2015, 06:24:49 pm
Think of the many infant deaths. And no, it doesn't make it better that he was sorry afterwards and sent us a bow.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 28, 2015, 06:35:15 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 28, 2015, 07:53:36 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 29, 2015, 01:54:02 pm
Yes, and God ordered the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in Canaan. What's the relevance?
Quote
God is not opposed to his followers killing people, as long as it's lawful.
God killing innocents is hypocritical, and conforms to the "do as I say, not as I do" thing.
Post by: Helgoland on January 29, 2015, 02:04:00 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 29, 2015, 02:05:09 pm
Post by: timferius on January 29, 2015, 02:18:20 pm
Post by: mate888 on January 29, 2015, 07:19:02 pm
I'm going to do a bit of research into the possibly wrong information I have on satan/devil.1) That's correct. I think that Satan is actually the Hebrew word for "enemy"
Tell me if I'm missing something that I have said on the matter without proper biblical backing.
1) Satan and lucifer are the same
2) Satan and other angels fell from heaven
3) Satan is one of god's most beautiful creations
4) Satan hates man
5) Satan is a generaly evil entity
E: autocorrect is dumb
2) That's correct, so it's erroneous to differenciate "fallen angels" from "demons" as they are just the same.
3) That's correct. The thing is that he was also the proudest. He tought that he could be a God, because of his beauty and intelligence being superior to that of the other angels. Many angels begun following him and decided to disobey God. You can tell that that didn't worked out well for him.
4) Well, he hates God and all of his creation. It's both hate and envy, as he sees that God's creations are superior to his (he created Hell, wich ended up being the most horrible thing on existence), so he wants to destroy and/or rule everything that God created instead.
5) Not generally, Satan IS evil itself. Only hate lives inside him, and everything releted to him must be avoided, despite he would try to decieve you to think otherwise.
Also, another thing about the Devil, is that even though we reference it as "him", he is an angel, and angels are genderless. So Satan and demons in general are genderless too.
Also, unlike the non-abrahamic religions, there are several demons, but Satan is the only one with a name (several names actually).
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 29, 2015, 07:44:36 pm
That's the thing. Nobody is innocent by God's judgement. I'm aware that it appears needlessly harsh, but there you go.Yes, and God ordered the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in Canaan. What's the relevance?QuoteGod is not opposed to his followers killing people, as long as it's lawful.God killing innocents is hypocritical, and conforms to the "do as I say, not as I do" thing.
Post by: Frumple on January 29, 2015, 07:48:07 pm
[snip]You wouldn't happen to be able to provide verses and whatnot backing that up, would you?
Post by: Rolan7 on January 29, 2015, 07:55:42 pm
Is that all supported by the Bible, though?I'm going to do a bit of research into the possibly wrong information I have on satan/devil.1) That's correct. I think that Satan is actually the Hebrew word for "enemy"
Tell me if I'm missing something that I have said on the matter without proper biblical backing.
1) Satan and lucifer are the same
2) Satan and other angels fell from heaven
3) Satan is one of god's most beautiful creations
4) Satan hates man
5) Satan is a generaly evil entity
E: autocorrect is dumb
2) That's correct, so it's erroneous to differenciate "fallen angels" from "demons" as they are just the same.
3) That's correct. The thing is that he was also the proudest. He tought that he could be a God, because of his beauty and intelligence being superior to that of the other angels. Many angels begun following him and decided to disobey God. You can tell that that didn't worked out well for him.
4) Well, he hates God and all of his creation. It's both hate and envy, as he sees that God's creations are superior to his (he created Hell, wich ended up being the most horrible thing on existence), so he wants to destroy and/or rule everything that God created instead.
5) Not generally, Satan IS evil itself. Only hate lives inside him, and everything releted to him must be avoided, despite he would try to decieve you to think otherwise.
Also, another thing about the Devil, is that even though we reference it as "him", he is an angel, and angels are genderless. So Satan and demons in general are genderless too.
Also, unlike the non-abrahamic religions, there are several demons, but Satan is the only one with a name (several names actually).
For instance, as someone already pointed out, Lucifer is only mentioned in the Bible once - Isaiah 14:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/14.html#12
There's a lot of evidence that Lucifer, Light-Bringer, meant the current King of Babylon.
Quote from: Isaiah 14
14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!So far, looks like Satan. Matches the story of Satan leading fallen angels in rebellion, though I haven't checked for Biblical basis of that story yet.
14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
But then:
Quote from: Isaiah 14
14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.Future tense - the subject hasn't been cast into hell yet.
Quote from: Isaiah 14
14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;The subject is a "man". Note that angels have fearsome, inhuman visages such as being made of burning wheels.
Quote from: Isaiah 14
14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?The subject had a prison (despite not being in Hell yet) and is being blamed for not opening it. And he destroyed cities. An unjust king could do these things. Satan never destroyed cities (just God), and he doesn't have the ability to release souls from Hell. And again, the subject isn't even in Hell yet, so it's definitely not the prison being referred to.
Quote from: Isaiah 14
14:18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.The subject will not be buried with other kings of nations, because he destroyed his land and killed his people. Clearly he was a mortal king.
14:19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
14:20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 29, 2015, 08:20:04 pm
That's the thing. Nobody is innocent by God's judgement. I'm aware that it appears needlessly harsh, but there you go.If God is incapable of finding people innocent then he isn't a just being, just some sort of crazed executioner. He set everything off anyway, seems a bit rich to complain when he should have been able to see it coming
Post by: ggamer on January 29, 2015, 10:42:33 pm
What is it called when someone thinks that morals/ethics plainly exist, like the laws of physics and mathematics? The only word I can come up with is cop-out and that's hilarious but not exactly what i'm looking for.
Post by: MaximumZero on January 29, 2015, 10:52:42 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 29, 2015, 11:18:41 pm
I don't think there are any kind of objective moral laws, but I do think you can build a system of morality from simple first principles, such as the "golden rule". These principles are required in a functioning society, and it is therefore fairly simple to demonstrate that enforcing the moral system that arises from them is ultimately in everybody's interests.
I don't think it's productive to claim that morals are somehow inherent to the universe rather than built up through careful ethical thought. All too often random stuff gets added according to the prejudices of whoever claims this divine revelation (usually it's "fuck the gays").
Post by: ggamer on January 29, 2015, 11:51:07 pm
I feel like certain morals are objectively true. For example, killing is wrong, so is stealing, breaking promises, etc.
No matter how you stretch it, these things are never right. Even if you must kill someone in self-defense, the murder is not morally correct. Even if you have to steal to survive, the theft is not morally correct.
From these, less fundamental morals come around, i.e. ideas on homosexuality, abortion, what have you.
Basically the true answer lies somewhere inbetween Objective and Subjective truth
i know i probably fucked this up somehow
Post by: lemon10 on January 29, 2015, 11:56:44 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 link=topic=147792.msg5995861#msg5995861
[quote author=Isaiah 14
[quote author=Isaiah 14
14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;The subject is a "man". Note that angels have fearsome, inhuman visages such as being made of burning wheels.
[/quote]
Just a minor correction. Angels can look look like men when acting on earth, so while they do look like that in heaven, they don't look like that on earth.
That said, the passage does seem to imply rather strongly that he is a proper human.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 30, 2015, 12:25:11 am
Don't want a flame war
Ya morals do kinda fall into separate categories
Always true and opinional
E: wrote the wrong thing woops
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 30, 2015, 11:29:06 am
Post by: timferius on January 30, 2015, 11:34:21 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 30, 2015, 12:31:52 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 30, 2015, 12:42:47 pm
Quote
“Young boys don’t want to do things with girls. It’s just natural,”I feel like he's trying to subtly endorse homosexuality.
Post by: TD1 on January 30, 2015, 12:44:21 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 30, 2015, 01:12:23 pm
Cos, you know... Catholicism and the paedophile issues, and all that... *shrugs*
Post by: mastahcheese on January 30, 2015, 01:30:28 pm
This is partly why I've adopted a spirituality and belief system independent of any religion. To me, spirituality is a personal journey. No one is going to agree with everyone else in their religion on anything, so why bother? If I ever crave that church-like community, I'll just go to the local Universal Unitarian church.I heavily approve with this.
Hmm.
Question: What do you think of religions that expect its members to convert others to their beliefs?
I aak this because it irritates me when I try to talk to someone about religion, and they feel the need to try and sway my thinking to theirs. Particuraly because my beliefs are very personal, and I don't care if other people agree with me.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 30, 2015, 01:35:41 pm
Post by: timferius on January 30, 2015, 01:43:57 pm
Hmm.
Question: What do you think of religions that expect its members to convert others to their beliefs?
I aak this because it irritates me when I try to talk to someone about religion, and they feel the need to try and sway my thinking to theirs. Particuraly because my beliefs are very personal, and I don't care if other people agree with me.
I'm generally a "I won't bug you if you don't bug me" kind of guy when it comes to spirituality and relgion. I do my best to not judge or harass people based on their relgion, and I expect the same courtesy in return. Some people will stop trying to persuade you if you say you aren't interested or whatever, and that's fine, it's when they get pushy/bullish with it that it really irks me.
Post by: TD1 on January 30, 2015, 01:44:53 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 30, 2015, 01:57:28 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 30, 2015, 02:01:56 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 30, 2015, 02:04:54 pm
Post by: Levi on January 30, 2015, 02:06:48 pm
Wasn't that Dawkin's argument in the God Delusion?
I think it was in "The Selfish Gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene)", but it's been so long since I've read either I might be mistaken.
Post by: Arx on January 30, 2015, 02:14:46 pm
The odds that a non-Christian I meet has never heard Christianity are low.
Post by: Descan on January 31, 2015, 03:17:55 pm
I just did this topic in ethics so I've already been thinking about this a lotPersonally, I go with the idea that the fundamental morals you talked about are... "objective," in a way. Not like, set in stone somewhere in the Crab Nebula or something, but well, the Prisoner Dilemma was run through computer simulation of many different strategies, some "evil" (lots of defection) and some "good" (like Tit for Tat, where you are never the first to defect, you just do the same play as your opponent did last time. They defect last, you defect now. They cooperate, you cooperate)
I feel like certain morals are objectively true. For example, killing is wrong, so is stealing, breaking promises, etc.
No matter how you stretch it, these things are never right. Even if you must kill someone in self-defense, the murder is not morally correct. Even if you have to steal to survive, the theft is not morally correct.
From these, less fundamental morals come around, i.e. ideas on homosexuality, abortion, what have you.
Basically the true answer lies somewhere inbetween Objective and Subjective truth
i know i probably fucked this up somehow
The result was something akin to the top ten had all good strategies? Or at least a 9/10 majority.
So my view is that that idea, where cooperation is mathematically/statistically/computationally(?) shown to be better than selfish behavior, it follows (for me) that the evolution of social creatures like humans, canines, elephants, etc. encouraged cooperation within certain parameters. Like the idea that people tend to treat their in-group better than strangers is also shown in those simulations: When it was a consistent "opponent" (i.e. you play the same person over and over again) cooperation was better, as in family and your tribe, but if it was a one-off play, then the "evil" strategies had a one up (after all, if you only play one time, if your first play is to defect and you're playing against a Tit for Tat, they'll cooperate and you'll come out very far ahead. It's only if you play them again that you get into poor scenarios.)
So uh. That was a long read. Hopefully it made sense?
Post by: Bohandas on January 31, 2015, 03:45:05 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 31, 2015, 03:49:40 pm
In any case, can someone point out a moral which seems universally objective? There are plenty of historical precedents that to me show that humans can have a very different notion of right and wrong depending on time, location, context, and so on...
Post by: Frumple on January 31, 2015, 03:59:06 pm
We're really getting kinda' far off base here, though. Most major religions straight up hold to either an objective morality or a singular source of morality (conceptually, the divine, more practically the holy texts and religious organizations), which makes the question of whether there's an objective morality in reality kinda' pointless if you're looking to better understand religious beliefs. As a rule, they believe so, and all that's really left to discuss there is the particulars...
Post by: Rolan7 on February 04, 2015, 07:22:09 pm
So I'm going to ask something I've wondered about for a while, but haven't yet researched properly: Is Hell a Jewish concept, or introduced entirely by the New Testament?
I will say that it *seems* to be introduced by Jesus. The hypertext Bible I use has a list of references to Hell. They're all in the New Testament except for Daniel 12:2, which isn't explicitly about Hell:
Quote
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.Though it does seem to describe at least an unpleasant afterlife.
But rather, most of the Old Testament describes heathens as being destroyed. Losing out on eternal life, but not suffering eternal punishment either. A particular clear verse is Obadiah 16:
Quote
For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.
So... I'm curious about:
Whether Jewish people believe that heathens stop existing after death (which I'm totally cool with)
What Jews believe *their* afterlife is like
Why the two Testaments seem to contradict on this very important question: "What happens to most people after death?"
Here's the list of references I referred to: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/hell.html
As usual they're very generous about including passages in these contradiction-comparisons. It's convenient to have a comprehensive list like this, but some of the individual passages included are *very* weak evidence of contradiction by themselves.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 04, 2015, 07:49:57 pm
I've heard several interpretations on how to explain the apparent contradiction. My church says that the word "destroyed" refers to being defeated and stripped of power, rather than cessation of existence. A couple of Baptist churches 'round here say that the fiery torment is temporary, and afterwards you cease to exist.
Other people believe Hell is totally made up, and sinners are either not punished (and every individual goes to heaven) or they cease to exist after death.
Personally, I have no sodding clue. I believe that it won't be pleasant for unbelievers after they die, which is sad, but there's also nothing I can do about it (other than telling them they should go to church and ask forgiveness, but you know how that goes). Other than "pleasant/not pleasant" I have no idea what the afterlife entails for anyone.
Which is why I'm scared of it, I guess.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 04, 2015, 07:53:45 pm
Though I have no proof to back this up, it's just personal thought
Post by: Leafsnail on February 04, 2015, 08:33:04 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 04, 2015, 08:41:30 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on February 04, 2015, 09:31:51 pm
I believe that non believers that were never given a chance to convert and made no attempt at figuring out if there is some sort of great being that made them go to help but only suffer desperation from god and others that have heard of god but don't convert get a bit of eternal suffering and then those that attempt to kill off Christians and destroy the religion and all that get a terrible eternal sufferings
Though I have no proof to back this up, it's just personal thought
Not to be too judgmental, but this position disturbs me. Like many Christians, you apparently don't believe in eternal hellfire for all nonbelievers. This is a fairly reasonable position that can be reached by interpreting the many Hell-related passages as figurative rather than literal.
But your position is different. Hell still exists, and most nonbelievers still go there... temporarily... and anyone who actually opposes Christianity goes there forever.
It's one thing to be indoctrinated into the belief that all nonbelievers are going to Hell forever. I think it's fair to say most Christians who believe that find it unthinkably tragic, which is one reason why they work so desperately and generously to save people.
But to come up with and believe the unique idea that some people will burn eternally and others will burn temporarily, suggests - correct me if I'm wrong - that you think it would be fair that way. That anyone who works against Christianity, an aggressively evangelical faith which 60% of the world believes to be false, *deserves* to be punished literally forever. And that someone who hears the word but isn't convinced deserves a period of agony.
But maybe I'm over-analyzing a mere theory, and you don't actually think it would be fair.
Post by: Leafsnail on February 04, 2015, 10:07:50 pm
Post by: Descan on February 04, 2015, 10:24:30 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 04, 2015, 10:30:33 pm
60% of the world might not be Christian but I doubt even a good majority of that want every Christian dead, out of the way, forgotten, and their beliefs destroyed forever.
I know what I believe probably isn't true but eh. I don't have to worry a of hellfire but I fear it for the rest of you, my IRL friends too.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 04, 2015, 10:48:43 pm
I know what I believe probably isn't true but eh.You know, of course this *sounds* crazy, but I actually think I understand. I just believe in weather and forest spirits, and possibly fey. Completely ridiculous, but it feels true and is kinda fun.
Though my comfortable untrue thing doesn't judge other people, or hinder me from accepting reality. It's fully outside of reality, where all it can do is comfort. Ironically I think Christianity for most people these days is in a similar state. Fundamentalists and religious "leaders" *hate* that, and are constantly trying to re-radicalize these dormant followers.
And when bad times arrive... people listen. That's why I'm against Christianity as a whole, even though most people use it for good right now. I worry that it's just waiting to come back.
Anyway, back to Hell... I pressed some Jehovah's Witnesses about the fate of nonbelievers, and they said nonbelievers would only eternally regret missing their chance to be with God. Not burn or anything. Then again, I've heard that Jehovah's Witnesses use the "pearls before swine" verse to lie in the interest of attracting converts. But personally I think that'd be a reasonably just outcome. Having to live with the guilt of our own mistakes and missing an opportunity of eternal happiness... would suck... but it's not exactly a punishment, and maybe we'd come to terms with our failings in time.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 04, 2015, 10:55:19 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 04, 2015, 10:58:40 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 04, 2015, 11:03:16 pm
I guess maybe non-mean as possible would still sorta' fit -- assuming the divine entity in question is in fact a sadistic monster that absolutely has to viciously torture non-beleivers, anyway -- but it's still brutally sadistic...
Honestly, christian afterlife is another of those aspects of the faith I tend to avoid contemplation of. All descriptions of it, for anyone involved, sound kinda' horrifying :-\
E: Well, except for the simple destruction one. That one's alright. Non-existence gets a pass.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 04, 2015, 11:23:55 pm
Post by: BurnedToast on February 04, 2015, 11:33:12 pm
What's the point of this besides trying to think of a hell that's as non-mean to nonbelievers as possible? It's an interesting thought experiment, but why would someone believe it besides "It'd be nice if this were true"?
Why should that stop anyone? Why does anyone need any other reason? Isn't that pretty much just religion in general summed up in one neat line?
There have been hundreds or thousands of religions that have existed throughout history. Even if you assume one of them is actually correct, the majority of humans who have ever lived have still been believing untrue things based on nothing more then "It'd be nice if this was true".
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 04, 2015, 11:41:52 pm
There is sufficient evidence to prove some bits of it, and that's a whole lot better for me than believing that the wirlpools in the ocean are giant monsters and that the world is governed by patron gods who are at constant war with each other and the only after life existing for common folk is that of hades eternal suffrage.
And yes I know there are other religions with decent historical backing on their events but like I said this is just one of the reasons why I still believe
Post by: Frumple on February 04, 2015, 11:46:45 pm
I'm assuming that if an sufficiently powerful god is keeping people alive forever with the intention of not torturing them (also assuming that's the intention here), he can do something to make it non-torturous.Eh, fair enough. I'm not really sure how you could do it and not rip out huge chunks of what makes humans humans, but you could go that route.
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 04, 2015, 11:51:11 pm
Personally, I believe that their is one God(dess; gender may or may not apply) and afterlife is a Heaven for those who have lived their lives trying to do well, and a hell where wrongdoers are punished. I believe that if you truly believe your religion, do what you believe is right, and do what you believe will lead you to salvation, most, if not all religions can be a path to God.
On the subject of Jesus, I sometimes wonder if him being called the "Son of God" meant that only in the sense that all males are "sons of God" and all females are "daughters of God", but ended up being misinterpreted. Either way, I believe he existed, and agree with many of his teachings on love and behavior.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 05, 2015, 12:02:13 am
Post by: Ghills on February 05, 2015, 12:14:03 am
I'm assuming that if an sufficiently powerful god is keeping people alive forever with the intention of not torturing them (also assuming that's the intention here), he can do something to make it non-torturous.
Depends on what qualifies as torturous, I think. LDS theology says that heaven/hell is just being stuck with people like you...but if you're bad enough, that can be pretty bad.
The LDS understanding of eternal punishment basically boils down to 'Hell is recognizing how badly you messed up, and being stuck with similar people for eternity'. They're not actively tortured, but are left without much power, glory or various eternal benefits, and are the very last in line to get their bodies back (LDS believe that everyone gets their bodies back, just some get it a lot sooner). It's generally considered horrifying and shameful in the same way that people who wasted their lives are horrified at being compared to people who made good choices, but it's also simply a natural consequence of their priorities in life.
The 3 degrees of glory take effect post-Spirit-World, where everyone gets the Gospel preached to them and a chance to accept it if they want. They are:
1) Celestial, where God lives and everything is awesome. Getting in here requires making eternal covenants with God. Compared to the sun.
2) Terrestial, where honorable and good people live, who maybe followed the Gospel but weren't valiant in it, or who were just good people and always tried to do the best but don't want the Gospel. Compared to the moon.
3) Telestial, comprised of liars, whoremongers, adulterers, etc. People who deliberately made bad choices. Compared to the stars.
That's the end of the those who receive glory.
The worst punishment is 'outer darkness', reserved for people who genuinely embraced evil, and they basically are cut off from being powerful and awesome forever due to their deliberate embracing of bad, abusive and vile decisions.
"For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared;" Doctine & Covenants 76: 111 There's a bunch more in 76 outlining how people will be organized in the different degrees, it's pretty interesting https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 12:29:22 am
Post by: Ghills on February 05, 2015, 12:31:25 am
What's the point of this besides trying to think of a hell that's as non-mean to nonbelievers as possible? It's an interesting thought experiment, but why would someone believe it besides "It'd be nice if this were true"?
Why should that stop anyone? Why does anyone need any other reason? Isn't that pretty much just religion in general summed up in one neat line?
There have been hundreds or thousands of religions that have existed throughout history. Even if you assume one of them is actually correct, the majority of humans who have ever lived have still been believing untrue things based on nothing more then "It'd be nice if this was true".
That doesn't line up with my experience with religion at all. For example, Cryxis said he's worried his friends might go to Hell. If he believed whatever made him happiest, I'm sure he'd believe all his friends are going to heaven with him no matter what. Religion makes plenty of people sad or angry or inadequate sometimes, but they stick to it.
So I want to know what grounds this specific belief beyond wishful thinking, because in my experience with religion there's usually something doing that.
I've tried out the parts of the Gospel that I can test. They work. It's a repeatable experiment (for me). I take the rest on faith - LDS theology hangs together pretty logically, and the parts I am absolutely sure of lead to the parts that I'm still studying.
Now, it's only a repeatable experiment for me. I can't make anyone else have a religious experience or get revelation (and in fact, people are generally barred from receiving revelation for others). That's part of faith too - being able to take others' words for something until you can try it out sufficiently. I've done that with enough parts of the Gospel to feel confident it's the correct way to live life and provides the best way for me to understand why I'm here and what will happen when I'm not. You're right that it's not always comforting or happy. Eternal covenants are a lot to live up to. There's a lot I have to forgo, people I worry about. But after seeing how much better life can be like this, I wouldn't want it any other way, despite the struggle.
((.... I accidentaly read that as LSD through the whole hint and was so confused...))
ROFL. Don't worry, you're not the only one. :)
Post by: Arcvasti on February 05, 2015, 12:33:16 am
1) Celestial, where God lives and everything is awesome. Getting in here requires making eternal covenants with God. Compared to the sun.
Relevent (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTqXEQ2l-Y)
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2015, 12:45:27 am
I can't make anyone else have a religious experience [...]Heh, you actually can if you're willing to perform a bit of medical malpractice. Religious experiences can be induced by screwing with the brain in the right way, though we've probably got a bit to go before it becomes an entirely safe process. There's really not much to it beyond the proper neurological stimulation, yah. Is why so many different processes, religious and otherwise, can induce 'em.
Another handful of decades and we'll probably even have the methodology and technology to be able to do so consistently and (mostly) harmlessly, without the current crude monkeying about with meditation, psychoactives, and the like.
Post by: MaximumZero on February 05, 2015, 01:10:12 am
Edit: clarity
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 01:22:21 am
Is that it attempts to remove you from the fact that you are an animal, you will kill, steal, fornicate, lust, belive in something out there. Its hard wired. Now obvioisly we need selfcontrol for the oh so great society, but does it have to be instilled in you by fear for a punishment of agony and eternity.
You can learn that your thoughts are not you. That your ego is not you.
Seriously, dont change your religion or even your thoughts. Just learn how to meditate.
I could post a guide up if you are willing. But its easily found on the internets.
It takes alot of practice though. You must remember that it is a skill not an ability.
Most people who meditate (personal exp) are just thinking with closed eyes.
Its also not about thinking of nothing, but about realising your thought patterns and looking at your consciousness.
Also if humans have souls so do animals.
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 02:28:34 am
What I hate about the bible, koran.
Is that it attempts to remove you from the fact that you are an animal, you will kill, steal, fornicate, lust, belive in something out there. Its hard wired. Now obvioisly we need selfcontrol for the oh so great society, but does it have to be instilled in you by fear for a punishment of agony and eternity.
You can learn that your thoughts are not you. That your ego is not you.
Seriously, dont change your religion or even your thoughts. Just learn how to meditate.
I could post a guide up if you are willing. But its easily found on the internets.
It takes alot of practice though. You must remember that it is a skill not an ability.
Most people who meditate (personal exp) are just thinking with closed eyes.
Its also not about thinking of nothing, but about realising your thought patterns and looking at your consciousness.
Also if humans have souls so do animals.
This is why I like the Book of Ecclesiastes despite having a low opinion of most of the rest of the bible (except for parts of the gospel for their philosophy, and Exodus, Ezekiel, and Revelations as sources of material for movies).
Ecclesiastes has several passages comparing humans to beasts in a neutral-ish fashion.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2015, 02:32:38 am
We've also had the souls discussion several times in other threads. There's no basis to assume anything has a soul, other than religious texts stating that they do, and none of them can agree on what has a soul and what the bloody thing is in the first place.
...
Ecclesiastes is a weird one. I should probably look into that, so we can have a bit more discussion on the topic.
...
Funny. The only things I need to have a "religious" or "spiritual" experience is the night sky, and the understanding of exactly what it actually is.The night sky is pretty awesome. Literally awesome, even - in the sense that it inspires awe.
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 02:35:35 am
((.... I accidentaly read that as LSD through the whole hint and was so confused...))
No, that's distilled religion. Mormonism can't compete with that.
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 02:44:06 am
The Bible is pretty clear that humans are greater than animals. We're described as the greatest part of Creation in several places.
We've also had the souls discussion several times in other threads. There's no basis to assume anything has a soul, other than religious texts stating that they do, and none of them can agree on what has a soul and what the bloody thing is in the first place.
...
Ecclesiastes is a weird one. I should probably look into that, so we can have a bit more discussion on the the topic.
Here's the main relevent passage:
"18 I said to myself concerning the sons of men, "God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts." 19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. " - Ecclesiastes 3:18-19
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 02:57:35 am
I dislike that the bible says we are gods greatest creation. God must make alot of terrible things.
We arnt perfect its bullshit to say we are.
We are however equal to bacteria and trees.
Perfect ptttf.
Good joke bible. Try to make me think im the best and deserve to go to 'Heaven' so I will follow your scipture and become a little soldier for your pathetic war. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2015, 03:22:42 am
Here's the main relevent passage:Interesting. I'll have to get back to you on that one. I don't really know what to make of it at this point.
"18 I said to myself concerning the sons of men, "God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts." 19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. " - Ecclesiastes 3:18-19
...
I dislike that the bible says we are gods greatest creation. God must make alot of terrible things.That's not what the Bible says at all. It says that we - humans, every one of us - are corrupt and broken, and that it's our own fault.
We arnt perfect its bullshit to say we are.
We are however equal to bacteria and trees.
Perfect ptttf.
Good joke bible. Try to make me think im the best and deserve to go to 'Heaven' so I will follow your scipture and become a little soldier for your pathetic war. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir.
We are greater than bacteria and trees in the sense that we are made in God's image. We can think and reason (as many of you here have shown great proficiency at such), and do many other things that bacteria cannot even dream of because they don't have functioning brains.
Of course, such philosophy is irrelevant if you think the Bible is meaningless claptrap. That's perfectly acceptable. I'm not saying this is what you should believe.
In either case, please keep your tone respectful.
E: Apparently my tone got a bit ranty here. Ugh. Hypocrisy galore, it would seem.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 03:55:04 am
How is me being corrupt
If god created this place just to make me sin. Seems a round about way of creating things to just discard when you were going to discard anyway
Wise people can give excellent advice but can be living a terrible life themselves. I have proof to this claim
So god, despite being infinately wise seems to be making bad life choices itself...does this sound funny or wrong?
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2015, 04:00:42 am
That's the only answer I can give, really. God does what he does because he wants to.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 04:11:20 am
Because he wants to.
That's the only answer I can give, really. God does what he does because he wants to.
There we have it people.
We do what we do because we want to.
Enlightenment doesnt equal happiness, but I can lead to it.
Cue perspirational music
Post by: Arx on February 05, 2015, 05:31:51 am
And on the subject of Ecclesiastes,
"Meaningless! Meaningless! Everything is meaningless" -Ecclesiastes 1:1.
I would be shy of taking it too close to heart.
Post by: UXLZ on February 05, 2015, 05:40:49 am
At least, assuming one is talking about objective meaning.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 06:04:51 am
Perspirational?
Yeah music that makes you sweat.
Music with a beat.
Music that when you play makes you sweat.
And everything is meaningless. Why should it have an aswer.
There isnt really a question..
How good is music though.
No one hates music.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2015, 06:20:27 am
How good is music though.Sadly, this isn't the music thread.
No one hates music.
...
I don't think we even have a music thread. Huh.
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 05, 2015, 06:38:40 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 06:57:23 am
Is it at all strange to be atheist, yet still believe in souls/spirits and an afterlife? My reasons for disagreeing with mainstream Christianity are mostly emotional and spiritual rather than scientific, so I still have some belief that there's a place beyond life, and an invisible "life force" that makes living things... well, alive. But I don't believe that there's a creator especially invested in our well-being.
Strange, yes. Most like likely correct, yes.
No single god exsists. paradoxes exist within eachother. There are things that are what we would call a god though.
When you die you stop being you. So yes many people are right and that you have one life. They just dont realise they are talking about their egos life.
This mask we make our whole lives to live behind, to be unique. You are a sentient sack of meat that is dying, get over the fear of it and live.
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2015, 07:04:36 am
Is it at all strange to be atheist, yet still believe in souls/spirits and an afterlife?No? That's basically buddhism. It's also several sorts of animism, iirc, among other things. Plenty of precedent for it.
Post by: UXLZ on February 05, 2015, 07:18:57 am
At least, no more than other things.
Actually, one of the things that's always ruffled my feathers most about some religions is the insistence that Humans are 'God's' 'special chosen ones.'
It just strikes an off chord with me.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 08:00:14 am
((We do, it's called the great music thread, there is also a rate the song above you thread))How good is music though.Sadly, this isn't the music thread.
No one hates music.
...
I don't think we even have a music thread. Huh.
I'm just going to bite my tongue for this part of the discussion
Post by: timferius on February 05, 2015, 08:06:25 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 08:31:56 am
I'm just going to bite my tongue for this part of the discussionPlease contribute. I would like you to.
Dont bite too hard or it will sail off in an ark like moses.. haha
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 09:34:16 am
I'm just going to bite my tongue for this part of the discussionPlease contribute. I would like you to.
Dont bite too hard or it will sail off in an ark like moses.. haha
That was Noah, not Moses......
Post by: King Kravoka on February 05, 2015, 09:37:24 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 09:38:25 am
Fundamentalist Mormon here.I'm sorry but I have to ask
Do Mormon's really believe in polygommy?
I've heard it but there is no one around here, IRL, to ask
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 09:42:29 am
Fundamentalist Mormon here.
What's the difference between that and mainstream Mormons? Besides those polygamy sects where they're effectively harems.
Post by: King Kravoka on February 05, 2015, 09:46:46 am
It all depends on which branch.Fundamentalist Mormon here.I'm sorry but I have to ask
Do Mormon's really believe in polygommy?
I've heard it but there is no one around here, IRL, to ask
Officially Polygamy was banned to due to government pressure. Although most fundamentalists branches, the famous ones anyway, do continue the practice. Mine allows it. It is possible that if the church decides to use a loophole and the government becomes more tolerant celestial marriage could be reintroduced.
Political attitude and...mostly that.Fundamentalist Mormon here.
What's the difference between that and mainstream Mormons? Besides those polygamy sects where they're effectively harems.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 09:50:07 am
Do a lot of people choose to have multiple partners? If so is it just like two or three or is it common for people to have a lot of extra partners? Lastly is it usually guys with many wives or are there women with many husbands too?
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 09:50:16 am
Okay, I'm ending my unrequisited sarcasm here...
It was a stupid random joke, nvm. Though getting married in space actually would be awesome.
Post by: King Kravoka on February 05, 2015, 09:55:40 am
And few more questions if you don't mind, I've been curious and never had anyone to askAs far as I know only men can have multiple wives. I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject, being in my early teens, and it's probably a better choice to read a copy of it's doctrine.
Do a lot of people choose to have multiple partners? If so is it just like two or three or is it common for people to have a lot of extra partners? Lastly is it usually guys with many wives or are there women with many husbands too?
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 09:58:46 am
I'm just going to bite my tongue for this part of the discussionPlease contribute. I would like you to.
Dont bite too hard or it will sail off in an ark like moses.. haha
That was Noah, not Moses......
Haha was it. Good times im so literate.
And few more questions if you don't mind, I've been curious and never had anyone to askI like this question. And im going to answer it.
Do a lot of people choose to have multiple partners? If so is it just like two or three or is it common for people to have a lot of extra partners? Lastly is it usually guys with many wives or are there women with many husbands too?
Marrage is a man owning a woman.
In no way can a woman own a man, thats heresy.
Not my opinion but the way it has always been. Its human nature
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 10:03:42 am
Post by: King Kravoka on February 05, 2015, 10:08:44 am
Marriage is a man owning a woman? I think there are a lot of people who would object to that. This isn't the middle ages.For one thing, now a man can own another man according to some movements!
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 10:13:02 am
Marriage is a man owning a woman? I think there are a lot of people who would object to that. This isn't the middle ages.I said not my opinion.
But marrage came from a time were it is that, ownership.
Calm it... breath in then out
My opinion on marrage is its a waste of money and will not itself generate true happiness.
Please dont twist my words. I dont like it
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 10:15:48 am
Marriage is a man owning a woman? I think there are a lot of people who would object to that. This isn't the middle ages.I said not my opinion.
But marrage came from a time were it is that, ownership.
Calm it... breath in then out
My opinion on marrage is its a waste of money and will not itself generate true happiness.
Please dont twist my words. I dont like it
I'm not angry at you and I didn't mean to twist your words, sorry.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 10:17:58 am
Marriage (in a Christian sense) is a relationship between a man and a woman. The man does have a 'head of the household' position it doesn't make him an owner in any way. Women keep their rights as humans in a marriage.
I do not agree with marriage being a man owning a woman in the slightest and I think very few people would say that's what it is
Post by: Descan on February 05, 2015, 10:24:54 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 10:25:50 am
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 10:29:24 am
Perspirational?
Like in the background of an exercise video.
And on the subject of Ecclesiastes,
"Meaningless! Meaningless! Everything is meaningless" -Ecclesiastes 1:1
That's my other favorite quote from Ecclesiastes.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 10:33:41 am
And im sorry that the truth hurts.
Yeah I dont agree with ownership either.
But it still happens.
And many people know marrage as that. Can you say youv never heard of a cow being given as payment for the daughter. To basicly get rid of her.
Its fucking sad but true.
Yes Bohandas! You got it. Finaly
We have a winner.
Claim your prize at the window
Post by: Descan on February 05, 2015, 10:34:25 am
I thought we were talking about now .-.He was. I was basically saying "that may have true from a certain point of view in the past, but not anymore."
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 10:38:17 am
What do we think of the ancient astronauts? You know the one where it is said beings geneticly modified us for use as slaves? Any one have any info or actually believe in it. I know alot of people can pick some holes in religions pointing to evidence of it being real, something about ancient sumarians (I think they where the first big civ)
Its interesting and could explain the general back pains humans get.
Go on hang me for saying this
Post by: scrdest on February 05, 2015, 11:34:33 am
My english is terrible. Try to read it carefuly before I get disected for experimental fun.
What do we think of the ancient astronauts? You know the one where it is said beings geneticly modified us for use as slaves? Any one have any info or actually believe in it. I know alot of people can pick some holes in religions pointing to evidence of it being real, something about ancient sumarians (I think they where the first big civ)
Its interesting and could explain the general back pains humans get.
Go on hang me for saying this
Eeeeh... whut? How is that... I mean... what the hell does that prove? You'd expect genetically engineered slaves to be *good* at carrying stuff.
If anything, it's a pretty decent piece of evidence towards humans' ancestors moving like modern-day monkeys - the transition to upright, bipedal movement meant that the bone structure originally optimized for an entirely different mode of movement is suddenly put under more strain than it was supposed to, hence back pain.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 11:43:45 am
I havnt a clue on how evolution works (exept in pokemon) but wouldnt back pain be nonexistant if we did evolve to stand up?
meh I dont know anything.
Just suggesting other religions.. well other than the bible or qu'ran
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 11:48:15 am
I thought it was a bit insane, history Chanel has the show ancient aliens and they talk about them sometimes so I'm info on them is very muttled
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 11:57:06 am
I thought it was a bit insaneYeah I agree.
But we both agree the reptilians are real right!
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 12:00:33 pm
*Sage nod*
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on February 05, 2015, 12:04:40 pm
I haven't a clue on how evolution works (except in pokemon) but wouldn't back pain be nonexistant if we did evolve to stand up?
Well if evolution was a person then it'd be a very lazy tinkerer. A problem that doesn't affect the fitness of an individual before it reproduces and raises its offspring doesn't matter in evolutionary terms. Which is why we get so many medical problems in old age, since we're generally done reproducing by then and so there's no selection pressure to eliminate those problems. Which is why vestigial organs, back pain and similar things are a good indication that we did evolve, since they either have no effect on our fitness or occur late enough that it won't affect your children going on to reproduce. If we were created then our creators must have been very lazy or not paying attention when they made us, because there's many obvious things that could be changed to improve humanity. This is probably a gross oversimplification of evolution but whatever. Evolution isn't about perfection of a species, it's about being good enough to pass on your genes. That's sorta the gist of it.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 12:16:30 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 12:19:19 pm
Sorry for the quotes. Habit :P
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 12:32:42 pm
Phew human race saved guys and gals, high fives all around and lets rap it up.
Mission accomplished.
Jokes aside, if we get good enough at science wouldnt the devolution be fixed with genetic fiddiling.
Yes it is similar to genetic voilin.
Far different than any genetic chello.
By the way, how good is music..
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 12:40:11 pm
Biology teacher's bit on human de-evolution and some explanation/examplesI'd argue that we aren't so much "devolving" as we are "broadening" those who are alive from just the fittest to include those who are less fit. We still have all the people with the resistant traits, it's just that all of the other people are surviving as well. To note, 5 out of 6 people on earth could die horrifically (assuming we were still able to handle infrastructure, etc. so nobody else did) and we would still have more people alive on earth then there were in the 1800's, simply because there are so many more people alive now then there were then.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 12:42:27 pm
Neither does my biology teacher
But this isn't conventional evolution, it's people becoming crappier people
While we might be broadening the traits are speading to more people in the populace
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2015, 12:49:01 pm
If your biology teacher has been teaching or promoting theories proposing devolution, they should not be anywhere near a biology classroom.
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 12:50:54 pm
I don't believe in evolutionNot to sound horribly confrontative (I actually want to know an answer here), but what does your biology teacher think of experiments where they've replicated the effects of evolution in the lab through selective pressures (i.e. things like this (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html), where they took two decades and over 44,000 generations of bacteria forced with selective pressures and watched them "evolve").
Neither does my biology teacher
But this isn't conventional evolution, it's people becoming crappier people
While we might be broadening the traits are speading to more people in the populace
(As I said I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just interested in knowing if they are unaware or if they have some other explanation for the results).
And yeah, technically "devolution" would just be "evolution" working in the opposite direction as we normally think of it. Sort of how "deceleration" is really just "acceleration" in the negative direction.
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on February 05, 2015, 12:57:36 pm
Post by: King Kravoka on February 05, 2015, 01:04:38 pm
That said, I'm going to say that evolution was the byproduct of an inherently hostile universe and isn't how reality should function. If we want to remove peanut allergies and such, we should just use genetic engineering.
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 01:10:02 pm
Are you sure he didn't just walk in off the street? :P
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 01:18:00 pm
Your biology teacher sounds rather...unscientific.
Are you sure he didn't just walk in off the street? :P
Yeah played too much dwarf fortress and wrote on his resume that hes good at !!science!!
Many science teachers are dorks.
My one said no one landed on the moon.
I was like "for f sakes woman, we have a moon base on titan spying on us and your saying we never landed on luna"
I liked her though, she was hawt.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 05, 2015, 01:20:28 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 05, 2015, 01:22:14 pm
I don't believe in evolutionNot to sound horribly confrontative (I actually want to know an answer here), but what does your biology teacher think of experiments where they've replicated the effects of evolution in the lab through selective pressures (i.e. things like this (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html), where they took two decades and over 44,000 generations of bacteria forced with selective pressures and watched them "evolve").
Neither does my biology teacher
But this isn't conventional evolution, it's people becoming crappier people
While we might be broadening the traits are speading to more people in the populace
(As I said I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just interested in knowing if they are unaware or if they have some other explanation for the results).
And yeah, technically "devolution" would just be "evolution" working in the opposite direction as we normally think of it. Sort of how "deceleration" is really just "acceleration" in the negative direction.
It doesn't even make sense as a concept. Look at internal parasites, say, a tapeworm - it is far simpler than non-parasitic worms of the same group, with basically no digestive system to speak of - it's essentially a fancy tube of flesh. So, does that mean that a tapeworm is 'less evolved' or that it 'evolved backwards'? Nope, it means it has successfully adapted to the environment he is living in - all those protein synthesized and cellular divisions that would be required to make an entirely useless digestive system - since the host does the job for them - is avoided.
If a change increases the odds of successful reproduction, statistically, the frequency of the change in population increases - no matter what kind of change it is. Simplification and complication are both desirable outcomes in different circumstances. And all evolution cares about is if you can survive and reproduce, NOW, HERE.
The development of medicine does not mean we're 'losing' the ability to evolve in any degree - it means we have transformed the environment we live in. If we lived in an environment where, for some reason, peanuts were the only source of nutrition ever, the frequency of the peanut allergy gene would drop quickly - for the very reason you mentioned, people dying of the allergy. If you lived your whole life on an island without even hearing of the existence of peanuts, having the gene for the allergy would not affect you in the slightest.
If anything, the example here is evolution - because genetic diversity in population is *always* a good thing - the more differences you have, the lesser the chance that one single factor will wipe the entire population out. If aliens modified all the peanuts in the world to suddenly be toxic to kill all humans, those who don't eat them because of the allergy would survive - silly example, but it illustrates the point.
That's how it worked with sickle cell anemia - a bunch of people had a mutation that messed up their red blood cells, making them anemic - a straight-up negative trait - but suddenly, malaria shows up, and because their blood cells are non-standard, they are immune to malaria. So while half the non-anemic part of the village dies of malaria, Joe Sickly suddenly can get bitten by ALL THE MOSQUITOES and take it like a champ.
Post by: MaximumZero on February 05, 2015, 01:25:49 pm
Bring proof.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 01:33:03 pm
Evolution is the boss, your beneviolent god was eaten by something that evolved to eat a god, y'know just to survive.
And this is why I reserve the right to demand proof behind a belief and will call you names if you don't produce. Many people have deeply held beliefs, but understand none of the underlying mechanisms thereof.
Bring proof.
Proof for what? Anything?
Post by: Vilanat on February 05, 2015, 01:36:33 pm
Also, i think that if Christianity wants to stay relevant, it should accept evolution. an omnipresent/omnipotent god could have set the starting conditions to reach the intelligent human being end result (Or mid result, if you want to keep people chained to specific conduct of behaviors that would evolve them into a superior spiritual beings).
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 01:39:44 pm
Post by: timferius on February 05, 2015, 01:42:33 pm
Most religions do accept evolution, including the Catholic church. However, many individuals within said religions still deny it anyway.This is exactly it. There are many areas that church-goers are divided on. Just because the heads of the religion rule one way or other, it always falls under the "humans are fallible, it's actually this way" argument.
I'm not a huge fan when people take Religion over science, though I tend to be "live and let live" about it, as long as they don't try to force the belief on others.
Post by: MaximumZero on February 05, 2015, 01:47:57 pm
Proof for what? Anything?If you make a specific claim, back it up or, frankly, I'm going to think that you're full of shit.
If you say, "The sky is actually a crystalline dome with water behind it," and don't produce verifiable, testable, repeatable, peer reviewable proof, you're wasting everyone's time. Same goes for, "There is a god," and "this itemized list is true." At the very least, do some research on your own beliefs to find out why you believe what you do and bring that.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 01:50:33 pm
Help Toady out, donate some money you rich bastards
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 01:54:57 pm
Restricting medicine. How very medieval.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11386898/Three-parent-babies-Why-is-the-Church-refusing-to-alleviate-human-suffering.html
It mentions Church of England. The Catholic church was against it too.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 01:55:37 pm
Now who said that
Agreed but do you want to go on a fucking field trip to understand any simple thing people say about science. Or do you only belive in the experiments you do yourself?Proof for what? Anything?If you make a specific claim, back it up or, frankly, I'm going to think that you're full of shit.
If you say, "The sky is actually a crystalline dome with water behind it," and don't produce verifiable, testable, repeatable, peer reviewable proof, you're wasting everyone's time. Same goes for, "There is a god," and "this itemized list is true." At the very least, do some research on your own beliefs to find out why you believe what you do and bring that.
do you read a science journal and say "bullshit prove it to me"
Gey fucked your a human an undoubtedly belive in something untrue because you read it somewhere.
Do you think maths exsists??
Post by: MaximumZero on February 05, 2015, 01:56:48 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 02:00:38 pm
The trouble with fiction.. is that it makes too much sense. Reality never makes sense.
Now who said thatAgreed but do you want to go on a fucking field trip to understand any simple thing people say about science. Or do you only belive in the experiments you do yourself?Proof for what? Anything?If you make a specific claim, back it up or, frankly, I'm going to think that you're full of shit.
If you say, "The sky is actually a crystalline dome with water behind it," and don't produce verifiable, testable, repeatable, peer reviewable proof, you're wasting everyone's time. Same goes for, "There is a god," and "this itemized list is true." At the very least, do some research on your own beliefs to find out why you believe what you do and bring that.
do you read a science journal and say "bullshit prove it to me"
Gey fucked your a human an undoubtedly belive in something untrue because you read it somewhere.
Do you think maths exsists??
The science journal provides empirical evidence. It lists experiments made by others who have used empirical evidence.
Existential claims of the unprovable would not be found in it.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 02:04:00 pm
Looks like I touched a nerve. Way to be civil.Haha im always swearing I should tone it down. You didnt hit a nerve I just think your sentiment is lies, you cant say you dont believe in false ideas.
Do you believe stars are like our star, the sun? Or do you need to fly to one to believe its a star?
Or is sombody saying that they are stars enough for you?
So for some, being told god exsists is all they need to hear.
Just like me and stars
Post by: Vilanat on February 05, 2015, 02:05:56 pm
Most religions do accept evolution, including the Catholic church. However, many individuals within said religions still deny it anyway.This is exactly it. There are many areas that church-goers are divided on. Just because the heads of the religion rule one way or other, it always falls under the "humans are fallible, it's actually this way" argument.
I'm not a huge fan when people take Religion over science, though I tend to be "live and let live" about it, as long as they don't try to force the belief on others.
I am a firm fan of Science over Religion! Science is taking strains of crops and planting the best to have better yields, religion is praying god will make the field yield more.
Religion is praying for god to rain water on us, Science is developing desalinization to actually save our future lives.
When africans choose islamic traditions of personally washing their dead over the science that tells them how Ebola spreads, they indirectly affect me. Every religion has an example of behaviour that directly or indirectly affects everyone in this world and usually not to the better, so no, "Live and let Live" in regard to permitting ignorance and backwardness in a world that its entities are dependent on each other is not acceptable by me.
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 02:08:18 pm
Looks like I touched a nerve. Way to be civil.Haha im always swearing I should tone it down. You didnt hit a nerve I just think your sentiment is lies, you cant say you dont believe in false ideas.
Do you believe stars are like our star, the sun? Or do you need to fly to one to believe its a star?
Or is sombody saying that they are stars enough for you?
So for some, being told god exsists is all they need to hear.
Just like me and stars
No. The stars exhibit identical properties, relative to their size, as our sun. Empirical evidence.
Someone claiming God exist is just so much air. There is no physical evidence.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 02:09:58 pm
Post by: Descan on February 05, 2015, 02:13:20 pm
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 02:14:51 pm
So like I was saying, we are equal with bacteria. Thanks science.Well we have seen the effects in the 40-year long russian fox domestication project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox) too. :P
That said lets tone it down. This is the religions thread, not the "science vs. religion" thread, so try not to go around demanding "proof" from either side. (Because each side uses a different definition of the word!)
That said I think the big difference between science and religion lies in the fact that should I chose to do so (given the proper equipment) I can repeat the observations made in scientific journals, such as rerunning the evolution experiment, or taking a look through a telescope at a nearby star. I am unable to repeat the observations made in most religious books, because no matter how much I try I will never be able to see water turned into wine again. It's not necessarily whether one thing or another is true (because as science has shown us, it is often wrong :P) it's just the repeatability of the observations that is the key fact.
Post by: Vilanat on February 05, 2015, 02:15:22 pm
"We" believe the scientists just like the religious guys believe the Prophets.
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 02:20:32 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 02:25:42 pm
That Wolf, if you're not going to be serious, and not going to try and make sense, I'd call that trolling, and I'd ask you to leave.
Say what?
If it was the ad thing.. I accidentaly double post, so I did some charity work.
I believe im making sense, im bad at writing in english though.
Maybe dont get upset with my bad education and help me out
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 02:31:13 pm
I think it's more the fact that you are getting very close to violating thread rule number 5 (i.e. being respectful) and as a result are walking rather close to rules 2 and 6 on flaming.That Wolf, if you're not going to be serious, and not going to try and make sense, I'd call that trolling, and I'd ask you to leave.
Say what?
If it was the ad thing.. I accidentaly double post, so I did some charity work.
I believe im making sense, im bad at writing in english though.
Maybe dont get upset with my bad education and help me out
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 02:33:44 pm
That said lets tone it down. This is the religions thread, not the "science vs. religion" thread, so try not to go around demanding "proof" from either side. (Because each side uses a different definition of the word!)
Language game theory has always been weak to me. It's not science vs religion, because science is the study of everything that is true, or conceivably true. If you pit yourself against fact, then it doesn't matter what language game you use.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 02:40:50 pm
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 02:45:46 pm
I think he means to say that religion uses things that can not be entirly proven as it's reasoning and proof while science uses cold hard found factsMy main point was that statements like "show me your proof!" are little more then flame bait in a religions thread. :P
That said the big thing is that AFAIK pretty much all religions are inherently non-"scientific", i.e. not based on repeatable observations of the world. As such it's impossible to "prove" them in a scientific sense, since a scientific proof requires there to be observations present. Since religions aren't based on repeatable observations, they are unable to provide them, and are such automatically unable to provide scientific "proof". It makes the whole question of if a religion has "proof" totally worthless, since it's impossible for them to have scientific proof (else we would call them "science" instead).
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 02:52:02 pm
I was being very respectful and I only swear because its like conversational seasoning.
I never trolled, and Im not trying to start a flame war.
Im sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilitys.
Im stubborn and arrogant.
It was purely a directional comment for maximumzero and his (what I believe) flawed statement about proof on any level. From stars to gods.
And like vilanat cleared up.
Well, he does have a point, though. most people never seen a star in a telescope nor have the tools to determine whether what the scientists tells them is true.
"We" believe the scientists just like the religious guys believe the Prophets.
Post by: Vilanat on February 05, 2015, 03:00:28 pm
I guess you could claim that. I'd still say a difference lies in the fact of whether or not I could replicate something though. As I pointed out, I could go buy a telescope and look through it at the planets at any point in time, but I can't make God turn water into wine again at my whim. (Excluding the fact that telescopes cost money and all that). It's impossible to experience everything after all, so you have to trust someone to be correct. Personally I choose the guys who I can understand the mechanisms of why things happen and repeat their observations should I chose to, but that doesn't mean you have to just believe them. (As a matter of fact one of the key ideas of "science" is to constantly question the conclusions! As an educated listener you should make it part of your job to question the conclusions scientists draw and go educate yourself enough to understand their observations!)
Have you ever tried replicating buddhists directions for enlightenment? the underlining logic behind it is very sound and can be easily understood and experienced, its just the end result which require belief.
As a casual listener, you have no way to verify whether the Higgs boson exists or whether enlightenment exists. the theory behind both is known. the basics are simple to understand. the ultimate proof of personal experience or personal direct knowledge is beyond our grasp in both cases, yet we both choose to believe the scientists at CERN and not the countless Buddhists monks.
(Not to say these two contradict or even relate to each other. i am just giving examples of things we can replicate, can't replicate and choose to believe in)
Post by: timferius on February 05, 2015, 03:02:02 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 03:04:02 pm
Probably more I don't remember.
Post by: King Kravoka on February 05, 2015, 03:04:55 pm
Read back a bit. There have been a few people saying what they were. Fundamentalist Mormon, Wiccan (I think?) and Muslim.Isn't Mormonism technically a split of Christianity?
Probably more I don't remember.
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 03:10:11 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 03:10:36 pm
And its a fool proof method to any kind of self help. Just takes practice. Before this, years ago I used psilocybin and that helped me evolve my thinking quite a bit.
Post by: timferius on February 05, 2015, 03:12:04 pm
About that, there should be a tvtropes page titled "All religion is fundamentalist christianity" because, seriously, tell me the last time you heard someone complain about Buddhists or something like that.Yes, according to a quick google their a branch of Restorationist Christianity.Read back a bit. There have been a few people saying what they were. Fundamentalist Mormon, Wiccan (I think?) and Muslim.Isn't Mormonism technically a split of Christianity?
Probably more I don't remember.
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 03:19:26 pm
Have you ever tried replicating buddhists directions for enlightenment? the underlining logic behind it is very sound and can be easily understood and experienced, its just the end result which require belief.I actually like buddhism and its related religions, they are some of my more favorite ones. (I'm actually taking a class on them right now, even) :P
As a casual listener, you have no way to verify whether the Higgs boson exists or whether enlightenment exists. the theory behind both is known. the basics are simple to understand. the ultimate proof of personal experience or personal direct knowledge is beyond our grasp in both cases, yet we both choose to believe the scientists at CERN and not the countless Buddhists monks.
(Not to say these two contradict or even relate to each other. i am just giving examples of things we can replicate, can't replicate and choose to believe in)
If you look closely though there's a difference once again. For the Higgs-boson all the exact steps you need to do to be able to understand it are present (I've even done enough reading to get some of the basic gist of it). It's a "understand all of these things and you can understand the Higgs-boson" type of thing. Buddhism and the related ones appear similar, until you notice one thing. Instead of a complete guide to how to become enlightened, there is a complete guide minus the very last step. It's always "do all of these and then the actual last bit of enlightenment will be revealed to you", not "do all of these and then you will be enlightened". It's the difference from having the entire set of steps to reproduce a recipe (like baking a cake) and being short one of them (like not knowing what temperature to bake it at).
While I certainly could attempt to replicate the Buddha's enlightenment, since I don't know the last step I can't actually replicate it the same way. Because (good) scientific observations detail every step, I could for sure replicate their experiment every time, no guessing or faith required. It's a small difference, I know but it's the difference from having a metaphorical delicious cake and having a charred hunk of charcoal.
Post by: scrdest on February 05, 2015, 03:25:25 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 03:31:25 pm
Read back a bit. There have been a few people saying what they were. Fundamentalist Mormon, Wiccan (I think?) and Muslim.
Probably more I don't remember.
I'm SubGenius
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 03:34:00 pm
She met one that was nice and really smart, photographic memory and aced every test, that ended up getting so mad at everyone that his would sit up in his bunk all night cursing everyone to fail their tests
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2015, 03:35:54 pm
About that, there should be a tvtropes page titled "All religion is fundamentalist christianity" because, seriously, tell me the last time you heard someone complain about Buddhists or something like that.Not too long ago? Buddhism has its sectarian conflict and violent branches just like all major religions do. There's places in the world, right here and right now, where buddhist adherents occupy the same sort of social niche as fundamentalist christianity. Even if most of what siddhartha said was even less offensive than normal as religious platitudes go, you've still got the problem of buddhists being human and organized, and the attendant issues that arise from time to time because of such.
All of the major religions have periods in their history that were pretty nasty. Many of the rest do, too. It's a fairly common (and unfortunate) artifact of power consolidation on a social level...
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 03:42:24 pm
My sister has mixed feelings about (wicen?) people.
She met one that was nice and really smart, photographic memory and aced every test, that ended up getting so mad at everyone that his would sit up in his bunk all night cursing everyone to fail their tests
I don't really like Wicca. I take exception to anything that presents itself as ancient but is actually significantly less than a century old (I've got the same problem with people who celebrate Kwanzaa; another thing that was created whole cloth during the mid 20th century)
And new religions bug me. If there's a deity out there that cares about humanity I think that they would've already contacted us prior to 1954. And they don't fill a need like the ancient religions did; there's very little out there that's still unexplained and needs explaining, and much of what is still unexplained is esoteric particle physics trivia that isn't very relevant to day to day life.
EDIT:
And yes, I am aware that SubGenius is new as well, but they're open about being new, and mostly just practice religion to be ironic anyway
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 03:45:51 pm
And you will find your 'self' thinking.. "oh a burger would be good right now, i feel like a coffee, this food is getting boring I want to eat a ham sandwich" you may even make a mental list of the foods you are going to eat upon going back home.
This is what you are evolved to do.
Meditation is realising these thoughts as they appear, sometimes even before they appear. Realising that you just live in your thoughts all your life without actually thinking about it.
Enlightenment is release from this way. Liberating yourself from millions of years of endless thoughts.
Have fun meditating, remember it takes practice. Its not something you pick up in a year or two.
Dont try for a few months then say you are adept at it, thats just hipster.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 03:51:43 pm
My sister has mixed feelings about (wicen?) people.
She met one that was nice and really smart, photographic memory and aced every test, that ended up getting so mad at everyone that his would sit up in his bunk all night cursing everyone to fail their tests
That kids obviously not a wiccan cause if hes cursing people to fail tests, his religion says he is also cursing himself the same fate.
He just thinks hes cool being a wiccan, but he needs help....
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2015, 03:52:36 pm
About that, there should be a tvtropes page titled "All religion is fundamentalist christianity" because, seriously, tell me the last time you heard someone complain about Buddhists or something like that.Fundamentalist Christianity gets the most attention because it's an easy target, and it's also aggressively trying to re-establish control over secular life. Hence it's "attacked" by people trying to defend the status quo. No one minds because it's extreme, even to other Christians.
Normal Christianity is much harder to criticize, because even typical Baptists at my grandmother's church agreed that problematic portions of the Bible were metaphorical, or deprecated by Jesus. Pretty much everything which conflicts with science gets thrown out. So it gets less criticism, because it's like the reed in a storm. It bends but doesn't break, while the fundamentalist oak holds firm until it falls. Also normal Christians are normal, so any criticism of them comes off as an extremist "attack" (as opposed to attacking fundamentalists, which no one minds).
But then a lot of these people use the Bible to justify positions on morality, which is safely outside science. Abortion and homosexual rights, for instance. And trying to defend against legislated morality gets twisted into an "attack" on poor, normal Christians who just want their right to believe in Jesus and ban gays (who they love, of course) from marriage.
And then there are "Christians" who just believe that the nice parts of Jesus's story are nice, whether or not it happened. They identify as Christian, and maybe go to Church on Easter, because that's the easiest way to fit in to American society. They're basically secular but don't want to be an ATHEIST.
Fundamentalist Islam would receive similar attention except that it's a bit alien to Westerners. It does get a lot of discussion though, particularly in areas with growing Islamic populations.
I have heard criticism of Buddhist monks, but it was more about the caste system. Which, I think, is more cultural than religious? I honestly don't know.
Thanks for explaining this, Ghills!Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I apologize for suggesting that the LDS missionaries I talked to were telling me what I wanted to hear. It's true that I heard a rumor, but repeating mere rumors is intellectually dishonest and disrespectful. Thanks for giving a thorough explanation instead of calling me out on that.
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 03:54:45 pm
And new religions bug me. If there's a deity out there that cares about humanity I think that they would've already contacted us prior to 1954. And they don't fill a need like the ancient religions did; there's very little out there that's still unexplained and needs explaining, and much of what is still unexplained is esoteric particle physics trivia that isn't very relevant to day to day life.
2000 years ago, I'm sure the people saw Christianity as an upstart-religion. In fact, less. A small cult with a few peasant followers.
Hinduism, I think, is the oldest "alive" religion AFAIK. Christianity is the newfangled one.
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 03:57:57 pm
I have heard criticism of Buddhist monks, but it was more about the caste system. Which, I think, is more cultural than religious? I honestly don't knowThe caste system is sorta a cultural thing that got incorporated into religion deeply enough that it stuck in a lot of ways, similar to, just as a random example, a lot of the kosher stuff in the Jewish system (as always, correct me if I'm wrong). The main purpose of it is to serve a cultural purpose, but it's been around for so long that it's sorta entrenched in the religious system as well.
(That said IIRC there is a fair bit less of the caste system present in buddhism then there is in Hinduism).
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 03:58:49 pm
About that, there should be a tvtropes page titled "All religion is fundamentalist christianity" because, seriously, tell me the last time you heard someone complain about Buddhists or something like that.Fundamentalist Christianity gets the most attention because it's an easy target, and it's also aggressively trying to re-establish control over secular life. Hence it's "attacked" by people trying to defend the status quo. No one minds because it's extreme, even to other Christians.
Normal Christianity is much harder to criticize, because even typical Baptists at my grandmother's church agreed that problematic portions of the Bible were metaphorical, or deprecated by Jesus. Pretty much everything which conflicts with science gets thrown out. So it gets less criticism, because it's like the reed in a storm. It bends but doesn't break, while the fundamentalist oak holds firm until it falls. Also normal Christians are normal, so any criticism of them comes off as an extremist "attack" (as opposed to attacking fundamentalists, which no one minds).
...
Fundamentalist Islam would receive similar attention except that it's a bit alien to Westerners. It does get a lot of discussion though, particularly in areas with growing Islamic populations.
Also, if you criticize Islam then overly PC people will accuse you of being racist.
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 04:00:32 pm
And new religions bug me. If there's a deity out there that cares about humanity I think that they would've already contacted us prior to 1954. And they don't fill a need like the ancient religions did; there's very little out there that's still unexplained and needs explaining, and much of what is still unexplained is esoteric particle physics trivia that isn't very relevant to day to day life.
2000 years ago, I'm sure the people saw Christianity as an upstart-religion. In fact, less. A small cult with a few peasant followers.
Yes, but it was a direct offshoot of Judiasm, a well established religion. Wicca isn't a direct offshoot of anything.
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2015, 04:02:10 pm
Go to the bush for a few days, take a knife, good boots, warm clothing, small amount of food. Dried meat, some rice,... the first bit isn't really evolution, nor is it a universal thing. I've been in that situation and... it doesn't work like that for everyone. I'm perfectly content to eat more or less the same thing and drink plain water pretty much indefinitely. It can be part of the socialization process, but it's not a terribly physiological thing.
And you will find your 'self' thinking.. "oh a burger would be good right now, i feel like a coffee, this food is getting boring I want to eat a ham sandwich" you may even make a mental list of the foods you are going to eat upon going back home.
This is what you are evolved to do.
Meditation is realising these thoughts as they appear, sometimes even before they appear. Realising that you just live in your thoughts all your life without actually thinking about it.
Enlightenment is release from this way. Liberating yourself from millions of years of endless thoughts.
Have fun meditating, remember it takes practice. Its not something you pick up in a year or two.
Dont try for a few months then say you are adept at it, thats just hipster.
As to the second bit, there's quite a few different sorts of meditation. Some of them -- frankly, the kind I personally use the most -- have absolutely nothing to do with thought processes and are entirely physical (ordered and organized breath and muscle control, in my case). Others focus on various different things and obtain their goal via different methods than what you're describing. Don't try to pigeonhole a very complicated and diverse practice, yeah?
Does tend to take a while to really pick up on, regardless, I'll give that. Do note that even relatively little time of some of the more basic, more physical sorts can net pretty good returns, though -- there's a reason simple breath control, a standard meditative practice, is part of a fair number of medical practices these days, even if just for short and temporary periods. It's good stuff.
Post by: freeformschooler on February 05, 2015, 04:03:23 pm
And new religions bug me. If there's a deity out there that cares about humanity I think that they would've already contacted us prior to 1954. And they don't fill a need like the ancient religions did; there's very little out there that's still unexplained and needs explaining, and much of what is still unexplained is esoteric particle physics trivia that isn't very relevant to day to day life.
2000 years ago, I'm sure the people saw Christianity as an upstart-religion. In fact, less. A small cult with a few peasant followers.
We have some pretty good ideas of how Christians were seen in the century of so following Jesus' crucifixion, and it wasn't good. In fact, it sounds remarkably like how Jews were viewed in Christian cultures just a couple hundred years ago...
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/graffito.html
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 04:05:10 pm
Same with early bibles just lead people to be to pious and end up mass killing. Circa 1200 christians crusading around raping and murdering... why? In the name of god of course. Shit, he does it in the bible. Compared to his kill count we cant be doing anything wrong.
Now we get upset that is keeps happening... I really do wonder why.
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 04:06:23 pm
Fine, go back to the start of Judaism 4000 years ago. At the time, it was a newfangled religion. God should have revealed himself earlier.Yes, but it was a direct offshoot of Judiasm, a well established religion. Wicca isn't a direct offshoot of anything.And new religions bug me. If there's a deity out there that cares about humanity I think that they would've already contacted us prior to 1954. And they don't fill a need like the ancient religions did; there's very little out there that's still unexplained and needs explaining, and much of what is still unexplained is esoteric particle physics trivia that isn't very relevant to day to day life.
2000 years ago, I'm sure the people saw Christianity as an upstart-religion. In fact, less. A small cult with a few peasant followers.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 04:09:52 pm
Oh yeah I often sound very ignorant when im trying to get a point across.Go to the bush for a few days, take a knife, good boots, warm clothing, small amount of food. Dried meat, some rice,... the first bit isn't really evolution, nor is it a universal thing. I've been in that situation and... it doesn't work like that for everyone. I'm perfectly content to eat more or less the same thing and drink plain water pretty much indefinitely. It can be part of the socialization process, but it's not a terribly physiological thing.
And you will find your 'self' thinking.. "oh a burger would be good right now, i feel like a coffee, this food is getting boring I want to eat a ham sandwich" you may even make a mental list of the foods you are going to eat upon going back home.
This is what you are evolved to do.
Meditation is realising these thoughts as they appear, sometimes even before they appear. Realising that you just live in your thoughts all your life without actually thinking about it.
Enlightenment is release from this way. Liberating yourself from millions of years of endless thoughts.
Have fun meditating, remember it takes practice. Its not something you pick up in a year or two.
Dont try for a few months then say you are adept at it, thats just hipster.
As to the second bit, there's quite a few different sorts of meditation. Some of them -- frankly, the kind I personally use the most -- have absolutely nothing to do with thought processes and are entirely physical (ordered and organized breath and muscle control, in my case). Others focus on various different things and obtain their goal via different methods than what you're describing. Don't try to pigeonhole a very complicated and diverse practice, yeah?
Does tend to take a while to really pick up on, regardless, I'll give that. Do note that even relatively little time of some of the more basic, more physical sorts can net pretty good returns, though -- there's a reason simple breath control, a standard meditative practice, is part of a fair number of medical practices these days, even if just for short and temporary periods. It's good stuff.
My favourite meditation tecnique is using my tongue to reach into my nasopharanx thus blocking my nasal passage and drinking the essence of my soft palate.
Post by: King Kravoka on February 05, 2015, 04:15:09 pm
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 04:16:48 pm
Fine, go back to the start of Judaism 4000 years ago. At the time, it was a newfangled religion. God should have revealed himself earlier.Yes, but it was a direct offshoot of Judiasm, a well established religion. Wicca isn't a direct offshoot of anything.And new religions bug me. If there's a deity out there that cares about humanity I think that they would've already contacted us prior to 1954. And they don't fill a need like the ancient religions did; there's very little out there that's still unexplained and needs explaining, and much of what is still unexplained is esoteric particle physics trivia that isn't very relevant to day to day life.
2000 years ago, I'm sure the people saw Christianity as an upstart-religion. In fact, less. A small cult with a few peasant followers.
No, he should have revealed himself upwards of 12,000 years ago, or further back to the point where we first started worshipping nature spirits and stuff. Really though, I don't know when people started worshipping nature spirits and developed pantheons.
If you guys can't tell already (or I may have said it once or twice), I'm probably atheist.
Editwhileposting: The heck Wolf?
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 04:22:20 pm
But it has something to do with semen retention.
Yogis way back when did it.
They used to strech their tongues and even cut the part that holds your tongue to the bottom of your mouth..
Yeah I thought wtf when I read it. Its sposed to be a great acheivement at the time.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2015, 04:28:33 pm
Guys, Wolf is trolling.I don't know if it's intentional but he is being a bit disruptive. And it's getting worse.
Might just be a language barrier issue, but... Yeah.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 04:29:06 pm
Disease, death, and sleep do not trouble him who knows khechari mudra, nor hunger and thirst, nor swoon.
-Yoga Chudamani Upanishad
Immortal liquor is the nectar exuding from the moon (pineal gland). It is produced by the fire, which is generated by inserting the tongue into the nasopharyngeal cavity..
Wow i read more about it and it has a conection to the pineal gland, which releases dmt upon death.
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 04:31:44 pm
And I may have heard of Samhadi before, DnD? I dunno.
And I call BS.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 04:33:00 pm
dmt?Google it up.
And I may have heard of Samhadi before, DnD? I dunno.
Its in every living thing
Post by: Helgoland on February 05, 2015, 04:35:36 pm
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 04:36:13 pm
dmt?Google it up.
And I may have heard of Samhadi before, DnD? I dunno.
Its in every living thing
Like midichlorians?
Yes, I just invoked the Jedi.
Post by: freeformschooler on February 05, 2015, 04:38:42 pm
Wow i read more about it and it has a conection to the pineal gland, which releases dmt upon death.
Please do not dig up this bit of bad science again. I thought we had finally killed it, as with the right-and-left-brained pop theory.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 04:40:06 pm
Yes just like midichlorians, the force is strong with this one.dmt?Google it up.
And I may have heard of Samhadi before, DnD? I dunno.
Its in every living thing
Like midichlorians?
Yes, I just invoked the Jedi.
I gotta call bullshit on what you said about DMT. The stuff doesn't work that way.What part was bullshit?
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 04:40:38 pm
I gotta call bullshit on what you said about DMT. The stuff doesn't work that way.
No, I've heard that too, that small amounts are produced in the pineal gland..
Post by: scrdest on February 05, 2015, 04:45:45 pm
I gotta call bullshit on what you said about DMT. The stuff doesn't work that way.
No, I've heard that too, that small amounts are produced in the pineal gland..
Not proved in humans, DEFINITELY not proved to be released upon death.
Post by: freeformschooler on February 05, 2015, 04:46:34 pm
I gotta call bullshit on what you said about DMT. The stuff doesn't work that way.
No, I've heard that too.
It's a reference to Strassman's studies and his speculation that the pineal gland synthesizes DMT as found in DMT: The Spirit Molecule. However, somehow Strassman's speculation has turned into a pop culture "fact" as a way to explain-away near death experiences or propose some kind of chemical afterlife with mental time dilation (yes, I have actually heard both of these).
There is no known mechanism in the pineal gland for synthesizing DMT, though it's certainly possible. However, until this is proven, the release-upon-death theory is an epistemological equivalent to the stoned ape theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N-Dimethyltryptamine
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 04:50:12 pm
Yes just like midichlorians, the force is strong with this one.dmt?Google it up.
And I may have heard of Samhadi before, DnD? I dunno.
Its in every living thing
Like midichlorians?
Yes, I just invoked the Jedi.I gotta call bullshit on what you said about DMT. The stuff doesn't work that way.What part was bullshit?
Aha! So you really are trolling.
Now stop will you :P
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 04:58:56 pm
But still no proof that It isnt in the pineal gland.
And khechari mudra is a real thing.
Yeah il leave if you want me to. Out of respect
Love you guys
Post by: scrdest on February 05, 2015, 05:01:03 pm
But still no proof that It isnt in the pineal gland.
There is also no proof I am not secretly a reptilian who just so happens to look and behave exactly like a human. You don't prove that something ISN'T. You can just disprove something IS.
Post by: freeformschooler on February 05, 2015, 05:01:51 pm
But still no proof that It isnt in the pineal gland.
That isn't how the burden of proof works.
There is no proof that I do not have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage who will summon rain and fire upon the world unless all men everywhere walk around with fake unicorn horns on the third Saturday of November every year.
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 05:03:51 pm
A bit of a change of topic, how many other people on this forum follow something non-christian and non-atheistic? What do you follow? These threads always turn in to christian/atheism topics, and I'm curious what other beliefs populate these forums./me waves
Wrote some stuff earlier on in the topic on my beliefs being closer to Buddhism.
Post by: UXLZ on February 05, 2015, 05:04:16 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on February 05, 2015, 05:05:14 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on February 05, 2015, 05:06:28 pm
You also have to add in 'intangible', 'incomprehensible', and 'Perfect' to that FFS, or it doesn't properly work. If the Unicorn is merely invisible then it can be disproved simply by filling the garage with cement and then checking for unicorn-shaped air pockets.
Actually that's a pretty good point.
Post by: UXLZ on February 05, 2015, 05:08:08 pm
I'm just confused about how a unicorn can be both invisible and pink at the same time.
Because it just can.
Hmm... Now where have we heard this awfully compelling argument before?
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 05:09:12 pm
I'm just confused about how a unicorn can be both invisible and pink at the same time.
Better point.
Anyway just wear the horn it will please the powerful unicorn
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2015, 05:11:21 pm
I'm just confused about how a unicorn can be both invisible and pink at the same time.Presumably the same way humans will eventually be able to be invisible and skin-colored whenever we get around to polishing off optical camo. You can hold the state of "light passes through" and "if light hit, it would reflect pink" at the same time. It's just the latter would functionally never happen. The underlying structure would still be such that it would be pink were the appropriate conditions met.
E: Or, to give a different example, a pink unicorn is still a pink unicorn in the dark. Same concept. Visibility is a different metric than color.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2015, 05:11:58 pm
You also have to add in 'intangible', 'incomprehensible', and 'Perfect' to that FFS, or it doesn't properly work. If the Unicorn is merely invisible then it can be disproved simply by filling the garage with cement and then checking for unicorn-shaped air pockets.Maybe it leaves the garage to test your faith :P
But actually, I always assumed the IPU was designed to be inconsistent (and thus parody the inconsistencies found in major religious doctrines). That if something is always invisible, it by definition cannot be pink. Much as God cannot be love and also the creator of evil and eternal torment. (Not to mention 3 entities and 1 at the same time. What's so wrong about polytheism...)
Whereas the flying spaghetti monster and the space teacup are consistent, if absurd, articles of faith.
Post by: Kassire on February 05, 2015, 05:13:40 pm
A bit of a change of topic, how many other people on this forum follow something non-christian and non-atheistic? What do you follow? These threads always turn in to christian/atheism topics, and I'm curious what other beliefs populate these forums.I believe of more of a god who doesn't give a single shit. He cares more for other affairs and simply casts humans aside. However he employs many, many, angels/weaker gods who deal with mortals such as me or you. Thus these are the deities that one would pray to rather than the greater deity. Personally, I attach myself to a select few to pray to. Your relations and standing with these gods, angels, and in some cases spirits would see what kind of afterlife one would have. If you feel like questioning me and my beliefs, go right ahead.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 05:21:12 pm
A bit of a change of topic, how many other people on this forum follow something non-christian and non-atheistic? What do you follow? These threads always turn in to christian/atheism topics, and I'm curious what other beliefs populate these forums.I believe of more of a god who doesn't give a single shit. He cares more for other affairs and simply casts humans aside. However he employs many, many, angels/weaker gods who deal with mortals such as me or you. Thus these are the deities that one would pray to rather than the greater deity. Personally, I attach myself to a select few to pray to. Your relations and standing with these gods, angels, and in some cases spirits would see what kind of afterlife one would have. If you feel like questioning me and my beliefs, go right ahead.
Ok I will try.
Are you scared of illthid hunters.
What are the gods you follow, perhaps their associated spheres.
Is eating pork ok.
Do you drink brain juice like a yogi.
Are you happy
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 05, 2015, 05:22:55 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2015, 05:33:43 pm
You also have to add in 'intangible', 'incomprehensible', and 'Perfect' to that FFS, or it doesn't properly work. If the Unicorn is merely invisible then it can be disproved simply by filling the garage with cement and then checking for unicorn-shaped air pockets.
Whereas the flying spaghetti monster and the space teacup are consistent, if absurd, articles of faith.
Hey, don't call my belief absurd! I just believe, okay, and I don't care what you say to disprove it. :P
Post by: Kassire on February 05, 2015, 05:34:59 pm
Ok I will try.I... Am unsure what to make of this post.
Are you scared of illthid hunters.
What are the gods you follow, perhaps their associated spheres.
Is eating pork ok.
Do you drink brain juice like a yogi.
Are you happy
1.Illithid hunters are a job that's going out of the market anyways, no need to be scared.
2. Gods are rather personal in general. Names are more of something that one would imagine most deities and creatures of celestial qualities would care about, especially in my case. I see my primary deity as one who care for knowledge, mental prowess, capability, and blends in with my other gods with putting effort for oneself, the future, and others.
3. Sure, if your not on a diet.
4. This brain juice your talking about is likely illegal in most countries.
5. I am quite content.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2015, 05:41:12 pm
I respect your delicious/celestial faith just as much as any other ;)You also have to add in 'intangible', 'incomprehensible', and 'Perfect' to that FFS, or it doesn't properly work. If the Unicorn is merely invisible then it can be disproved simply by filling the garage with cement and then checking for unicorn-shaped air pockets.
Whereas the flying spaghetti monster and the space teacup are consistent, if absurd, articles of faith.
Hey, don't call my belief absurd! I just believe, okay, and I don't care what you say to disprove it. :P
And am far less personally threatened by it.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 05:43:25 pm
Brain juice is legal, mind flayers use it for brain shakes.
5. I am quite content.
Im happy for you. Try to stay that way man.
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 05:45:49 pm
A bit of a change of topic, how many other people on this forum follow something non-christian and non-atheistic? What do you follow? These threads always turn in to christian/atheism topics, and I'm curious what other beliefs populate these forums.I believe of more of a god who doesn't give a single shit. He cares more for other affairs and simply casts humans aside. However he employs many, many, angels/weaker gods who deal with mortals such as me or you. Thus these are the deities that one would pray to rather than the greater deity. Personally, I attach myself to a select few to pray to. Your relations and standing with these gods, angels, and in some cases spirits would see what kind of afterlife one would have. If you feel like questioning me and my beliefs, go right ahead.
Other affairs like what? Internal politics? Stuff with other pantheons?
Post by: Teneb on February 05, 2015, 05:46:48 pm
A bit of a change of topic, how many other people on this forum follow something non-christian and non-atheistic? What do you follow? These threads always turn in to christian/atheism topics, and I'm curious what other beliefs populate these forums.Discordian here, though there seems to be a few in B12. My own personal belief is that gods and such exist, though they rarely, if ever, interfere directly, or at all.
I wish I'd taken notice of this thread sooner, since I seem to be becoming a bit obsessed with researching and learning about various theologies in general.
Post by: Kassire on February 05, 2015, 05:59:57 pm
I suppose one could see it that way, with politics and pantheons and such. Along with the fact that he (He is a bit grammatically easier to say than it/whatever gender) is the sorta the big cheese in the grand scheme of things. Though I suppose someone as low in the whole course of things like me wouldn't exactly know what he would be up to, seeing as I'm near the bottom of everything. But seeing to how the status is of all his angels and deities would an obvious thing to do. Perhaps dealing with higher-ups that help hold the laws of reality, or even, making spirits, angels, and gods head up higher within the order of power. Or even making whole new parts of the Universe, ordering powerful deities on what to do, dealing with less than cooperative deities, angels, spirits, and such.I believe of more of a god who doesn't give a single shit. He cares more for other affairs and simply casts humans aside. However he employs many, many, angels/weaker gods who deal with mortals such as me or you. Thus these are the deities that one would pray to rather than the greater deity. Personally, I attach myself to a select few to pray to. Your relations and standing with these gods, angels, and in some cases spirits would see what kind of afterlife one would have. If you feel like questioning me and my beliefs, go right ahead.Other affairs like what? Internal politics? Stuff with other pantheons?
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 06:11:29 pm
Though the whole bhuddism pantheon and their version of saints are also inserted into the whole thing.
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 06:17:50 pm
I'm just confused about how a unicorn can be both invisible and pink at the same time.
Better point.
Anyway just wear the horn it will please the powerful unicorn
Imma fix this up for you.
I'm just confused about how a unicorn can be both invisible and pink at the same time.
Better point.
Anyway just ask for forgiveness it will please the powerful deity
Now you're back on topic. :P
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2015, 06:20:21 pm
Hey guys.
I'll toss up a poll about the "what religious group do you belong to" thing.
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 06:34:33 pm
I'm just confused about how a unicorn can be both invisible and pink at the same time.Presumably the same way humans will eventually be able to be invisible and skin-colored whenever we get around to polishing off optical camo. You can hold the state of "light passes through" and "if light hit, it would reflect pink" at the same time. It's just the latter would functionally never happen. The underlying structure would still be such that it would be pink were the appropriate conditions met.
E: Or, to give a different example, a pink unicorn is still a pink unicorn in the dark. Same concept. Visibility is a different metric than color.
Or it could be on a pink background.
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 06:37:12 pm
I'm just confused about how a unicorn can be both invisible and pink at the same time.
Better point.
Anyway just wear the horn it will please the powerful unicorn
Imma fix this up for you.I'm just confused about how a unicorn can be both invisible and pink at the same time.
Better point.
Anyway just ask for forgiveness it will please the powerful deity
Now you're back on topic. :P
You are cheeky.
I aprove. Just wait, ill get u back
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 06:38:46 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2015, 06:39:14 pm
Might want a none/atheist group in the poll too Orange Wizard.Oops.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2015, 06:41:16 pm
Post by: Kassire on February 05, 2015, 06:43:18 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 06:43:38 pm
...Not to mention 3 entities and 1 at the same time...
Sybil was several people at once
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2015, 06:49:05 pm
It's a fine list, but could you add animist? It's ancient, and someone else already subscribed to it also.Done.
I don't really fit much into the poll eitherAnother option I should add?
Post by: UXLZ on February 05, 2015, 06:51:04 pm
Post by: timferius on February 05, 2015, 06:52:52 pm
Also, wow you guys move fast, moving back to Wicca for a minute, since it's an area I know a bit about (not too much). I'm generally not a HUGE fan, I find Gardinarian Wicca at least (the one I know the most about) is a bit too caught up in specific rituals and such, and I'm more organic when it comes to magical stuff (use what feels right etc.), but all in all it's not bad. The problem with Wicca is a lot of (usually younger) people pick it up saying "YA magic cool" and that's as far as they get. On the cursing, I think it was mentioned, but that's INCREDIBLY against even the basic Wiccan beliefs. I believe the saying (going off memory) they adhere to as their golden rule is "and harm it none, do as you will". The entire concept behind their magic is recipricotive, in that the energy you put out in to the world is reflected back at you. Any "dark magic" or curses is literally the worst thing you could do as a Wiccan.
And as for "wicca isn't derived from anything", it's a modern religion built around Pagan beliefs, so I'd say it has a solid foundation.
Could a general "other Pagan beliefs" or something end up on the poll? There's actually quite a broad range of them.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2015, 06:54:48 pm
Where's Nihilism?With respect, is that a religious belief?
I know this sounds hypocritical coming from an atheist and skeptical animist, but nihilism *seems* more like a world view than a faith. Though if you consider it a faith, I agree it deserves to be on the list.
EDIT: iam2roy states it better after me.
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 06:55:32 pm
Where's Nihilism?Personally I'd probably throw that into part of the none/atheism category since atheism is "the rejection of belief in deities" while nihilism is "the rejection of all religious and moral principles". It's simultaneously a sub and super category of atheism (since it rejects morals as well as religious stuff, but it's tied into the whole "life is worthless" thing while atheism is more general in it's reasonings).
Post by: Kassire on February 05, 2015, 06:57:52 pm
Eh, I voted for something else, and although it seems I chose atheism by accident, it should be fine. Though I wouldn't really be sure what to add mine if there was another option to be added. Pagan would be the most accurate thing anyways.I don't really fit much into the poll eitherAnother option I should add?
EDIT: And now it's agnostic? I assume your fucking with the votes.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2015, 06:58:28 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 05, 2015, 07:00:34 pm
Orange, you so fun
Post by: Teneb on February 05, 2015, 07:05:09 pm
I'll reset the voting once we've got the options sorted because apparently adding new options buggers it up.You'd probably be best of compiling a list and presenting it here for people to suggest more stuff. I guess SubGenius is missing, since someone professed being part of it.
Or just leave it as it is and reset the votes.
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2015, 07:20:01 pm
Post by: Levi on February 05, 2015, 07:21:43 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2015, 07:26:07 pm
... yeah, went with "something else". Apatheism could possibly be shoehorned under agnosticism or atheism (particularly the former), but it's distinct enough I don't personally consider it the same thing.
Quote from: Google
Apatheism is more an attitude than a belief or belief system. An Apatheist is a person who regards the question of the existence or non-existence of a god or gods to be essentially meaningless and irrelevant
Not that Google should dictate what is or is not a belief system, but I hadn't heard of Apatheism. And I'd be tempted, personally, to consider it a kind of agnosticism. But it's a position on religion, I suppose.
Mainly posting to clarify wtf the word means.
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 07:50:54 pm
Where's Nihilism?
That's a philosophy though, not a religion.
Post by: ggamer on February 05, 2015, 07:53:57 pm
impressive
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 07:54:20 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 07:55:31 pm
39 pages for me.+1
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 07:57:03 pm
Edit: No, 20 or 25 posts per page.
Post by: Kassire on February 05, 2015, 07:58:19 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on February 05, 2015, 07:59:53 pm
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 08:00:29 pm
Also tangenty tangent is tangent.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2015, 08:02:12 pm
I love this forum.
Post by: Arcvasti on February 05, 2015, 08:04:08 pm
... you guys seriously just derailed my thread into talking about posts per page?
It was inevitable.
Seriously though, it hapens in nearly every thread where someone remarks that "Wow, X thread is over X number of pages". Then everyone else chips in with how many pages it is for THEM.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2015, 08:05:39 pm
And yeah, what Arcvasti said.
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 08:06:08 pm
Still the only Buddhist.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 05, 2015, 08:06:16 pm
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 08:07:05 pm
Anyone who doesn't use 25ppp will burn forever.Can you find a holy passage to back that up?
Post by: Kassire on February 05, 2015, 08:08:38 pm
Anyone who doesn't use 25ppp will burn forever.Just cram as many posts in one page and that'll work for me
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 05, 2015, 08:13:28 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 05, 2015, 08:14:49 pm
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 08:17:09 pm
Oh, so now you're saying it only makes sense in the viewpoint of those who already follow it?Anyone who doesn't use 25ppp will burn forever.
Can you find a holy passage to back that up?
Yeah, but the page number only makes sense if you're on 25ppp.
Typical religion.
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 05, 2015, 08:28:42 pm
Anyone who doesn't use 25ppp will burn forever.
Can you find a holy passage to back that up?
Yeah, but the page number only makes sense if you're on 25ppp.
25ppp is evil and corrupt. 15ppp is the true way.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2015, 08:32:06 pm
I revoted.For what it's worth, when I sacrificed my Eagle Scout badge, I identified as Buddhist. The idea of spiritual self improvement through introspection spoke to me. In a way it still does.
Still the only Buddhist.
It didn't fly, but not because of the scout leader. He was/is a good person. He sat with me for perhaps an hour, trying to convince me to claim a Christian denomination. He explained that the council, from the Baptist church who hosted our scout troop, would deny me unless I at least pretended to be dedicated to a denomination of Christianity.
To this day I consider my Life Scout a badge of honor. It was a huge deal to me at the time, and I decided to do the honest thing.
I haven't investigated Buddhism in some time, but I still value honesty. I don't think I've ever regretted my decision... about 12 year ago.
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 09:04:10 pm
But that council, those guys are major douchebags to refuse people based on religion.
Major props to you for being honest. Not many people have the courage to do that.
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 09:16:21 pm
I'll reset the voting once we've got the options sorted because apparently adding new options buggers it up.You'd probably be best of compiling a list and presenting it here for people to suggest more stuff. I guess SubGenius is missing, since someone professed being part of it.
Or just leave it as it is and reset the votes.
It basically overlaps with Discordianism
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2015, 09:17:25 pm
Post by: Levi on February 05, 2015, 09:33:54 pm
What is Discordianism, anyway? I've never really heard much about it.
Code: [Select]
If you want in on the Discordian Society
then declare yourself what you wish
do what you like
and tell us about it
or
if you prefer
don't.Also, its really easy to be a pope.
Post by: ggamer on February 05, 2015, 10:09:00 pm
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 10:10:46 pm
Are we lumping in Mormonism with Christianity? man I love it when that happens.If you define "Christianity" as "Believing in the existence of Jesus Christ" then technically that's accurate.
Post by: ggamer on February 05, 2015, 10:13:48 pm
Are we lumping in Mormonism with Christianity? man I love it when that happens.If you define "Christianity" as "Believing in the existence of Jesus Christ" then technically that's accurate.
I've yet to run into someone who thinks in such broad terms concerning religion, but yes, technically that's true.
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 10:14:51 pm
Have you actually read the Book of Mormon? Even minor parts of it?I've yet to run into someone who thinks thatAre we lumping in Mormonism with Christianity? man I love it when that happens.If you define "Christianity" as "Believing in the existence of Jesus Christ" then technically that's accurate.
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 10:15:55 pm
Are we lumping in Mormonism with Christianity? man I love it when that happens.If you define "Christianity" as "Believing in the existence of Jesus Christ" then technically that's accurate.
Technically Christianity is believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Which the Mormons also do.
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 10:16:45 pm
Mormonism still technically falls into that.Technically Christianity is believing in the divinity of Jesus ChristAre we lumping in Mormonism with Christianity? man I love it when that happens.If you define "Christianity" as "Believing in the existence of Jesus Christ" then technically that's accurate.
Oh, you edited that in.
Post by: freeformschooler on February 05, 2015, 10:16:58 pm
Are we lumping in Mormonism with Christianity? man I love it when that happens.If you define "Christianity" as "Believing in the existence of Jesus Christ" then technically that's accurate.
Technically Christianity is believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
And if you suggest otherwise you will get bitch slapped by Santa himself.
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 10:18:00 pm
And if you suggest otherwise you will get bitch slapped by Santa himself.
The very Chris Kringle himself.
*Nods*
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 05, 2015, 10:18:15 pm
by Santa himself.
Best typo ever.
Edit: Ninja'd.
Post by: freeformschooler on February 05, 2015, 10:18:46 pm
by Santa himself.
Best typo ever.
Edit: Ninja'd.
It was not a typo.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_beh2jNHXEYM/TQiN-weeMPI/AAAAAAAAGio/THOP0K15hCM/s1600/nicholas-punches-arius.jpg)
Post by: ggamer on February 05, 2015, 10:21:58 pm
Have you actually read the Book of Mormon? Even minor parts of it?I went to a Mormon baptism, once. It was a lot like the scene in the third Indiana Jones movie where Indy finds the death cult that sacrifices people in lava and shit, except my idiot friend was getting baptized there (she had pretty much been lied to by the mormon missionaries at her school, but even so she had no intention of joining the church. Yet she got baptized. T_T)
It was definitely interesting, in a morbid kind of way. Reminds me a lot of the prosperity gospel, except someone got sick of trying to shoe-horn it into christianity and just out and made a whole new religion for it.
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2015, 10:28:25 pm
Have you actually read the Book of Mormon? Even minor parts of it?I went to a Mormon baptism, once. It was a lot like the scene in the third Indiana Jones movie where Indy finds the death cult that sacrifices people in lava and shit
So is any denomination that makes a big deal about the eucharist. Also that was the second Indiana Jones movie, not the third.
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 10:28:35 pm
Hell, half the reason I left their church was how ritualistic (and artificial, by extension) a lot of it was, despite them claiming to not be ritualistic. So I do get where you're coming from on that aspect.
Have you seen the ordination of a priest, out of curiosity?
Post by: ggamer on February 05, 2015, 10:35:54 pm
I'll grant that the baptisms are pretty unsettling (and I can say from personal experience that being the one that's baptized is no less unsettling) but that doesn't make them any less of a Christian group.
Perhaps. But I'm pretty damn certain treating the Book of Mormon as de-facto scripture is right out.
Quote
Have you seen the ordination of a priest, out of curiosity?
No, but i'm not so stupid as to be ignorant of what goes on. I know Catholic/Methodist baptisms are super creepy and cultish. IIRC in my church (and by extension most SBC churches), the Pastors are decided on by the Deacons, who take him through a (still a bit cultish) ceremony and ordain him.
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 10:43:54 pm
Perhaps. But I'm pretty damn certain treating the Book of Mormon as de-facto scripture is right out.I won't argue that.
No, but i'm not so stupid as to be ignorant of what goes on. I know Catholic/Methodist baptisms are super creepy and cultish. IIRC in my church (and by extension most SBC churches), the Pastors are decided on by the Deacons, who take him through a (still a bit cultish) ceremony and ordain him.The ceremony is very cultish, if it's anything like what it was like for my ordination.
Basically, after they decide that you qualify to be a priest (Which, for Mormons, is basically any male of an appropriate age. Every guy is a priest in LDS churches, pretty much.) they find 3 or 4 priests to all lay their hands on your head (while you're seated in a chair) and to say a very specific scripture from the Book of Mormon. Followed by the main guy saying a few prayers that aren't scripted so as to feel less robotic.
Then they give you a certificate of ordination, after they get that made, and that's pretty much it.
And all of this is cataloged in their vast databanks of information. So the exact person who ordained my priesthood is on their files, and the guy who ordained him is on file, and the guy who ordained him, and so on and so forth, supposedly all the way back to Joseph Smith, who was supposedly ordained by Jesus himself, or at least his hologram. (You have to look up the story of Joseph Smith for that little tidbit.)
Post by: ggamer on February 05, 2015, 10:50:17 pm
who was supposedly ordained by Jesus himself, or at least his hologram. (You have to look up the story of Joseph Smith for that little tidbit.)
omg when they got to that part in the little movie they showed us at that baptism I really couldn't decide whether to punch someone or burst out laughing because the situation came so far out of left field.
Highlight had to be when Jojo was walking out of all the churches, with the narrator saying something along the lines of "and Joseph could not find himself satisfied by what the churches were preaching" and then right before he closes the door the pastor says "You absolutely have to look in the bible for these religious answers" and jojo just closes the door like "fuck it i'll just make up my own answers."
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2015, 10:53:33 pm
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 10:54:06 pm
I can move Mormonism below the "other Christian sect" option if people are getting antsy about it, but then I'd need to reset the votes again.I don't think you need to go that far.
Post by: King Kravoka on February 05, 2015, 10:55:24 pm
Well at least the priest wasn't feeding him bullcrap to bend him towards his political biases.who was supposedly ordained by Jesus himself, or at least his hologram. (You have to look up the story of Joseph Smith for that little tidbit.)
omg when they got to that part in the little movie they showed us at that baptism I really couldn't decide whether to punch someone or burst out laughing because the situation came so far out of left field.
Highlight had to be when Jojo was walking out of all the churches, with the narrator saying something along the lines of "and Joseph could not find himself satisfied by what the churches were preaching" and then right before he closes the door the pastor says "You absolutely have to look in the bible for these religious answers" and jojo just closes the door like "fuck it i'll just make up my own answers."
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2015, 10:56:59 pm
Perhaps. But I'm pretty damn certain treating the Book of Mormon as de-facto scripture is right out.Um, no? Or at least that'd be a rather odd line to draw -- christian sects have been splitting off due to believing this text or that text is canonical or not since ever, and one would still call 'em christian sects. Differences over believing various texts are holy has been a pretty bog standard christian thing more or less since the beginning, straight up including various ones doing their own little 'let's canonize our fanfiction' thing.
Hell, that's pretty much a standard feature of all the major religions. Only real difference with mormonism is it's recent, and that's really kind of a terrible objection to the practice, imo.
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 10:57:52 pm
That is a good point. He was trying to honestly help, rather than just "Believe what I tell you to believe!"Well at least the priest wasn't feeding him bullcrap to bend him towards his political biases.who was supposedly ordained by Jesus himself, or at least his hologram. (You have to look up the story of Joseph Smith for that little tidbit.)
omg when they got to that part in the little movie they showed us at that baptism I really couldn't decide whether to punch someone or burst out laughing because the situation came so far out of left field.
Highlight had to be when Jojo was walking out of all the churches, with the narrator saying something along the lines of "and Joseph could not find himself satisfied by what the churches were preaching" and then right before he closes the door the pastor says "You absolutely have to look in the bible for these religious answers" and jojo just closes the door like "fuck it i'll just make up my own answers."
Wonder what the look on his face was, when Smith came back, proclaimed to have met Jesus.
Post by: Arcvasti on February 05, 2015, 11:01:51 pm
by Santa himself.
Best typo ever.
Edit: Ninja'd.
It was not a typo.
Spoiler: Relevent (click to show/hide)
Post by: ggamer on February 05, 2015, 11:37:02 pm
Um, no? Or at least that'd be a rather odd line to draw -- christian sects have been splitting off due to believing this text or that text is canonical or not since ever, and one would still call 'em christian sects. Differences over believing various texts are holy has been a pretty bog standard christian thing more or less since the beginning, straight up including various ones doing their own little 'let's canonize our fanfiction' thing.I'm not aware of any sects off the top of my head (aside from mormonism), i'm guessing these come from the early church era?
Quote
Only real difference with mormonism is it's recent, and that's really kind of a terrible objection to the practice, imo.I don't really understand the point here. If any sect were to take a scripture aside from the bible (and honor it the same as the bible), then they aren't christians, how recent they are doesn't play into it.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 11:43:58 pm
Is that making fun of the awesome line from 'they live'?by Santa himself.
Best typo ever.
Edit: Ninja'd.
It was not a typo.Spoiler: Relevent (click to show/hide)
Post by: smjjames on February 05, 2015, 11:44:46 pm
Um, no? Or at least that'd be a rather odd line to draw -- christian sects have been splitting off due to believing this text or that text is canonical or not since ever, and one would still call 'em christian sects. Differences over believing various texts are holy has been a pretty bog standard christian thing more or less since the beginning, straight up including various ones doing their own little 'let's canonize our fanfiction' thing.I'm not aware of any sects off the top of my head (aside from mormonism), i'm guessing these come from the early church era?
A lot of them were from the early church era (like gnostics), but theres some modern ones. Though you would know them as denominations rather than sects, that is, the protestant branches, and possibly the Orthodox group.
The only real difference between a sect and a denomination (or variant offshoot) is that from the church's perspecive, one is heretical and one isn't.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 05, 2015, 11:47:53 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on February 05, 2015, 11:49:19 pm
QuoteOnly real difference with mormonism is it's recent, and that's really kind of a terrible objection to the practice, imo.I don't really understand the point here. If any sect were to take a scripture aside from the bible (and honor it the same as the bible), then they aren't christians, how recent they are doesn't play into it.
Christianity is defined as believing what is stated in the Nicene Creed. The early church decided the criteria for it at their summit in Nicea. That was what led to the heretic punching I mentioned in my previous post. St. Nicholas, who later mutated into Santa, slugged one of the council members because he'd put forward the idea that the Old Testament God was a separate and lesser entity then the one in the New Testament[Which is not an entirely unreasonable perspective TBH]. I don't know enough about Mormonism to judge whether or not their beliefs align with the Nicene Creed or not, but adding or subtracting books from the Bible doesn't make them automatically non-Christian. Maccabees is not present in many Protestent Bibles and Revelation was pretty controversial for a while and yet I don't see very many people saying that THEY aren't Christians.
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2015, 11:51:50 pm
I'm not aware of any sects off the top of my head (aside from mormonism), i'm guessing these come from the early church era?Nnoooo...? Roman Catholic. Baptist. Methodist. Eastern Orthodox. Etc., so forth so on. These are all christian sects. Denomination is more or less a synonym for the word.
@smj, I wouldn't say there's any functional difference at all, personally. I'll give that the sects themselves do prefer to avoid the word due to how they've used it to defame other groups, but...
Quote
I don't really understand the point here. If any sect were to take a scripture aside from the bible (and honor it the same as the bible), then they aren't christians, how recent they are doesn't play into it.... well, congratulations, you've just labeled both protestantism and catholicism "aren't christian". Actually, I think you just managed to paint the whole religion as not the religion -- pretty much every christian sect takes texts outside the bible (which, itself, is just what the original catholic church(es) decided it was) as equally or near-equally important. And even then you've got ones that argue the canonicity of things like Revelations, and all the other doctrinal and so forth conflicts. Christian belief pulls whole hosts of junk from extra-biblical sources, pretty much unilaterally across the various groups.
Post by: mastahcheese on February 05, 2015, 11:55:42 pm
I'd even continue it (and simultaneously reroute it back into Mormonism) by pointing out that from their point of view, the Book of Mormon isn't even distinguished from the Bible, as they view it as a continuation of the Bible.
Where the Old Testament is Book 1, New Testament is Book 2, and Book of Mormon is Book 3.
It's a trilogy.
So they definition of what the Bible even is is still up from debate.
Post by: freeformschooler on February 05, 2015, 11:59:09 pm
QuoteI don't really understand the point here. If any sect were to take a scripture aside from the bible (and honor it the same as the bible), then they aren't christians, how recent they are doesn't play into it.... well, congratulations, you've just labeled both protestantism and catholicism "aren't christian". Actually, I think you just managed to paint the whole religion as not the religion -- pretty much every christian sect takes texts outside the bible (which, itself, is just what the original catholic church(es) decided it was) as equally or near-equally important. And even then you've got ones that argue the canonicity of things like Revelations, and all the other doctrinal and so forth conflicts. Christian belief pulls whole hosts of junk from extra-biblical sources, pretty much unilaterally across the various groups.
As well they should. It seems awfully self-destructive to hold the pretense that your religion is so completely maladaptive that it cannot even incorporate new events past the first book. Despite all its other quibbles, this is one thing Catholicism got right: not only do they have extra books of the Bible, they also document their history, both the good and the bad, across multiple cultures and countries. Going in the other direction means freezing Christianity in place (hence all this "all you need is the Bible" doctrine that Protestant fundamentalists have taken up).
Of course there will always be quibbles on what books are canon and what are not. The Gospel of Thomas being a notable example.
Post by: smjjames on February 06, 2015, 12:00:00 am
Heretical?
From the Church's perspective.
Post by: ggamer on February 06, 2015, 12:08:14 am
Okay, what I meant was a denomination/sect that had differences in religious text, but we're a bit past that now I guessI'm not aware of any sects off the top of my head (aside from mormonism), i'm guessing these come from the early church era?Nnoooo...? Roman Catholic. Baptist. Methodist. Eastern Orthodox. Etc., so forth so on. These are all christian sects. Denomination is more or less a synonym for the word.
Quote
QuoteI don't really understand the point here. If any sect were to take a scripture aside from the bible (and honor it the same as the bible), then they aren't christians, how recent they are doesn't play into it.... well, congratulations, you've just labeled both protestantism and catholicism "aren't christian". Actually, I think you just managed to paint the whole religion as not the religion -- pretty much every christian sect takes texts outside the bible (which, itself, is just what the original catholic church(es) decided it was) as equally or near-equally important. And even then you've got ones that argue the canonicity of things like Revelations, and all the other doctrinal and so forth conflicts. Christian belief pulls whole hosts of junk from extra-biblical sources, pretty much unilaterally across the various groups.
Am I missing something here? Because i'm super confused by this and it's pretty embarrassing that I am. Well, I might as well start with what I know and see where I end up.
Like, I get what you're saying about the canonicity of certain books (i.e. Revelations). However, most of the differences between Christian denominations come from differing interpretations of what the bible says, not from arguments over what is and is not part of the bible (at least after the era of the early catholic churches).
Quote
Christian belief pulls whole hosts of junk from extra-biblical sources, pretty much unilaterally across the various groups.Okay seriously colour me confused because I have no idea what you're talking about. Either i'm ignorant (a very real possibility, mind you), or you're mixing up the idea of pulling interpretations of the bible from extra-biblical sources with holding texts on the same level as the bible.
As well they should. It seems awfully self-destructive to hold the pretense that your religion is so completely maladaptive that it cannot even incorporate new events past the first book. Despite all its other quibbles, this is one thing Catholicism got right: not only do they have extra books of the Bible, they also document their history, both the good and the bad, across multiple cultures and countries. Going in the other direction means freezing Christianity in place (hence all this "all you need is the Bible" doctrine that Protestant fundamentalists have taken up).
okay now I know I fucked up somewhere. This would be the first time i've heard anything about Catholicism accepting other books outside the bible as canonical.
EDIT: I edited out my response to the last part because i don't really know what i'm talking about.
Post by: Bohandas on February 06, 2015, 01:11:32 am
I'm not aware of any sects off the top of my head (aside from mormonism), i'm guessing these come from the early church era?Nnoooo...? Roman Catholic. Baptist. Methodist. Eastern Orthodox. Etc.
Don't forget Rastafarianism, the belief that the Ethopian king Tafari Makonnen was the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 02:10:10 am
I second this bill.I'm not aware of any sects off the top of my head (aside from mormonism), i'm guessing these come from the early church era?Nnoooo...? Roman Catholic. Baptist. Methodist. Eastern Orthodox. Etc.
Don't forget Rastafarianism, the belief that the Ethopian king Tafari Makonnen was the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Also out of curiosity, who chose mushroom, cause it wasnt me. I havnt picked yet.
Its like being in an icecream shop with hundreds of types of vanilla.
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 02:21:50 am
It's like a religion salad, but blended.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 06, 2015, 02:30:49 am
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 02:47:00 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 06, 2015, 03:14:18 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 03:22:07 am
Yum, I love vanilla.
If its proper vanilla pod, ohhhh yes, now thats a being worth your faith
Post by: Bohandas on February 06, 2015, 03:28:09 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 03:32:51 am
Post by: Bohandas on February 06, 2015, 03:38:45 am
EDIT:
Or I could just mix up
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 04:13:39 am
What if we used corn syrup for the dressing?:)
EDIT:
Or I could just mix upa cup of coffeesome Kahlua, a scoop of vanilla icecream and some chocolate syrup in the blender. Bam! Blended three bean salad (of a sort) that tastes of vanilla. The point is that vanilla is made of beans and many types of beans are used in salads.
I got the point man, im a chef.
And what you just said sounds good.
Hey what a slight derail.
Now im thinking of crispy base pizza with tomatoes basil and a little cheese sauce, oh armok how dare you tease me witj these visions, they scar the inside of my skull
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 06, 2015, 04:16:35 am
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 04:32:10 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 04:44:11 am
I do it all the time (I dont belive im psychic)
I just think its a memory/life repetition event.
But its usualy really accurate and of things I havent done before. Like meeting this 'person' or going to places Ive never visited.
Im not looking for an answer why it happens.
Just want to know if you (the reader) has similar experiences.
love That Wolf
Post by: Descan on February 06, 2015, 08:33:06 am
At any rate? I experience it.
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 08:43:25 am
Its a dream and then you experience it for real.
Ive had deja vu and its not what it is.
Have you, any of you exp'd this?
Post by: Descan on February 06, 2015, 09:01:07 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 09:12:47 am
Post by: Descan on February 06, 2015, 10:08:37 am
Post by: mastahcheese on February 06, 2015, 10:14:27 am
And it was a whole day, from the time I woke up, to the time I went to bed.
I even told people what was about to happen, full hours before they happened, and they still happened.
Found out you can't really change things, though. You can delay them, but not fully stop something.
Post by: freeformschooler on February 06, 2015, 10:17:43 am
As well they should. It seems awfully self-destructive to hold the pretense that your religion is so completely maladaptive that it cannot even incorporate new events past the first book. Despite all its other quibbles, this is one thing Catholicism got right: not only do they have extra books of the Bible, they also document their history, both the good and the bad, across multiple cultures and countries. Going in the other direction means freezing Christianity in place (hence all this "all you need is the Bible" doctrine that Protestant fundamentalists have taken up).
okay now I know I fucked up somewhere. This would be the first time i've heard anything about Catholicism accepting other books outside the bible as canonical.
Don't worry ggamer, I had the same reaction when I learned that. Here's a link for your information.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PCBIB.HTM
Basically, we can blame Luther for this.
Post by: Teneb on February 06, 2015, 10:43:17 am
What is Discordianism, anyway? I've never really heard much about it.Bit late to it (damn this thread is a fast mover), but it really depends on who you ask. It can either be the worship of Eris/Discordia/Whatever you want to call her, a philosophy, or something else entirely. Things that tend to be somewhat common in all definitions is there not being a single truth to something, no single correct view of a situation, searching for answers yourself, rather than having them handed to you and trying to have fun regardless of circumstance. A discordian group is often called a Cabal, but the structure varies wildly, as does pretty much everything else. Hope that clarifies a bit.
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 11:12:00 am
(pretending derail didn't happen for a sec)Pretending wont make it go away even for a second. but I agree most this thread is pretend.
So what about split brains? You know for epilepsy. what about the signifigance of consiousness! Its not just a religious thread, it has spirituality in it.
Dreams extend from consiousness. You could not ponder on angles and fairys without it. And the very concept of understanding thoughts is spirituality.
So I raise the question. What of split brains, what if one side is 'evil' and the other 'good'
Post by: scrdest on February 06, 2015, 11:36:12 am
(pretending derail didn't happen for a sec)Pretending wont make it go away even for a second. but I agree most this thread is pretend.
So what about split brains? You know for epilepsy. what about the signifigance of consiousness! Its not just a religious thread, it has spirituality in it.
Dreams extend from consiousness. You could not ponder on angles and fairys without it. And the very concept of understanding thoughts is spirituality.
So I raise the question. What of split brains, what if one side is 'evil' and the other 'good'
I legitimately have no idea what you are trying to say here. Just... what?
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 06, 2015, 11:52:25 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 06, 2015, 12:02:49 pm
we all know all eating utensils are evil except chop sticks.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 06, 2015, 12:05:12 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 12:32:01 pm
Oh and for your question the answer is the severing of the callosum
Post by: scrdest on February 06, 2015, 01:16:42 pm
Rise of the planet of sporks
Oh and for your question the answer is the severing of the callosum
That much I guessed. It's everything else that is not coherent.
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 01:31:57 pm
Rise of the planet of sporks
Oh and for your question the answer is the severing of the callosum
That much I guessed. It's everything else that is not coherent.
Well what happened was, i lost my mind. Came here like a cat trying to hide so I rolled up in a warm spot then licked my manky fur and went to 'sleep' it was only when you noticed the smell was I dead.
Im very incoherent.
I really should learn english
Post by: Bohandas on February 06, 2015, 01:34:53 pm
What is Discordianism, anyway? I've never really heard much about it.Bit late to it (damn this thread is a fast mover), but it really depends on who you ask. It can either be the worship of Eris/Discordia/Whatever you want to call her, a philosophy, or something else entirely. Things that tend to be somewhat common in all definitions is there not being a single truth to something, no single correct view of a situation, searching for answers yourself, rather than having them handed to you and trying to have fun regardless of circumstance. A discordian group is often called a Cabal, but the structure varies wildly, as does pretty much everything else. Hope that clarifies a bit.
It's based on the Principia Discordia. A book written in the mid 20th century by hippies/beatniks.
Here's some of the many free online versions of te book:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/1.php
http://www.junkpile.demon.co.uk/prin1.htm
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Principia_Discordia
http://hyperdiscordia.crywalt.com/principia.html
Post by: chaoticag on February 06, 2015, 01:51:52 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 06, 2015, 05:34:18 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 06, 2015, 05:50:54 pm
Post by: chaoticag on February 06, 2015, 06:17:09 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 06, 2015, 06:44:17 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 06, 2015, 06:44:55 pm
Post by: chaoticag on February 06, 2015, 07:51:56 pm
Is there any religious significance behind Muslim clothing, or even Muslim beards?Modesty for the clothing, but there's a few hadith that talk about how important it is to more or less fit gender expectations. So men can't wear silk or gold as it's a feminizing influence. Beards more or less is being more masculine. I think things change with fashion too. My grandmother isn't a fan of me having a beard for example. Still more people consider going full beard as excessive around here.
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 09:57:49 pm
Everyone gets in line and gets judged in the order they show up for judgement I think.
I really hope those doing the judging can do it REALLY fast or there's a LOT of judging stations. By my calculations, if the entire population of the planet (rounded down to 7 billion) is judged at a rate of one person per second, it would take 222 years.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 06, 2015, 09:59:28 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 06, 2015, 10:03:22 pm
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 10:06:39 pm
When you've got eternity, a couple of centuries is wholly insignificant.
It isn't to the humans who have not yet even lived 30 years. In hindsight it will be meaningless, but those judged last will likely be driven to insanity by the boredom and constant wait, especially if they can't do anything else but stand in line.
Also, comparing anything to eternity is... Odd. It's actually where the nihilistic parts of my belief come from.
Post by: Bohandas on February 06, 2015, 10:09:07 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 06, 2015, 10:11:50 pm
That and I'm pretty sure you can't get saved/gain faith on eh pure dead, or at least can't keep yourself from going to hell if you are going there before you died.
Though I have no idea because I didn't die.
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 10:34:03 pm
And those judged last will have the unfair advantage of having been around while god was visibly doing something and therefore automatically having faith as a direct result.
If by 'last' you mean '500th and onward', possibly.
Also, there's a difference between knowing something to be real and having 'faith' in it.
If I saw God, I would believe in It, but I wouldn't have 'faith'. My first thought would be that It was misrepresented in whatever texts there were about it. If it was represented correctly, then I would be absolutely terrified of It.
Post by: Frumple on February 06, 2015, 10:46:05 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 06, 2015, 10:51:42 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 06, 2015, 10:53:12 pm
And those judged last will have the unfair advantage of having been around while god was visibly doing something and therefore automatically having faith as a direct result.
If by 'last' you mean '500th and onward', possibly.
Also, there's a difference between knowing something to be real and having 'faith' in it.
If I saw God, I would believe in It, but I wouldn't have 'faith'. My first thought would be that It was misrepresented in whatever texts there were about it. If it was represented correctly, then I would be absolutely terrified of It.
You can't know something to be real and not believe it to be real. If you don't believe its real than you're not sure and therefore you just think it may be real, not know it's real.
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 10:57:35 pm
And those judged last will have the unfair advantage of having been around while god was visibly doing something and therefore automatically having faith as a direct result.
If by 'last' you mean '500th and onward', possibly.
Also, there's a difference between knowing something to be real and having 'faith' in it.
If I saw God, I would believe in It, but I wouldn't have 'faith'. My first thought would be that It was misrepresented in whatever texts there were about it. If it was represented correctly, then I would be absolutely terrified of It.
You can't know something to be real and not believe it to be real. If you don't believe its real than you're not sure and therefore you just think it may be real, not know it's real.
You... You have completely misunderstood what I was saying. There's a difference between faith and belief, especially in a religious context, please understand that.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 06, 2015, 11:01:40 pm
No reason God couldn't handle all those conversations at once... He supposedly listens to probably thousands of prayers at any given moment.
Also, there's a difference between knowing something to be real and having 'faith' in it.Quoted for truth. The Christian God is literally scarier than Cthulhu.
If I saw God, I would believe in It, but I wouldn't have 'faith'. My first thought would be that It was misrepresented in whatever texts there were about it. If it was represented correctly, then I would be absolutely terrified of It.
Post by: Descan on February 06, 2015, 11:10:09 pm
Post by: Peradon on February 06, 2015, 11:16:10 pm
But, heck, what do I know? Its not like the Bible is explicit about it....
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 06, 2015, 11:18:06 pm
Post by: Peradon on February 06, 2015, 11:19:07 pm
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 11:21:06 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 06, 2015, 11:23:02 pm
I believe we were talking about Islamic stuff? Though I think I remember hearing that there were a lot of similarities between the Islamic faith and the Christian one.Well considering that Islam is just another add on to the Abrahamic religious stuff there rightfully are a lot of similarities
Post by: Sergarr on February 06, 2015, 11:26:22 pm
There's no reason God, being omnipotent, couldn't just judge everyone in a separate room at the same time. I'm picturing each person suddenly finding themself in a comfortable office, with a pristine bookcase and a giant mahogany desk. Behind the desk is a expensive, burning, chair. God passes judgement through the chair (hopefully explaining some of the mysteries of life and religion) before teleporting the deceased to their final destination.If we go for a literal description, you can't really see God, because he's a Word :P
No reason God couldn't handle all those conversations at once... He supposedly listens to probably thousands of prayers at any given moment.Also, there's a difference between knowing something to be real and having 'faith' in it.Quoted for truth. The Christian God is literally scarier than Cthulhu.
If I saw God, I would believe in It, but I wouldn't have 'faith'. My first thought would be that It was misrepresented in whatever texts there were about it. If it was represented correctly, then I would be absolutely terrified of It.
Are you terrified of words?
Post by: Peradon on February 06, 2015, 11:26:36 pm
I believe we were talking about Islamic stuff? Though I think I remember hearing that there were a lot of similarities between the Islamic faith and the Christian one.Hahahaha!
No.
The beliefs that make up Christianity(Namely the Divinity of Jesus, the Trinitarian model, the physical ressurection of Jesus) just arent there in Islam. So, yeah...
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 11:27:32 pm
My lord, everyone seems to be misinterpreting my words today.
Post by: Peradon on February 06, 2015, 11:28:20 pm
I said that there were a lot of similarities, not that there weren't a lot of differences.Sorry, I just dont see that many similarities, thats all.
My lord, everyone seems to be misinterpreting my words today.
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 11:37:11 pm
Does this body suddenly have two souls? And both are judged differently or are they judged as a whole?
Post by: Peradon on February 06, 2015, 11:53:13 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 06, 2015, 11:53:25 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 06, 2015, 11:56:11 pm
Can a person even survive having the corpus callosum severed?
Yeah suprisingly well too.
Its only used in extreme cases of epilepsy.
The
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 06, 2015, 11:56:58 pm
Can a person even survive having the corpus callosum severed?
It's an effective epilepsy treatment. Apparently there are almost no side effects (although the ones that are there are kind of... odd) and it stops almost all epilepsy effects.
Edit: Specifically, there's almost no change in personality iirc.
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 11:59:06 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 07, 2015, 12:02:20 am
I'd say it's still one person and therefore has one soul. Although I can see the grounds on which one could make a reference to a certain David Cage game.
There's no way of knowing, really. Religious texts that I know of don't actually mention the topic.
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 07, 2015, 12:03:14 am
PPE: You could consider some parts of it as mental damage/impairment, and there are religions that cover that.
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 12:08:35 am
I don't think you know how psychology works.Can a person even survive having the corpus callosum severed?
Yeah suprisingly well too.
Its only used in extreme cases of epilepsy.
Thetest subjectspatients say the feel well. But that could be the left side bullshiting you because its evil
No I dont and neither do you.
Its speculation.
:)
Post by: Frumple on February 07, 2015, 12:10:10 am
Sorry, I just dont see that many similarities, thats all.... largely identical moral codes and strongly similar metaphysical claims (which isn't exactly surprising, considering they both claim to worship the same thing), which is to say more or less all of it worth mention. There's differences, but they're both monotheistic abrahamic religions that have filled more or less the same social roles, with most of what that entails. To a fair extent they're more alike than not, really...
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 12:21:11 am
That was called a terrible joke.
Im sorry you got offended by my lack of humour.
I still stand by the fact that psychology isnt a accurate science however.
If it was I would be sane
Post by: Peradon on February 07, 2015, 12:22:17 am
... largely identical moral codes and strongly similar metaphysical claims (which isn't exactly surprising, considering they both claim to worship the same thing), which is to say more or less all of it worth mention. There's differences, but they're both monotheistic abrahamic religions that have filled more or less the same social roles, with most of what that entails. To a fair extent they're more alike than not, really...If you have actually studied the Origin of Islam and the Koran, you would know that the moral codes are vastly different. Plus, its different where it actually matters, namely in salvation matters, the nature of God, stuff like that.
Post by: Arcvasti on February 07, 2015, 12:27:43 am
EDIT: ^In case you haven't noticed, please take anything I said about psychology with a standard civilian issue salt shaker. I am far from an expert on the subject. Also, people post really fast. Its almost like they've all been trained in ninjistu while my back was turned.
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 12:32:45 am
From what I remember, most data we have on people with a severed corpus callosum comes from maybe a handful of instances, far too few to extrapolate any reliable information from. I'm also going to point out that this thing sparked the whole "right/left brained" bullshit that's been passed around by the ignorant for most of my lifespan
More than a few cases, Arc, and the symptoms were consistent regardless.
The right/left brained thing is true insofar as different hemispheres are responsible for different functions. The left hemisphere is heavily in control of speech, for example, and most speech impediments come from damaged left hemispheres.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 07, 2015, 12:33:32 am
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 12:35:31 am
Are we sure arc wasn't talking. About the left right sides being good/evil?
That seems most implausible.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 07, 2015, 12:37:09 am
Him talking about it or it in general?
Post by: Arcvasti on February 07, 2015, 12:37:33 am
From what I remember, most data we have on people with a severed corpus callosum comes from maybe a handful of instances, far too few to extrapolate any reliable information from. I'm also going to point out that this thing sparked the whole "right/left brained" bullshit that's been passed around by the ignorant for most of my lifespan
More than a few cases, Arc, and the symptoms were consistent regardless.
The right/left brained thing is true insofar as different hemispheres are responsible for different functions. The left hemisphere is heavily in control of speech, for example, and most speech impediments come from damaged left hemispheres.
Huh, I stand corrected. I guess there is a grain/seed/large pit of truth to it after all. Part of me[Top part, probably.] shelved it in with the "You only use X% of your brain!" stuff. I guess this shows autodismissing stuff just because people I consider ignorant/uninformed always spout it at me isn't the best policy.
/me upends a barrel of salt over his post
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 12:42:59 am
the Gita says that.
Do I keep slightly derailing?
I mean I try to bring new concepts in with religious/spiritual angles
Edit: I wrote it wrong.
I mean killing a person on drugs. You are sober
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 07, 2015, 12:45:16 am
I guess you would be double sinning in that case :P
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 12:47:16 am
Post by: Peradon on February 07, 2015, 12:59:58 am
Does anyones religion specificly say that you shouldnt kill somebody else that is under the influence of drugs??No, but I'm pretty sure that "Do not murder" includes this....
the Gita says that.
Do I keep slightly derailing?
I mean I try to bring new concepts in with religious/spiritual angles
Edit: I wrote it wrong.
I mean killing a person on drugs. You are sober
Post by: Frumple on February 07, 2015, 01:09:19 am
Christianity's not actually all that disinclined towards killing, though it's long tried to spin the PR to say otherwise.
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 01:10:35 am
Post by: Peradon on February 07, 2015, 01:13:15 am
Only potentially. If the legal response to drug use was execution, "no murder" would mean more or less jack -- murder's referring to something fairly specific in that line. Probably a handful of other situations it'd bypass that particular stricture, too.No, but its all punishment and Old Testament. When Jesus came, he took that death penalty on himself, so that we dont have to die.
Christianity's not actually all that disinclined towards killing, though it's long tried to spin the PR to say otherwise.
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 01:16:18 am
What sort of 'death' did Jesus save us from? (Being removed from existence?) Since I know for a fact people still die.
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 01:30:47 am
So killing in selfdefence or in war is fine.
I asked a christian family once (had been kicked out of EVERY church they went to) if i meet a demon or lucifer and somejow killed them of it was an evil act. They said it was because murder is wrong, I laughed and hid the wooden stake
Post by: Arx on February 07, 2015, 01:39:53 am
Christianity's not actually all that disinclined towards killing, though it's long tried to spin the PR to say otherwise.
Judaism isn't that opposed to killing. From a Christian perspective, it's pretty close to unjustifiable.
Post by: i2amroy on February 07, 2015, 01:44:42 am
Judaism isn't that opposed to killing. From a Christian perspective, it's pretty close to unjustifiable.As has been pointed out before in this thread (or maybe it was the last one), when you go back to the original bible the definition of the word "kill" in the commandments is kinda different. The word they use differentiates between killing in war or killing when commanded by God from other types of killing like murder. It's one of the reasons why there isn't any real outcry in the bible when God commands the slaughter of vast numbers of people because they believed in a different god or something similar, because it doesn't violate the original translation of the "you shall not kill" commandment.
Post by: Arx on February 07, 2015, 01:49:46 am
In Christianity, you would be one or more of: failing to turn the other cheek, failing to love your neighbour, or failing to love your enemy. All of which are instructions from Jesus, and fairly solidly unambiguous.
Post by: Peradon on February 07, 2015, 01:57:56 am
But yeah, the Old Testament is packed full of killing like that. But you have to take into concideration that its God that telling them to kill these guys. He knew every little tiny detail about them, and he knew they were rotten to the core. If you look at times when Israel failed to kill who God told them to, it ALWAYS ends badly. The person they spared usualy gives birth to a mass murderer(Im thinking specifically of Mordicai). So, God knew what he was doing.
Beyond that, the killing in the Old Testament doesnt happen in the New. The reason is that Jesus fulfilled the old law, making punishment not as bad...
At least thats how I understand it.
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 01:59:31 am
Post by: Peradon on February 07, 2015, 02:06:20 am
Going back to the 'God is Perfect and Never Wrong No Matter What' argument. Bleehhh. (Not you, Peradon, just the bible in general.)No, its Ok, I understand where your coming from. The thing is, I didnt become a Christian because of arguments like these. I became a Christian because I experianced His peace.
I was trying to figure out all this Christian stuff, when all of the sudden, out of the blue, a sudden calmness came on me. Kind of like if you couldnt think of anything except God and his Glory. Its really hard to explain, but it did actually happen.
So when I make arguments like that, I'm coming from an already proven perspective. In my mind, there is nothing questionable about the Bible. It is the Truth. In the end, no one can become a Christian without the Holy Spirit calling him, so I really cant blame you for not understanding, I can only hope you will understand someday.
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 02:08:34 am
Post by: Peradon on February 07, 2015, 02:10:33 am
Eh, maybe, but that 'someday' will likely only be after I die and really get to see (or not see, if death is simply eternal oblivions) the truth. Hell, that's the reason I'm stoked to die.Unfortunately, if you die without knowing Him, you may not be as stoked as you are now.....
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 07, 2015, 02:11:36 am
you cant just separate Judaism from Christianity like that.No, Arx is correct here. The God is the same, just different requirements from his followers.
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 02:13:21 am
Eh, maybe, but that 'someday' will likely only be after I die and really get to see (or not see, if death is simply eternal oblivions) the truth. Hell, that's the reason I'm stoked to die.Unfortunately, if you die without knowing Him, you may not be as stoked as you are now.....
If God condemns me based on that (something that I have absolutely no control over. I can't just choose to 'know' It. That would be hollow, and It would see through the fake belief regardless) then It isn't Perfect, simply enough. My options in that regard are either fake belief or staying true to myself, and I'm sure It would know that (if it really, somehow actually was perfect.)
Post by: Rolan7 on February 07, 2015, 02:17:58 am
And the general Christian viewpoint on sin is that it has to be: A: Made with full knowledge of the consequences and B: Made with full control of your faculties. Someone who kills someone while drunk is guilty of a lesser sin then one who performs the same act in cold blood.
Someone else suggested something similar, that Christianity takes intent into account while mortal courts don't. Which seems completely backward to me: Mortal courts totally take intent into account when sentencing, while Biblical laws are just "Anyone who does this is a sinner". Intent doesn't matter at all. Remorse might be necessary afterward, but technically all that matters is *knowing about Jesus*. Not knowing the consequences of sin is no defense, it's the opposite - it practically guarantees punishment.
Additionally, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is explicitly *unforgivable*, according to Jesus himself. It's the *only* unforgivable sin mentioned. And it's a thing which nonbelievers are most likely to do, due to their ignorance.
And I've never heard that Christians aren't as responsible for their sins while drunk (of their own volition). That would be seriously unjust if true. There's a difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter, but intoxicating oneself shouldn't be a defense...
Ignoring the obvious point that Christian nations have almost universally been violent... Often against the Jews... Jesus doesn't really try to stop people from killing.Christianity's not actually all that disinclined towards killing, though it's long tried to spin the PR to say otherwise.
Judaism isn't that opposed to killing. From a Christian perspective, it's pretty close to unjustifiable.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
And Matthew 5:
Quote
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.He supports the violent prophecies and teachings of the Old Testament.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
That's why I say Judaism isn't that opposed.
In Christianity, you would be one or more of: failing to turn the other cheek, failing to love your neighbour, or failing to love your enemy. All of which are instructions from Jesus, and fairly solidly unambiguous.
Quote
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.Is followed by
Quote
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Clearly the section is a metaphor for empathy and compassion, not a literal guide to life. Otherwise the early church would have died out in a generation or two *tops*. Speaking of... One of my favorite verses:
Quote from: Matthew again
16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Post by: Peradon on February 07, 2015, 02:19:09 am
Really all you have to do is actually seriously seek God. He isnt someone to turn people knocking at His door down.Eh, maybe, but that 'someday' will likely only be after I die and really get to see (or not see, if death is simply eternal oblivions) the truth. Hell, that's the reason I'm stoked to die.Unfortunately, if you die without knowing Him, you may not be as stoked as you are now.....
If God condemns me based on that (something that I have absolutely no control over. I can't just choose to 'know' It. That would be hollow, and It would see through the fake belief regardless) then It isn't Perfect, simply enough. My options in that regard are either fake belief or staying true to myself, and I'm sure It would know that (if it really, somehow actually was perfect.)
Just.... Dont dicredit Him when you dont get what your looking for right away... Sometimes it takes months or years. But it always happens, if you seek him sincerely!
Also, I was Ninjad, so I'll reply to Rolan's post in a minute...
Post by: Peradon on February 07, 2015, 02:47:51 am
Spoiler: Mega-Ultra big Post (click to show/hide)
Ok!
*Cracks Knuckles*
Quote
Someone else suggested something similar, that Christianity takes intent into account while mortal courts don't. Which seems completely backward to me: Mortal courts totally take intent into account when sentencing, while Biblical laws are just "Anyone who does this is a sinner". Intent doesn't matter at all. Remorse might be necessary afterward, but technically all that matters is *knowing about Jesus*. Not knowing the consequences of sin is no defense, it's the opposite - it practically guarantees punishment.Your absolutly right. The reason for the strict laws was because God was, literally, living among them in the tabernacle. He cant stand the sight of sin, so He set up strict laws.
Quote
Additionally, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is explicitly *unforgivable*, according to Jesus himself. It's the *only* unforgivable sin mentioned. And it's a thing which nonbelievers are most likely to do, due to their ignorance.There is debate over that passage. I'm pretty sure that what it is talking about, is the complete rejection of Jesus. So, yeah, only unbelievers commit this sin. Mainly because they are the only ones that reject Jesus........
Quote
And I've never heard that Christians aren't as responsible for their sins while drunk (of their own volition). That would be seriously unjust if true. There's a difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter, but intoxicating oneself shouldn't be a defense...Yeah, I had never heard of that either. There is a passage that allows for people who have commited manslaughter to flee to certain cities of refuge, where they cant be condemned and can live out their lives.
Quote
Ignoring the obvious point that Christian nations have almost universally been violent... Often against the Jews...No defense here! There have been some pretty bad things done by people who claim Christianity in the past. But we cant judge a religion based on the mistakes that the people in it make, but based on what the Scriptures actually say.
Quote
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34Ahh! Now we are getting into escatology! What Jesus was talking about there, was that he would destroy his enemies. Which is still true, in the Last Day, He will rain death on all who dont know him. He is still a God of Justice.
Quote
He supports the violent prophecies and teachings of the Old Testament.He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it! Which means that the Law is no longer neccesary for salvation. The Law is still active, just not enforced very much now.
Quote
Clearly the section is a metaphor for empathy and compassion, not a literal guide to life. Otherwise the early church would have died out in a generation or two *tops*Yeah, He was getting a point across. But the love your neighbor was an explicit command, and it goes hand in hand with what he was saying about turning the other cheek.
Quote
16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.I do believe John was there. John wrote the book or Revelation, which describes a vision he had of the time when Jesus will come and set up his kingdom here on earth. So, he did see it before he died....
I hope that helped. I get the feeling my thoughts are all kinda muddled.....
EDIT due to typo's
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 02:52:44 am
Or all the other religions wouldnt exsist.
'Gods grace'
Can be attained upon killing for the first time, from stress, harm. Many ways allow you to experience a powerful spiritual feeling. so its hard to believe that somebody says theyv now believe in god because of love as much as it to say you found god murdering.
I do believe youv found peace.
But when people say they have found it in so many different ways its hard to have faith in anything.
This is why I think many people are atheists.
Post by: Peradon on February 07, 2015, 02:59:25 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 03:14:58 am
Yes, its true that people say they have found in many different places. But the thing is, only one can be right! Christianity doesnt allow for other religions to be correct at the same time. It just doesnt. So the real question is: Which one is the correct one?
All are
If their was a religion exactly the same as christianty (there are) and you follow it to the letter. The bible still says you go to hell.
If anything god could just see all religions are the same and only demolish the true 'sinners'
God made all the religions. How can they be wrong?
please dont think what I say makes me believe in a god
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 03:29:15 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 07, 2015, 03:51:18 am
All areI'll be honest, I can barely understand what you're talking about most of the time. There is no religion exactly the same as Christianity - heck, even Christianity is usually wildly different from Christianity.
If their was a religion exactly the same as christianty (there are) and you follow it to the letter. The bible still says you go to hell.
The Bible says you go to Hell (and even that's debatable - "wrath of God" is fairly ambiguous) as punishment for breaking God's law, not following a religion that is the identical twin of Christianity.
God made all the religions. How can they be wrong?Because God didn't make any religions? He pretty much said "hey, here's some laws you guys should follow, then we can be bros", while everyone who wasn't there at the time went off and started worshipping Mother Earth and other celestial bodies.
'Course, if you're looking at it from a secular viewpoint, people made everything up anyway, so the whole thing's irrelevant.
...
I mostly think that every action I take is made with God's explicit permission. :vAssuming God has the capacity to stop you if he wishes? Yeah, seems reasonable.
Post by: Arx on February 07, 2015, 04:04:02 am
Judaism isn't that opposed to killing. From a Christian perspective, it's pretty close to unjustifiable.Ignoring the obvious point that Christian nations have almost universally been violent... Often against the Jews... Jesus doesn't really try to stop people from killing.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
And Matthew 5:Quote5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.He supports the violent prophecies and teachings of the Old Testament.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
"Christians have been violent, therefore Christianity condones violence."
Shall I propose the following, equally logical statement?
"Atheists have been serial killers, therefore atheism condones killing."
Neither makes any sense as an argument.
Matthew 10: The sword in this case does not seem to be the usual representation of killing, but rather of strife. I would just like to repeat that in that passage Jesus is quoting Malachai (IIRC) on Judgment Day.
Matthew 5: He doesn't, actually. "Let him who is without guilt cast the first stone." Jesus is the only person qualified to pass judgment. Additionally, from the same chapter (or the next. Either way, sermon on the mount) "You hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." and "Judge not, lest you be judged."
Jesus does not support enforcement of the Mosaic law.
That's why I say Judaism isn't that opposed.
In Christianity, you would be one or more of: failing to turn the other cheek, failing to love your neighbour, or failing to love your enemy. All of which are instructions from Jesus, and fairly solidly unambiguous.Quote5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.Is followed byQuote5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Clearly the section is a metaphor for empathy and compassion, not a literal guide to life. Otherwise the early church would have died out in a generation or two *tops*.
It could be, sure. It would still thoroughly bar killing. As a believer, it would be better for me to die than to kill a non-believer.
Speaking of... One of my favorite verses:Quote from: Matthew again16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
And within six days, they witnessed the transfiguration.
If their was a religion exactly the same as christianty (there are) and you follow it to the letter. The bible still says you go to hell.
If it was exactly the same as Christianity, they wouldn't. All that is needed to gain entry to the Kingdom of Heaven is acknowledging that Jesus died for your sake.
Post by: Bohandas on February 07, 2015, 04:22:11 am
But its not just from reading any religious text that you can get this feeling from.
Or all the other religions wouldnt exsist.
...
Many ways allow you to experience a powerful spiritual feeling.
Even self-proclaimed "inherently bogus" religions like SubGenius
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 04:45:19 am
Maybe another slight derail is needed
So lord Kapila was said to have told people about the elements and metaphysics but it was forgotten about.
Why would this happen?
And by elements it is phrased 'creative elements' what could this be?
Post by: Arx on February 07, 2015, 04:51:04 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 05:04:24 am
Context? Wikipedia doensn't mention anything about forgotten teachings of his.He told the brahmana asuri.
The idiot probably just went home and forgot.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 07, 2015, 05:04:56 am
So lord Kapila was said to have told people about the elements and metaphysics but it was forgotten about.The only mention I can find of this is either roughly similar to the classical elements, or about something else entirely (http://hinduism.iskcon.org/tradition/1103.htm).
Why would this happen?
And by elements it is phrased 'creative elements' what could this be?
I think the best answer for this would be the Wikipedia style of things:
So lord Kapila was said[by whom?] to have told people about the elements and metaphysics but it was forgotten about.
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 05:09:22 am
So lord Kapila was said to have told people about the elements and metaphysics but it was forgotten about.The only mention I can find of this is either roughly similar to the classical elements, or about something else entirely (http://hinduism.iskcon.org/tradition/1103.htm).
Why would this happen?
And by elements it is phrased 'creative elements' what could this be?
Oh yes thats right 24 elements of creation and the soul being 25.
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 07, 2015, 08:46:08 am
And the general Christian viewpoint on sin is that it has to be: A: Made with full knowledge of the consequences and B: Made with full control of your faculties. Someone who kills someone while drunk is guilty of a lesser sin then one who performs the same act in cold blood.
Someone else suggested something similar, that Christianity takes intent into account while mortal courts don't. Which seems completely backward to me: Mortal courts totally take intent into account when sentencing, while Biblical laws are just "Anyone who does this is a sinner". Intent doesn't matter at all. Remorse might be necessary afterward, but technically all that matters is *knowing about Jesus*. Not knowing the consequences of sin is no defense, it's the opposite - it practically guarantees punishment.
I believe the opposite of this. People who don't know that something is a sin or don't understand it well have no or less punishment for it. When someone does commit a sin, intent is judged, so someone who does not intend to kill someone but does wouldn't have to deal with as much as a cold-blooded murderer. Additionally, simply knowing about Jesus is nowhere near enough. As it says in (James?): "Faith without works is dead", or in other words, faith is useless unless you do the required works like living correctly and repenting.
Quote
Additionally, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is explicitly *unforgivable*, according to Jesus himself. It's the *only* unforgivable sin mentioned. And it's a thing which nonbelievers are most likely to do, due to their ignorance.
I also believe that it's unforgivable, but rather than being something that the nonbeliever do, it's something that only someone who knows the truth can do. It's when someone knows fully who Christ is and what He did and then rejecting Him/refusing to follow Him. It requires more knowledge to do than what some random person has.
Quote
And I've never heard that Christians aren't as responsible for their sins while drunk (of their own volition). That would be seriously unjust if true. There's a difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter, but intoxicating oneself shouldn't be a defense...
Yeah.
Quote
Ignoring the obvious point that Christian nations have almost universally been violent... Often against the Jews... Jesus doesn't really try to stop people from killing.Christianity's not actually all that disinclined towards killing, though it's long tried to spin the PR to say otherwise.
Judaism isn't that opposed to killing. From a Christian perspective, it's pretty close to unjustifiable.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
And Matthew 5:Quote5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.He supports the violent prophecies and teachings of the Old Testament.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.That's why I say Judaism isn't that opposed.
He does say that he is going to "fulful[l]" the law, so he removes the need for the OT laws through his suffering/resurrection.
Quote
In Christianity, you would be one or more of: failing to turn the other cheek, failing to love your neighbour, or failing to love your enemy. All of which are instructions from Jesus, and fairly solidly unambiguous.Quote5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.Is followed byQuote5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Clearly the section is a metaphor for empathy and compassion, not a literal guide to life. Otherwise the early church would have died out in a generation or two *tops*
There were a number of early church leaders who met deaths including stoning, hanging, crucifixion, etc. They didn't attack their attackers. An example is Paul - he went to Rome to preach, knowing he would be executed.
Speaking of... One of my favorite verses:Quote from: Matthew again16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
In addition to what has been mentioned, John was allowed to live until the Second Coming (as hinted at by some verses in John).
Post by: Frumple on February 07, 2015, 09:38:13 am
Yes, its true that people say they have found in many different places. But the thing is, only one can be right! Christianity doesnt allow for other religions to be correct at the same time. It just doesnt.... what does one religion's insistence on being the only true one have to do with reality? Christianity is perfectly capable of being simply wrong on that point. Baldly asserting otherwise doesn't exactly provide support for the position -- you need some kind of justification, some sort of proof to suggest the position is true, otherwise there is zero reason to support that position over others who do the exact same thing. Of which there are many.
... unfortunately, as noted, there is nothing christian belief provides that isn't attainable elsewhere. Hell, none of it even requires religion -- moral codes are perfectly createable without substantiative metaphysical burdens, the various emotional/psychological states related to it are attainable via lifestyle choices or medication, the organizational aspects obviously constructible from secular means... the list just kind of goes on. S'nothing particularly unique to the belief system.
And you've got religions such as Hinduism, which is perfectly happy to hold that all religious belief stem from the same source. They've got a nice lil' explanation for it and everything. Why should one not believe that christian belief is just another aspect of the brahman? Just missing or misrepresenting a few key points. It's certainly a better explanation for the apparent viability of other faiths. Bit of inaccuracy or confusion even cheerfully explains stuff like the monolatrist/monotheist shift -- someone just got some bits wrong, lost stuff in translation, etc.
Post by: Teneb on February 07, 2015, 01:08:24 pm
The Bible says you go to Hell (and even that's debatable - "wrath of God" is fairly ambiguous) as punishment for breaking God's law, not following a religion that is the identical twin of Christianity.I feel like I should note that there are actually very few descriptions or references to hell in the bible. Most stuff associated with hell these days (fire, pits, torture) is from Dante's Divine Comedy.
Post by: chaoticag on February 07, 2015, 01:13:33 pm
Still, not sure if Dante's stuff counts as Apocrypha even, just evocative.
Post by: Peradon on February 07, 2015, 02:07:48 pm
So, if all religions lead to God, how does Christianity fit into it. It explicity says that it is only through Jesus that men can be saved. So is Christianity excluded from "all"?Yes, its true that people say they have found in many different places. But the thing is, only one can be right! Christianity doesnt allow for other religions to be correct at the same time. It just doesnt.... what does one religion's insistence on being the only true one have to do with reality? Christianity is perfectly capable of being simply wrong on that point. Baldly asserting otherwise doesn't exactly provide support for the position -- you need some kind of justification, some sort of proof to suggest the position is true, otherwise there is zero reason to support that position over others who do the exact same thing. Of which there are many.
... unfortunately, as noted, there is nothing christian belief provides that isn't attainable elsewhere. Hell, none of it even requires religion -- moral codes are perfectly createable without substantiative metaphysical burdens, the various emotional/psychological states related to it are attainable via lifestyle choices or medication, the organizational aspects obviously constructible from secular means... the list just kind of goes on. S'nothing particularly unique to the belief system.
And you've got religions such as Hinduism, which is perfectly happy to hold that all religious belief stem from the same source. They've got a nice lil' explanation for it and everything. Why should one not believe that christian belief is just another aspect of the brahman? Just missing or misrepresenting a few key points. It's certainly a better explanation for the apparent viability of other faiths. Bit of inaccuracy or confusion even cheerfully explains stuff like the monolatrist/monotheist shift -- someone just got some bits wrong, lost stuff in translation, etc.
Also, all other religions dont have Jesus at the center(Except for Mormonism, which is NOT Christian, because they dont believe some of the core teachings of Christianity).
Quote
And you've got religions such as Hinduism, which is perfectly happy to hold that all religious belief stem from the same source. They've got a nice lil' explanation for it and everything. Why should one not believe that christian belief is just another aspect of the brahman? Just missing or misrepresenting a few key points. It's certainly a better explanation for the apparent viability of other faiths. Bit of inaccuracy or confusion even cheerfully explains stuff like the monolatrist/monotheist shift -- someone just got some bits wrong, lost stuff in translation, etc.I think you mean Buhdism, but yeah, I get what your saying. But, no, it does not offer the key things, like, uhh God. Buhdism is the worship of yourself, trying to become nothing, in order to attain perfect transcendence. Makes no sense to me at all. Christianity is a servant's religion. You're not in it for yourself, but for God. Almost all other religions are self-centered, whereas Christianity is centered on God. How is this like Buhdism?
Post by: chaoticag on February 07, 2015, 02:30:17 pm
What?QuoteAnd you've got religions such as Hinduism, which is perfectly happy to hold that all religious belief stem from the same source. They've got a nice lil' explanation for it and everything. Why should one not believe that christian belief is just another aspect of the brahman? Just missing or misrepresenting a few key points. It's certainly a better explanation for the apparent viability of other faiths. Bit of inaccuracy or confusion even cheerfully explains stuff like the monolatrist/monotheist shift -- someone just got some bits wrong, lost stuff in translation, etc.I think you mean Buhdism, but yeah, I get what your saying. But, no, it does not offer the key things, like, uhh God. Buhdism is the worship of yourself, trying to become nothing, in order to attain perfect transcendence. Makes no sense to me at all. Christianity is a servant's religion. You're not in it for yourself, but for God. Almost all other religions are self-centered, whereas Christianity is centered on God. How is this like Buhdism?
Frumple never brought Buddhism up, if you want to go ahead and respond to his beliefs about Buddhism, you'd need to wait until Frumple elaborated on what he meant, and whether he meant Hinduism or Buddhism. As it is, Brahma is principally a Hindu god, and one of the aspects of beginnings, so he might be right here.
Secondly, you bring up Buddhism, but I have no idea what you even mean by that. Mahayana Buddhism? Vajriyana? Shinto? They're all Buddhisms, and also very very different ones. Buddhism isn't quite a monolith, and I think saying it's a religion of worshiping the self misses the point of Buddhism.
Post by: Frumple on February 07, 2015, 02:33:21 pm
Hinduism is something very different. In Hindu belief, gods -- all gods (and, frankly, everything else) -- are simply manifestations of aspects of the brahman, the true reality. Other religions fit into that quite well, especially alongside the natural fallibility of mankind. Christianity expressing aspects of the true reality, even if not with 100% accuracy (just as basically nothing human does, honestly) fits into that just fine. Christianity would simply be wrong about the only path to salvation being jesus. It would be one path, but not the only one. Error alongside truth does not invalidate that truth.
@chao: Brahma's actually something different from brahman :P The former is an aspect of the latter, though.
Post by: chaoticag on February 07, 2015, 02:37:34 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 07, 2015, 02:49:23 pm
Beyond the "all paths lead to God" idea, which I personally don't find convincing (there are steps that lead to God. Different steps for different religions/denominations.)
Post by: Bohandas on February 07, 2015, 02:55:53 pm
The Bible says you go to Hell (and even that's debatable - "wrath of God" is fairly ambiguous) as punishment for breaking God's law, not following a religion that is the identical twin of Christianity.I feel like I should note that there are actually very few descriptions or references to hell in the bible. Most stuff associated with hell these days (fire, pits, torture) is from Dante's Divine Comedy.
Pretty sure the association between fire and hell predates dante by a good deal. Most of Dante's hell didn't have fire in fact; instead the unpleasant aspects of the environment were things like tornado force winds, rivers of filth, perpetual hail, and freezing cold.
Post by: Frumple on February 07, 2015, 03:01:29 pm
Post by: chaoticag on February 07, 2015, 03:06:12 pm
Out of curiosity, how do people reconcile the huge variation within religion with the idea that only one path is right?
Beyond the "all paths lead to God" idea, which I personally don't find convincing (there are steps that lead to God. Different steps for different religions/denominations.)
Last I heard, at least as far back as the summer of 2010, it's not an idea that the majority of people that participate in cross religious talks don't quite take the idea of all paths lead to god idea seriously. At least that's what our professor told us in that Eastern Religions class said.
That being said, it's probably worthwhile to bring up the blind men and the elephant parable, where four or so blind men try and understand what an elephant is like through their sense of touch, and walk out disagreeing over whether it's thick and long, or broad, or flexible and thin.
I've also met a few people that believed that no god is as cruel as those their holy books described, and would believe that if there is a heaven, being a decent person would be all it takes for you to enter it.
Post by: Teneb on February 07, 2015, 04:03:14 pm
Yeah, there's a certain degree of biblical support for a fiery hell. There's also support for a number of other sorts, of course, but let it never be said that consistency was terribly important to the folks spread out over a generation or two that actually penned the bible.All I can find about hell in the bible is that it is an unpleasant place where bad people go. Might be one of those things that got jumbled up during the many, many translation.
I guess I was wrong about Dante, although his work, despite seeming to be mostly political, does have a lot of influence.
Post by: Bohandas on February 07, 2015, 04:50:04 pm
Yeah, there's a certain degree of biblical support for a fiery hell. There's also support for a number of other sorts, of course, but let it never be said that consistency was terribly important to the folks spread out over a generation or two that actually penned the bible.All I can find about hell in the bible is that it is an unpleasant place where bad people go. Might be one of those things that got jumbled up during the many, many translation.
I guess I was wrong about Dante, although his work, despite seeming to be mostly political, does have a lot of influence.
There's numerous references in the gospel to the wicked being thrown into a fiery furnace.
Post by: lemon10 on February 07, 2015, 06:17:01 pm
Quote from: Revalations 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
Quote from: Matthew 13:50
and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
There are quite a few more of those here (http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/hell-bible-verses/) by the way if you are interested.
Yeah, there's a certain degree of biblical support for a fiery hell. There's also support for a number of other sorts, of course, but let it never be said that consistency was terribly important to the folks spread out over a generation or two that actually penned the bible.I've always felt that those who said that hell wasn't a place of eternal (fiery) torment were simply saying "But god is nice, he wouldn't do something so mean as eternal fiery torment for everyone that doesn't do exactly what he wants them to do", and thus managed to interpret the bible as saying that hell as stated in the bible doesn't exist.
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 06:45:05 pm
I think you mean Buhdism, but yeah, I get what your saying. But, no, it does not offer the key things, like, uhh God. Buhdism is the worship of yourself, trying to become nothing, in order to attain perfect transcendence. Makes no sense to me at all. Christianity is a servant's religion. You're not in it for yourself, but for God. Almost all other religions are self-centered, whereas Christianity is centered on God. How is this like Buhdism?HAHA
Wow, this sounds more ignorant than me, buddhism isnt about worshiping yourself, but its nice you think its that way. Im sure you are a selfless servant of god, one who devotes all his time and money to god.
What you got confused with buddism is human nature, worshiping yourself, I bet you did it today, a coffee prehaps? A little instant gratification *wink *wink. A little look in the mirror to see how pretty/ugly you are, you probably saw that beautiful person and thought :-X
You get the point.
You worship yourself
YOU worship YOURSELF
Classic religious I am better than you because I believe in X god, and ive got a vip pass because Y invited me
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 07, 2015, 06:49:30 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 06:56:39 pm
Coffee != worshipping oneself. Concern about one's appearance != worshipping oneself.I hope that isnt sarcasim
Sounds like a bloody kiwi thing to do ;)
Post by: Bohandas on February 07, 2015, 07:04:20 pm
Buhdism is the worship of yourself
You're thinking of the prosperity gospel, which is a Christian credo.
Post by: Frumple on February 07, 2015, 07:34:43 pm
There are quite a few more of those here (http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/hell-bible-verses/) by the way if you are interested.There's a significantly more thorough list here (http://www.openbible.info/topics/hell). Fire is indeed common, but it's not alone -- you've also got darkness, separation, silence, and just plain destruction. Many of the references to fire (that aren't just repeating themselves or someone else, anyway) definitely imply that it's not the only punishment, actually, if the translation preserved the meaning adequately. And, as always, description beyond "fiery" is generally decidedly lacking...
Post by: That Wolf on February 07, 2015, 11:49:50 pm
I practice magic arts and I can throw fire and seperate water into hydrogen and oxy creating a fire ball (whatever its magic)
but I can also heal wounds and disease.
I am a nice person so instead of killing the filthy american scum with my power I decide to heal all who ask for it, yes all and i am capible of healing many diseases including genetic and mental diseases (not spiritual) and people try to pay me but I say no (i rob banks with my fire)
I would still go to hell right?
Beacause im a magic arts practitioner.
Post by: King Kravoka on February 07, 2015, 11:54:44 pm
Like, if you got it from demons and false gods, that's bad. But if you get from, say, a field of nonspiritual energy that pervades the galaxy that can be understood and tapped into, that should be fine.
Post by: Bohandas on February 07, 2015, 11:56:58 pm
Another hypothesis...
I practice magic arts and I can throw fire and seperate water into hydrogen and oxy creating a fire ball (whatever its magic)
but I can also heal wounds and disease.
I am a nice person so instead of killing the filthy american scum with my power I decide to heal all who ask for it, yes all and i am capible of healing many diseases including genetic and mental diseases (not spiritual) and people try to pay me but I say no (i rob banks with my fire)
I would still go to hell right?
Beacause im a magic arts practitioner.
Ironically that sounds exactly like Jesus
Post by: i2amroy on February 08, 2015, 12:01:50 am
I would still go to hell right?Depends on what version you are looking at. IIRC the original word used in the "suffer not a witch to live" translates more specifically as "person who uses magic to do evil". It's just that King James was big on burning witches, so they translated it as "witch". Under the original version you wouldn't be doing anything bad at all, so you wouldn't suffer in any ways (except for the bank robbing that is).
Beacause im a magic arts practitioner.
Post by: That Wolf on February 08, 2015, 01:59:25 am
Post by: Bohandas on February 08, 2015, 02:35:23 am
I knew it! Jesus was a bank robber. You cab see it in his eyes, the eyes of a man whos done things, things to get by. Its what you have to do to survive!
Maybe not a bank robber, but he did smash up a currency exchange.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 08, 2015, 02:40:29 am
That happened to be in the temple.I knew it! Jesus was a bank robber. You cab see it in his eyes, the eyes of a man whos done things, things to get by. Its what you have to do to survive!Maybe not a bank robber, but he did smash up a currency exchange.
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2015, 10:06:14 am
Serious question, though. My sister works in a cafe which is in a still-operating church. Given the whole Jesus-going-mental thing, is she likely to be punished in the afterlife over it? Is it a morally unjust thing to do?
Post by: wobbly on February 08, 2015, 10:14:07 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
Post by: Arx on February 08, 2015, 11:10:34 am
Post by: ggamer on February 08, 2015, 01:09:49 pm
@FFS
That's interesting, definitely. I never knew that Catholicism accepted apocryphal texts or (god I forget how to spell it) Dueterocanonical texts? That's a good SAT word, but anyway, I'll cede that one to you. I really need to read up on my church history, anyway.
So before I go, any of you interested in Scholastic Theology (whether you're christian or not) should check out the White Horse Inn podcast. (https://www.whitehorseinn.org/podcast) They take a topic-by-topic view of a lot of different things (the example that comes to mind is an episode where they talked about the various differences between Christianity in different areas of the world, with Indian and Iranian community leaders as guests). It's guaranteed to be interesting, even if you don't agree with what they're saying.
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2015, 03:26:37 pm
Unless the church requires that members attend all services with an item from the café, and the café is one of the only places in the city where those items can be found, and they charge extortionist prices, and the church is the only one in the city, your sister's soul is probably safe.
Oh, good. It seems to be important for her.
Which made me think of something else- do most Christians have a dualist of monist view of the soul? My R.E. class teaches of Resurrection and Immortality of the Soul, one being monist and the other dualist, and both Christian.
For example, Vardy says "How can my soul be me?" and he's a monist.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 08, 2015, 06:25:50 pm
Post by: lemon10 on February 08, 2015, 06:35:28 pm
Yeah. I have no problem at all with hell being expanded beyond "fiery", or even the fire being taken out, as long as it is acknowledged that hell is a place of eternal torment for those that god feels sinned.There are quite a few more of those here (http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/hell-bible-verses/) by the way if you are interested.There's a significantly more thorough list here (http://www.openbible.info/topics/hell). Fire is indeed common, but it's not alone -- you've also got darkness, separation, silence, and just plain destruction. Many of the references to fire (that aren't just repeating themselves or someone else, anyway) definitely imply that it's not the only punishment, actually, if the translation preserved the meaning adequately. And, as always, description beyond "fiery" is generally decidedly lacking...
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 08, 2015, 07:20:59 pm
So how do other Christians view a family that has a Christian mom, and children but an undecided or atheistic father?Sounds pretty much like my family.
Except the father claims to believe in God and says it's important to go to church but does not do so himself and has incredibly wonky views that don't really fall into any know category.
Post by: Frumple on February 08, 2015, 08:16:04 pm
Mind you, you'd have the same sort of situation if they were just of a different religion. Depending on how crab-humpingly nuts the area is, sometimes if they're just of a different denomination (See some of the earlier responses to mormonism, or how protestant and catholics have and still do, in places considered each other). It really just depends on the viewer's particular brand of insanity.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 08, 2015, 09:21:14 pm
I could also mention that the situation is not uncommon in NZ insofar as I'm aware, especially considering the low number of Christians (<40% IIRC) and even lower church attendance (more like 15%) and the fact that we're all pretty chill about it. Unless you're in the Destiny church, but they're
crab-humpingly nutsanyway.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 08, 2015, 09:42:02 pm
Let me clearify
I meant toward Christians and more on the, the father is the head of the houshold and supposed to lead the family especialy religiously.
So what of a father that is a non believer in an entirly Christian family (that being kids and spouse)?
Post by: Frumple on February 08, 2015, 10:05:58 pm
Just, uh. Without the brother in law knocking the mother up or something. Hopefully. Unless they're okay with that, I'unno how it'd work exactly.
Honestly, that bit is rapidly becoming kinda' useless nowadays. Lot of single parent families, yeah.
Post by: Bohandas on February 08, 2015, 10:15:59 pm
... then that bit is simply not applicable? Even with a religious parent there's going to be times one or the other just isn't there. From the religious perspective, it'd likely be about the same as a (shit, is there any way to better frame it than "un-owned"? Much of the marriage cruft in the bible arose from a culture that had women as basically property, so the original context is kinda' toxic.) widow or single parent or somethin', at least insofar as religious leadership goes.
Correction, it came from TWO stupidly misogynistic cultures. The ancient Romans and the ancient Hebrews.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 08, 2015, 10:54:20 pm
Women also aren't allowed to become elders or deacons in the church, which may or may not be misogyny, depending on your definition of "hating women".
We had a sermon on the topic a little while back. The minister basically described "head of the household" as "responsible for the wellbeing of his family".
E: Actually, this line of discussion is teetering on the edge of feminism. Let's wrap it up sharpish.
Post by: Arcvasti on February 08, 2015, 11:06:46 pm
So how do other Christians view a family that has a Christian mom, and children but an undecided or atheistic father?
That's basically my family. Not really sure why anyone'd have a problem with it and my family is generally pretty chill about religious differences, if that's what you mean.
Ok
Let me clarify
I meant toward Christians and more on the, the father is the head of the household and supposed to lead the family especially religiously.
So what of a father that is a non believer in an entirely Christian family (that being kids and spouse)?
There's no polite way for me to respond to this besides saying nothing or very little.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 08, 2015, 11:21:04 pm
I was just curious since it was something preached quite a bit at my church.
Post by: That Wolf on February 08, 2015, 11:26:30 pm
Im a touchy subject
Post by: Helgoland on February 09, 2015, 09:30:06 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 09, 2015, 09:48:56 am
It hit me instantly like a wall of laughter
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 09, 2015, 05:49:55 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 09, 2015, 06:01:30 pm
...?
Good afternoon Orange.
Did you want to discuss religions?
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 09, 2015, 06:11:53 pm
Post by: Kassire on February 09, 2015, 06:25:56 pm
OkFunny how you say that. Around the Caribbean and Latino cultures the mother is generally the head of the family. Though generally in my experience of the average christian where I live would lead to them not caring about the non-religious head of the family. That leads to many people that say they believe in their christian god and they go to church, despite them not actually following the teachings of Christianity. This is more based on experience then anything, but I can say that very religious people still out-weigh other groups around here.
Let me clearify
I meant toward Christians and more on the, the father is the head of the houshold and supposed to lead the family especialy religiously.
So what of a father that is a non believer in an entirly Christian family (that being kids and spouse)?
Post by: Ghills on February 11, 2015, 10:07:53 pm
So how do other Christians view a family that has a Christian mom, and children but an undecided or atheistic father?
About the same as any other family. It's better for the family to be sealed eternally, and for the father to be able to have the Priesthood, but if he's not then he's not and it's up to him & his wife. We'll keep inviting the husband to church because we want everyone to be the happiest possible unless he asks us to stop.
If you mean theologically what happens to the leadership position, familial leadership should be shared equally between spouses anyway.
The big theological difference is that the family relationships may not continue past this life, and that the father can't give his family blessings. That's why all members have home teachers, to make sure they have someone to call and ask for blessings. Women also get visiting teachers (women), who kind of act as external family members and general backup for the women in the family. The whole ward is also supposed to act as external family for each other, but HT/VT are specifically assigned to each family to make sure no one slips through the cracks.
Post by: TD1 on February 12, 2015, 11:49:19 am
Post by: Arx on February 12, 2015, 12:51:40 pm
Post by: k33n on February 12, 2015, 02:30:23 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 12, 2015, 02:35:33 pm
Post by: k33n on February 12, 2015, 02:41:04 pm
Indeed. They are definitely of benefit to many people. However, they're so subjective that at the very least there must be multiple gods.
Considering the effect that the religions have had on human civilization and history at no point can it be said that they have been a benefit.
The concept of a super being(s) that is essentially a human mind standing outside the universe is literally insane. At the very best the only god that can be considered is one of blind math that has yet to have any impact on reality save for starting the rules, and thus is only considered a god by a desperate stretch to keep the term relevant.
Post by: TD1 on February 12, 2015, 02:49:35 pm
It also does bad things, but so does every organisation. We have to take the good with the bad, and make sure the bad, repressive bits don't get out of control.
As for the validity of heaven and all that what not, and the concept of a monotheistic, Abrahamic God, I too agree it's exceedingly unlikely.
Post by: k33n on February 12, 2015, 03:03:15 pm
Yes, but contrary to Nietzsche's claim that religion is injurious to society, it can still be seen as doing good. Even if you only view it as a small nugget in an otherwise contemptible sea of hate and bigotry, it does some good.
It also does bad things, but so does every organisation. We have to take the good with the bad, and make sure the bad, repressive bits don't get out of control.
As for the validity of heaven and all that what not, and the concept of a monotheistic, Abrahamic God, I too agree it's exceedingly unlikely.
The issue is that all the good things that religion can bring are not specific to religion nor invented by it, but all the bad things, such as hellfire, jihad, heresy, and sanctioned divine murder are and were.
Post by: TD1 on February 12, 2015, 03:06:32 pm
Yes, the only thing to make good people do bad things is religion, but it's also the only thing to make bad people do good things.
Post by: k33n on February 12, 2015, 03:16:48 pm
Nah, you could argue that it would remain the same without religion. Religion is the tool, the people that use it are either good or bad.
This sounds like an opinion of someone who has never studied theology or read any religious documents. Religion is a written code of behaviors and actions with written consequences. It is ideas, and ideas that give way to action.
It is Christianity that is to blame for the anti-gay movements in the west, it is Islam to blame for the constantly beheading and suicide bombings in West Eurasia, and it is Buddhism that is responsible for self immolation in protests.
The theology of each of these religions has clear, specific passages and instructions that condone or encourage these behaviors. To see someone who reads these things, says the action they commit are because of these ideas, and commits them and then say that religion was just a meaningless content-less blur that cannot be held responsible is a position of complete ignorance.
Post by: Arx on February 12, 2015, 03:22:20 pm
Post by: k33n on February 12, 2015, 03:25:37 pm
I think you'll find that much of what religion is used to justify isn't actually justified by religion. Also, saying Dwarfy hasn't read any theological documents reflects very poorly on the rest of your argument; he's probably read more than anyone else in this thread, possibly barring LordBucket if he reappears.
I am an apostate, fluent in religion and have read the holy texts of most religions. I own copies of most. Each religion explicitly justifies inhuman behavior, and in Islam and Christianity it is the central tenants. To say that they do not is a position of complete ignorance, and it certainly make someone sound as if they haven't read the texts.
Post by: Arx on February 12, 2015, 03:29:20 pm
Quote from: Jesus
Whosoever believes in me shall not perish, but shall have eternal life.
...
I tell you, the greatest commandment is this: love the Lord your God with all your heart. The second is like it: love your neighbour as you love yourself.
...
Do unto others as you would have them do to you. This sums up the law and the prophets.
Those are the most central tenets of Christianity. They cannot be used to justify anything inhuman.
Post by: k33n on February 12, 2015, 03:33:01 pm
I see.Quote from: JesusWhosoever believes in me shall not perish, but shall have eternal life.
...
I tell you, the greatest commandment is this: love the Lord your God with all your heart. The second is like it: love your neighbour as you love yourself.
...
Do unto others as you would have them do to you. This sums up the law and the prophets.
Those are the most central tenets of Christianity. They cannot be used to justify anything inhuman.
You have quote mined the only good phrases in a 1500 page book about killing the infidel and an enraged childish deity obsessed with our genitals, not to mention the first quote can and has been used to justify killing and torturing the infidel and heretic lest they lead people or themselves astray from Eternal Life.
Post by: Arx on February 12, 2015, 03:38:10 pm
If you continue to disagree with me, we need to break this argument off because I suspect neither of us will back down, and I'm somewhat stressed for other reasons. If you're willing to cite specific issues you have I'll tackle them.
Post by: Helgoland on February 12, 2015, 03:40:52 pm
It also does bad things, but so does every organisation. We have to take the good with the bad, and make sure the bad, repressive bits don't get out of control.Dwarfy, have I been getting through to you? :P
And k33n, do notice the 'discussion' bit in the thread title. You can of course make a 'Rant-y religion bashing' thread, but I doubt it would stay civil for long...
Post by: k33n on February 12, 2015, 03:49:33 pm
It also does bad things, but so does every organisation. We have to take the good with the bad, and make sure the bad, repressive bits don't get out of control.Dwarfy, have I been getting through to you? :P
And k33n, do notice the 'discussion' bit in the thread title. You can of course make a 'Rant-y religion bashing' thread, but I doubt it would stay civil for long...
Just because my points are controversial and I am ready to back them up does not mean that I am ranting or unwilling to discuss. My original point was that spirituality has been co opted by religion, and that spirituality is inherently good while religion is inherently bad.
Like I said earlier, the first two tenants that Arx has said are key to Christianity and are impossible to get anti-human ideas from:
#1 Whosoever believes in me shall not perish, but shall have eternal life.
and
#2 I tell you, the greatest commandment is this: love the Lord your God with all your heart. The second is like it: love your neighbour as you love yourself.
Have both been coherently used to justify horrible actions and restrictive anti-human worldviews.
Post by: Arx on February 12, 2015, 03:53:16 pm
Also k33n, I will tackle them in about 15 hours if you post them. I should be asleep right now.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 12, 2015, 04:01:39 pm
Just because my points are controversial and I am ready to back them up does not mean that I am ranting or unwilling to discuss.Your points are less controversial and more... unsubstantiated. You have yet to back up a single claim.
My original point was that spirituality has been co opted by religion, and that spirituality is inherently good while religion is inherently bad.[citation needed]
#1 Whosoever believes in me shall not perish, but shall have eternal life.Again, [citation needed].
and
#2 I tell you, the greatest commandment is this: love the Lord your God with all your heart. The second is like it: love your neighbour as you love yourself.
Have both been coherently used to justify horrible actions and restrictive anti-human worldviews.
...
If all you can do is fling around a Dawkins-esque argument of "religion is terribad hurr durr", I'm going to have to ask you to leave. I don't want to do that, of course, but there is a line between discussion and flaming.
Post by: Helgoland on February 12, 2015, 04:03:36 pm
Post by: k33n on February 12, 2015, 04:05:21 pm
Yes, 'controversial' is not what comes to mind when reading your posts. 'Euphoric' is closer.
Hiding behind high school mindsets and a meme that mocked a mentally ill child with a hat is extremely unbecoming.
And no, citation are not needed. Is perfectly acceptable to logically discuss the consequences of beliefs and ideas without an appeal to authority.
Post by: Teneb on February 12, 2015, 04:11:38 pm
How can you expect people to accept your argument if you give it ZERO backing? You are basically saying: "this is how things are" without saying why. Maybe it may seem obvious to you, but it clearly isn't for pretty much everyone else.Yes, 'controversial' is not what comes to mind when reading your posts. 'Euphoric' is closer.
Hiding behind high school mindsets and a meme that mocked a mentally ill child with a hat is extremely unbecoming.
And no, citation are not needed. Is perfectly acceptable to logically discuss the consequences of beliefs and ideas without an appeal to authority.
Also, insulting people isn't the way to go if you actually want them to listen to you, rather than just spark the flames.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 12, 2015, 04:12:29 pm
k33n, if you're not going to play nice, I'm going to (temporarily) lock the thread.
Post by: k33n on February 12, 2015, 04:14:27 pm
Probably best not to engage in an argument at this point.
k33n, if you're not going to play nice, I'm going to (temporarily) lock the thread.
Can you tell me when I haven't played nice? Do you not understand where the 'euphoric' meme comes from? Or is your side of the debate excluded from these rules?
Post by: Kassire on February 12, 2015, 04:16:06 pm
Hiding behind high school mindsets and a meme that mocked a mentally ill child with a hat is extremely unbecoming. Dick moveYou base a religion on what it had led to in the pass. Considering a lot of these "bad" actions that were done were usually using religion as an excuse for other motives. Along with not necessarily everyone who would say they are a part of a certain religion interprets all of the religious texts and even common ideas of said religions the same. Religion isn't necessarily bad, it's the people that follow it.
And no, citation are not needed. Is perfectly acceptable to logically discuss the consequences of beliefs and ideas without an appeal to authority. The more backing you give something, the better
Also, don't be so hostile
Post by: ShadowHammer on February 12, 2015, 04:17:30 pm
It also does bad things, but so does every organisation. We have to take the good with the bad, and make sure the bad, repressive bits don't get out of control.Dwarfy, have I been getting through to you? :P
And k33n, do notice the 'discussion' bit in the thread title. You can of course make a 'Rant-y religion bashing' thread, but I doubt it would stay civil for long...
Just because my points are controversial and I am ready to back them up does not mean that I am ranting or unwilling to discuss. My original point was that spirituality has been co opted by religion, and that spirituality is inherently good while religion is inherently bad.
Like I said earlier, the first two tenants that Arx has said are key to Christianity and are impossible to get anti-human ideas from:
#1 Whosoever believes in me shall not perish, but shall have eternal life.
and
#2 I tell you, the greatest commandment is this: love the Lord your God with all your heart. The second is like it: love your neighbour as you love yourself.
Have both been coherently used to justify horrible actions and restrictive anti-human worldviews.
Apologies if this sounds like a straw man; I am just curious where you draw the line, and why.
Additionally, why do you believe spirituality to be inherently good? One could argue that many people use it as an excuse to waste their lives being "spiritual" (note: not saying everyone does, just some, just like very few religious people start wars or riots), rather than contributing to the good of the world, especially since it encompasses so many different things. No doubt someone has asked you this already, so I'll look through the thread and delete this question if I find it, but are you referring to any specific spirituality? If not, an explanation of how you define spirituality would be helpful.
In response to the ninja above,
I believe OW was asking for an example of a time when "love your neighbour" has been explicitly or implicitly used to justify inhuman actions.Yes, 'controversial' is not what comes to mind when reading your posts. 'Euphoric' is closer.
Hiding behind high school mindsets and a meme that mocked a mentally ill child with a hat is extremely unbecoming.
And no, citation are not needed. Is perfectly acceptable to logically discuss the consequences of beliefs and ideas without an appeal to authority.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 12, 2015, 04:19:27 pm
Can you tell me when I haven't played nice? Do you not understand where the 'euphoric' meme comes from? Or is your side of the debate excluded from these rules?1. Every time we've asked for evidence and you've given us insults and hostility.
2. No, and I don't care.
3. My side is the rules.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 13, 2015, 04:07:10 pm
I think we're all happy to continue a discussion now.
I'll also be adding an addendum to the rules about citing sources.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 13, 2015, 04:12:58 pm
Doubleposting to bump THE UNLOCKENING.
I think we're all happy to continue a discussion now.
I'll also be adding an addendum to the rules about citing sources.
As long as challenging the credibility, bias or reliability of sources is still OK, then as a rational sceptic I am all for sources being required to back up claims.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 13, 2015, 04:15:33 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 13, 2015, 05:32:02 pm
Nope. I've always believed religion to only be as evil as the person wielding it. I don't mind others following it at all. The only place we differ in this regard is that I decided not to follow religion anymore, no matter the reason, as I personally don't buy into it. You, on the other hand.....:PIt also does bad things, but so does every organisation. We have to take the good with the bad, and make sure the bad, repressive bits don't get out of control.Dwarfy, have I been getting through to you? :P
I did notice that Dwarfy and I were somehow on the same side of a point. It's disorienting.
W-w-w-what world is this? 0_o
Post by: Ghills on February 13, 2015, 11:06:47 pm
What denomination is that?
LDS. Sorry, I should have said.
Post by: TD1 on February 13, 2015, 11:08:01 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 14, 2015, 12:58:43 am
Probably best not to engage in an argument at this point.
k33n, if you're not going to play nice, I'm going to (temporarily) lock the thread.
Can you tell me when I haven't played nice? Do you not understand where the 'euphoric' meme comes from?
On January 4th, 2013, Redditor Aalewis submitted a post to the /r/atheism[1] subreddit, which included a quote about his personal experience of being an atheist:
“Just to be clear, I’m not a professional ‘quote maker’. I’m just an atheist teenager who greatly values his intelligence and scientific fact over any silly fiction book written 3,500 years ago. This being said, I am open to any and all criticism.
‘In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.’"
-KnowYourMeme.com http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/in-this-moment-i-am-euphoric
Post by: Arcvasti on February 14, 2015, 12:59:46 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 14, 2015, 01:00:37 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 14, 2015, 03:22:01 am
I don't think we need to dredge up that drama.This.
Though thanks for the reference, Bohandas.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 15, 2015, 08:51:58 am
Post by: TD1 on February 15, 2015, 02:15:59 pm
So, what do y'all think about 1) the video and 2) the article's response.
I, for one, think that the face of the interviewer is a picture, and that the article downplays the issue into something personal with Stephen Fry, and misses the actual points he's raising.
Post by: Arx on February 15, 2015, 02:25:40 pm
I don't know if I'll have time to look at it tomorrow. Hopefully I will, but if not I won't until Friday at the soonest.
Post by: Descan on February 15, 2015, 02:31:21 pm
2) "You're secretly a Christian because we have a monopoly on morality (and having an ideal world!)"
3) "That's not REALLY Christianity!"
Not worth the electrons it took to print that trite.
I'm also curious on how the Fall of Man creates flesh-eating bacteria and bone cancer. >_>
Post by: TD1 on February 15, 2015, 02:36:03 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on February 15, 2015, 03:21:46 pm
Also, Arx and someone else made some very compelling replies to one of my posts about Jesus (based on the Bible), and I mean to address some of those points and admit defeat on others. I've just been busy, sorry.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 15, 2015, 03:57:14 pm
There's a lot of overlap because some things are simply necessary for a functioning society, as opposed to those things being based on the Bible. Which, incidentally, is why I want to laugh when people say "oh but you see, laws today are from the Bible!"
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 15, 2015, 04:03:29 pm
It's worth noting that the laws in the Bible claim to be objective morality, as opposed to the subjective morals created by various civilisations over millennia.
There's a lot of overlap because some things are simply necessary for a functioning society, as opposed to those things being based on the Bible. Which, incidentally, is why I want to laugh when people say "oh but you see, laws today are from the Bible!"
Well, to be fair, in a large way, most Christian heritage or post-Christian nations did base their legal systems on what it said in the bible - the fact that what is in the bible appears elsewhere is kind of irrelevant in that context.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 15, 2015, 04:18:00 pm
Post by: Arx on February 16, 2015, 12:19:03 pm
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/stephen.fry.says.god.is.capricious.mean.minded.stupid.but.lets.not.get.angry/47174.htm
So, what do y'all think about 1) the video and 2) the article's response.
I, for one, think that the face of the interviewer is a picture, and that the article downplays the issue into something personal with Stephen Fry, and misses the actual points he's raising.
It is definitely something he cares quite a lot about. He's definitely passionate on the topic, although to say he's speaking from anger is definitely a long stretch. I think the journalist is... not doing as well as they could. Trying to reduce his points to 'Oh the poor guy must have had a bad experience' is, as has been observed, not effective.
The second two points don't seem to have much to do with the video, to be honest. Descan has them pretty nailed, although more bluntly than I would have.
Post by: chaoticag on February 16, 2015, 12:45:12 pm
Well, to be fair, in a large way, most Christian heritage or post-Christian nations did base their legal systems on what it said in the bible - the fact that what is in the bible appears elsewhere is kind of irrelevant in that context.Well, it depends. Napoleonic Code really wasn't based on the bible, and the ten commandments aren't enshrined in any nation-state I know of. Modern nation states have law codes more in common with ancient roman law compared to biblical law it seems. Even then, if murder was illegal before Christianity, would it make sense to claim that now that a nation went through a period where Christianity was dominant, that law was based on biblical ideals? It just doesn't seem to follow.
Are there some examples of this around though? I'm interested in knowing more at least.
Post by: Sheb on February 16, 2015, 01:02:57 pm
Post by: chaoticag on February 16, 2015, 01:16:59 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 12:27:28 am
Post by: Rolan7 on February 17, 2015, 12:44:03 am
Can we agree that even if it is based on the bible that having murder be illegal is a good thing?
Of course! Just because something is in the Bible doesn't make it wrong.
Disallowing murder is a bit of a tautology, though. Murder is literally killing without a good cause. Any culture that understand the concept will, by definition, agree that murder must be prevented. And to my knowledge no culture has survived to the present day without classifying and working to prevent murder. Even isolated tribes.
The hilarious thing is that the King James translates it as "Thou shalt not kill"... Which, instead of being obviously right, is obviously wrong. Both an inaccurate translation, and an impossible rule to maintain a culture under. At least with current technology.
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2015, 02:52:26 pm
The basic question is "Does God command that which is right, or is that which is right what God commands." Basically, fits in with the conversation that was going on. So, my question to all ye believers is whether or not you think morals absolutely have to come from God, and whether, if they do, they are truly absolute. I keep being told that Divine Command Ethicists use the absolutist approach, but it strikes me that if it were absolute then, to use Christianity as an example, it shouldn't change/alter between the old and new testament.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 02:56:48 pm
Murder will never be ok
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2015, 03:01:04 pm
Ya morals are absolute
Murder will never be ok
Playing devils advocate here a little...
What if it could lead to the greater good? Say, I don't know, killing someone would protect the life of 3 innocent kids and prevent them getting killed?
Oh, and a second devils advocate question that anyone who considers morals to stem from godhead and to be absolute: Could you kill me if your god commanded it? Gods have done so according to holy books, after all.
Finally, a far more straight forwards question where I am genuinely curious rather than advocating for the hypothetical evil one: If morals are absolute and stem from godhead, why do the absolute morals we are "required" to follow seem to differ so much from the ones that gods apparently exhibit in the various holy books? Wiping out humanity seems like an act of murder to me.
Some really good rationally sceptical reading material (warning, might offend the more faithful amongst you by directly challenging articles of faith) on this matter here: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Morality and http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Moral_argument
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2015, 03:04:54 pm
Not that I know, but his argument may well be that the three kids will be going to God anyway, so it's best to let them die.Ya morals are absolute
Murder will never be ok
Playing devils advocate here a little...
What if it could lead to the greater good? Say, I don't know, killing someone would protect the life of 3 innocent kids?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:10:52 pm
Killing someone without reason is not ok
If it's in defense of your life I believe you have reason, if it's in defense of others it's ok too.
It is MURDER that is not ok, murder is killing without reason not killing in general.
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2015, 03:13:17 pm
Or are morals limited only to humans?
Should we not cut down trees? Pick flowers?
Edit: Also, to the serial killer there is reason to kill, even if it's for their own enjoyment.
Where do you draw the line beyond which it's "without reason."
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:14:28 pm
I thought it was just about humans in the first place?
Killing animals for food= ok
Killing animals for enjoyment of tourmenting them= not ok
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2015, 03:16:30 pm
It's never right to do wrong to do right
Another hypothetical just so I can understand your way of thinking a little better. Lets imagine you had been shot, and would bleed to death unless I get you to hospital. Circumstances dictate that I can steal a car (wrong), to save your life (right) by getting you to medical assistance. Would you be against me stealing the car to get you to the hospital? As someone who has a hard time understanding the concept of absolute morality, I see nothing wrong at all with doing so - "greater good" rather than "nose off to spite face", so to speak. I just can not see this as a binary thing.
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2015, 03:17:30 pm
Quote
Also, to the serial killer there is reason to kill, even if it's for their own enjoyment.
Where do you draw the line beyond which it's "without reason."
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:20:45 pm
Picking a flower is murdering the flower. Absolute laws decree that they are relevant for all things, unless you wish to say they're actually subjective in that they only apply to some life forms. Also, my edit of my previous post:Let see, umm I dunno maybe draw the line at KILLIG PEOPLE FOR ENTERTAINMENT?QuoteAlso, to the serial killer there is reason to kill, even if it's for their own enjoyment.
Where do you draw the line beyond which it's "without reason."
And no I do not believe plants much count, they are plants, and if we are going to get into a conversation on the civil rights of flowers I will show myself to the door.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2015, 03:26:27 pm
Are you going to return the car or even attempt to ask the owner for assistance?Picking a flower is murdering the flower. Absolute laws decree that they are relevant for all things, unless you wish to say they're actually subjective in that they only apply to some life forms. Also, my edit of my previous post:Let see, umm I dunno maybe draw the line at KILLIG PEOPLE FOR ENTERTAINMENT?QuoteAlso, to the serial killer there is reason to kill, even if it's for their own enjoyment.
Where do you draw the line beyond which it's "without reason."
And no I do not believe plants much count, they are plants, and if we are going to get into a conversation on the civil rights of flowers I will show myself to the door.
Of course I would return the car. I would even clean your blood off it. I am not a monster! :P . The owner is not around. The circumstance is this: theft (wrong, justifiable?) to save life (right), or no theft (right) to leave you die (wrong?). Yeah, I know, extreme example, but it is the fringes where I see absolute morality as failing - like any catch all system. I could not leave you die. My internal moral scales would not balance out theft as more signifigant than letting someone die. Boom. Moral relativism.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:28:11 pm
Just stealing the car and keeping it isn't ok though.
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2015, 03:31:48 pm
Quote
And no I do not believe plants much count, they are plants
No, I don't believe humans count much, they are humans.
Assuming you are correct in saying God exists, then we are like a grain of sand beside ten Everests, one on top of the other. Why would God not love the plant as much as the human? Does he not love all things? Is his omnibenevolent, or all loving, nature in itself subjective?
Quote
Let see, umm I dunno maybe draw the line at KILLIG PEOPLE FOR ENTERTAINMENT?That's your line.
The serial killer, whilst in the minority of the human population, thinks it's perfectly moral. The person who kills people for money has a reason, too. In fact, morals only look more subjective the more you realise how much they differ from person to person. A serial killer is just an extreme example.
Also, I'm interested in your answer to this:
Quote
Plus, how are absolute morals reconciled with the seeming change in moral thought seen between the old and new testament?
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2015, 03:34:49 pm
Ya it would be ok to take the car as long as you or I pay for any damage and clean up the mess.
Just stealing the car and keeping it isn't ok though.
Yeah, stealing it and keeping it makes it hard to justify the greater good. So, without even realising it, you accept a certain degree of moral relativism. Interesting.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:36:29 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2015, 03:38:41 pm
Well it's not theft (as far as I'm concerned) if your giving it back on the condition it was take especialy in a situation like that
The law would still consider it taking without consent, and I would still probably be arrested and tried - though I would consider it worth it, and who would possibly be conviceted in such an extreme scenario?. Again, with the "as far as I am concerned" - that is a relative morality argument, as is including the conditions of its return.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 17, 2015, 03:39:31 pm
On the car topic, I would say it's certainly justified. It's still stealing, though. That you did the bad thing for a good cause doesn't change the fact that it was a bad thing. 'Course, you'd want to return it afterwards, reimburse the owner for any damages, and plead guilty if he takes you to court.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:40:31 pm
I have nothing more to say about it
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2015, 03:42:00 pm
Hey, thank you for serving a year in jail to keep me from dieing.
I have nothing more to say about it
No probs man! Thanks for helping me understand a little more about how those who hold absolute moral views think.
IMO it's sometimes justified to do a BadTM thing if it will prevent a greater evil or achieve a greater good. Not to say it makes the bad thing OK - it's really just making the best of a bad situation.
On the car topic, I would say it's certainly justified. It's still stealing, though. That you did the bad thing for a good cause doesn't change the fact that it was a bad thing. 'Course, you'd want to return it afterwards, reimburse the owner for any damages, and plead guilty if he takes you to court.
Oh, of course - it is a silly example, but one I like to use to show how equally silly a hard line "there is never an excuse to do bad things" position actually is.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:43:39 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 17, 2015, 03:45:12 pm
Yes, but contrary to Nietzsche's claim that religion is injurious to society, it can still be seen as doing good. Even if you only view it as a small nugget in an otherwise contemptible sea of hate and bigotry, it does some good.
It also does bad things, but so does every organisation. We have to take the good with the bad, and make sure the bad, repressive bits don't get out of control.
As for the validity of heaven and all that what not, and the concept of a monotheistic, Abrahamic God, I too agree it's exceedingly unlikely.
And if its not true then that by itself makes it a bad thing.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2015, 03:47:40 pm
((Do note that I'm pretty unique when it comes to this kinda stuff, I'm not sure how many people think like I do))
Actually, you'd be surprised - it is very common amongst Catholics. I have discussed this with many, and a few even claimed they would refuse assistance in a stolen car. I wonder how many would actually do that if in that situation.
More worrying though is how many responded with claims that "yes, of course I would" when asked if they would kill me if god ordered it. The implications there are worrying.
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2015, 03:48:31 pm
ANSWER MY QUESTION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
:P
It doesn't make it inherently bad. It just makes those following it whilst knowing it's wrong intellectually dishonest, but still not bad themselves.Yes, but contrary to Nietzsche's claim that religion is injurious to society, it can still be seen as doing good. Even if you only view it as a small nugget in an otherwise contemptible sea of hate and bigotry, it does some good.
It also does bad things, but so does every organisation. We have to take the good with the bad, and make sure the bad, repressive bits don't get out of control.
As for the validity of heaven and all that what not, and the concept of a monotheistic, Abrahamic God, I too agree it's exceedingly unlikely.
And if its not true then that by itself makes it a bad thing.
Being incorrect doesn't make a theory bad. Were gravity disproved, and that there's actually no gravitational force, you wouldn't say the "theory" of gravity is bad.
Post by: i2amroy on February 17, 2015, 03:50:22 pm
And if its not true then that by itself makes it a bad thing.I'd be willing to ascribe that it's possible for someone to be taught the moral system of a religion without necessarily being forced to ascribe to all of it's tenets. Even if the way a religion believes things happen isn't necessarily true, they work great as moral system carriers, which allows for things that fall into the "good" moral category generally to be carried to more people.
Also what about the whole "lies to children" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiesToChildren) thing? Arguably, almost nothing that you've learned in science prior to the college level is actually "true", because they are all wrong things we say to allow you to get closer to the actual truth behind the way the natural world works. Does that make it "bad" for us to teach you these things?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:51:17 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2015, 03:55:13 pm
I have one question for the 'if god commanded you would you kill me?', have you done anything to give reason or need for me to kill you?
That depends on what you would judge as worthy of being killed. I know the point you are making - you don't want it to be a cold blooded murder, and instead want it to be a "justifiable" killing. If your god commanded it, is that not enough, or is it OK to argue the divine on this matter? I have a hard time thinking up anything that would justify such an act though. What would you consider justifies such an action? Again, the "needing justification" strays very close to a relativism rather than an absolutist view.
Post by: Descan on February 17, 2015, 03:55:45 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:56:51 pm
Did Isaac do anything to give reason for Abraham to kill him, after God commanded it?Leading to my second question
If no justification is given will god stop me before I kill you?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2015, 03:59:09 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on February 17, 2015, 04:00:41 pm
I have one question for the 'if god commanded you would you kill me?', have you done anything to give reason or need for me to kill you?That's what a moral relativist would ask... Trying to investigate the situation and weighing factors instead of relying on ironclad rules of conduct in real world situations.
By questioning the rules (and in this case, hypothetical God) you clearly know for yourself that absolute morality isn't enough. Ideals are an important psychological tool, but they shouldn't get in the way of doing the right thing... Or force people to do the wrong thing.
Abraham thought that god would raise issac back from the dead. He knew that his family would have to come from issac so he wasn't afraid of him dying forever. It still took a lot of faith to do though.I've never heard this before... Could you show us where it says that?
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2015, 04:01:12 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2015, 04:02:15 pm
I've never heard this before... Could you show us where it says that?Hebrews 11:19
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 17, 2015, 04:02:40 pm
((although I totally agree that the whole story is kinda scary))
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2015, 04:05:12 pm
Not to mention a terrified child and a father willing to do blood rituals to please his god.I don't think issac was terrified. Issac was somewhere from 15-30 years old when this happened and abraham was well over 100 years old. Issac could have easily beaten his father in a fight. It is logical that abraham shared his belief that Issac would be raised from the dead and issac respected his father enough to go with it.
Post by: Bohandas on February 17, 2015, 04:05:35 pm
And if its not true then that by itself makes it a bad thing.I'd be willing to ascribe that it's possible for someone to be taught the moral system of a religion without necessarily being forced to ascribe to all of it's tenets. Even if the way a religion believes things happen isn't necessarily true, they work great as moral system carriers, which allows for things that fall into the "good" moral category generally to be carried to more people.
Also what about the whole "lies to children" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiesToChildren) thing? Arguably, almost nothing that you've learned in science prior to the college level is actually "true", because they are all wrong things we say to allow you to get closer to the actual truth behind the way the natural world works. Does that make it "bad" for us to teach you these things?
Good teachers will acknowledge an omitted technicality if it's brought up to them, and Religion isn't a simplified version of anything anyway.
EDIT:
...It's a complicated version of nothing.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 17, 2015, 04:08:06 pm
Huh, so it does. Though to quibble I think it's saying he believed God *could* raise Isaac, but that's nearly the same thing.I've never heard this before... Could you show us where it says that?Hebrews 11:19
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2015, 04:08:40 pm
Not to mention a terrified child and a father willing to do blood rituals to please his god.I don't think issac was terrified. Issac was somewhere from 15-30 years old when this happened and abraham was well over 100 years old. Issac could have easily beaten his father in a fight. It is logical that abraham shared his belief that Issac would be raised from the dead and issac respected his father enough to go with it.
It seems to show the father misleading the son. Being economical with the truth, as it were.
Quote
“Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2015, 04:10:25 pm
And if its not true then that by itself makes it a bad thing.I'd be willing to ascribe that it's possible for someone to be taught the moral system of a religion without necessarily being forced to ascribe to all of it's tenets. Even if the way a religion believes things happen isn't necessarily true, they work great as moral system carriers, which allows for things that fall into the "good" moral category generally to be carried to more people.
Also what about the whole "lies to children" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiesToChildren) thing? Arguably, almost nothing that you've learned in science prior to the college level is actually "true", because they are all wrong things we say to allow you to get closer to the actual truth behind the way the natural world works. Does that make it "bad" for us to teach you these things?
Good teachers will acknowledge an omitted technicality if it's brought up to them, and Religion isn't a simplified version of anything anyway.
EDIT:
It's a complicated version of nothing.
I am not sure if it is like this for other religions, but as a christian, you don't have to believe the whole bible to be saved. All you have to do is:
1. admit you have sinned
2. Believe that Jesus died for your sins and is the only way to heaven
3. Choose to accept the gift of eternal life.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2015, 04:12:22 pm
Not to mention a terrified child and a father willing to do blood rituals to please his god.I don't think issac was terrified. Issac was somewhere from 15-30 years old when this happened and abraham was well over 100 years old. Issac could have easily beaten his father in a fight. It is logical that abraham shared his belief that Issac would be raised from the dead and issac respected his father enough to go with it.
It seems to show the father misleading the son. Being economical with the truth, as it were.Quote“Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
Forgot about that part. Issac still must have respected his father enough to go with it. I don't think abraham could force issac to do it.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 17, 2015, 04:15:33 pm
Quote
fearIt's also possible they were terrified of God's retribution if they didn't go through with it.
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2015, 04:25:46 pm
The son did not fight out of trust. The father bound his confused child and put him on top of what he intended to be his funeral pyre.
No matter how much he "didn't want to do it" he was still willing to. I would ditch the god that made me do that, and to hell ((tee hee)) with the consequences.
Post by: i2amroy on February 17, 2015, 04:27:14 pm
Good teachers will acknowledge an omitted technicality if it's brought up to them, and Religion isn't a simplified version of anything anyway.My main point is that just because something is "wrong" doesn't necessarily make it "bad". (Also a lot of lies we tell to children aren't just wrong on a technicality, many of them are just blatantly wrong. Go to any early math class and you'll run into sentences like "you can't take the square root of a negative" or "you can't subtract 5 from 3" on a very regular basis. These statements are arguably "wrong", but we still use them as a tool for teaching.
EDIT:
...It's a complicated version of nothing.
Religion does a similar thing. I'd be willing to say that pretty much any religion has two major goals:
1) To explain the natural world (which personally, I'd say science does a bit better)
2) To spread it's moral system (which religion is probably the best carrier for)
Religion uses analogies and other things that may be "wrong" in order to teach you and accomplish those goals, notably goal number 2. Things like Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac might never have happened and may be "wrong" in that sense, but if you look on them as steps to accomplish one of the goals of religion (that of making you share their moral code) then they work identical to the steps math and science use to explain simpler topics to younger students, as an easy way to package a lesson to promote the student's understanding of a more complex whole (in this case their entire moral code).
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2015, 04:35:30 pm
Source (http://ldsdoctrinalstudy.com/prophets/abraham/81-how-old-was-isaac-when-abraham-was-asked-by-the-lord-to-sacrifice-him.html)
Another source (http://ldsdoctrinalstudy.com/prophets/abraham/81-how-old-was-isaac-when-abraham-was-asked-by-the-lord-to-sacrifice-him.html)
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2015, 04:49:44 pm
And then we have the point that even if the son were to consent then it makes it not in the least bit more moral. It may even make it worse if you think of the father emotionally blackmailing his child to take part in this cult-killing.
In modern times, we would see Abraham as a dangerous religious fanatic whose zeal brought him to the pyre but didn't bring him the full way. Because it's in the Bible, he's lauded as an example of good faith. If all Christians were to have such "faith" I would be very worried.
Post by: Bohandas on February 17, 2015, 04:50:56 pm
Good teachers will acknowledge an omitted technicality if it's brought up to them, and Religion isn't a simplified version of anything anyway.My main point is that just because something is "wrong" doesn't necessarily make it "bad". (Also a lot of lies we tell to children aren't just wrong on a technicality, many of them are just blatantly wrong. Go to any early math class and you'll run into sentences like "you can't take the square root of a negative" or "you can't subtract 5 from 3" on a very regular basis. These statements are arguably "wrong", but we still use them as a tool for teaching.
EDIT:
...It's a complicated version of nothing.
With complex math eventually, in a later grade, the full version is either explained or at minimum its existence is at least acknowledged.
Post by: Bohandas on February 17, 2015, 04:54:13 pm
And if its not true then that by itself makes it a bad thing.I'd be willing to ascribe that it's possible for someone to be taught the moral system of a religion without necessarily being forced to ascribe to all of it's tenets. Even if the way a religion believes things happen isn't necessarily true, they work great as moral system carriers, which allows for things that fall into the "good" moral category generally to be carried to more people.
Also what about the whole "lies to children" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiesToChildren) thing? Arguably, almost nothing that you've learned in science prior to the college level is actually "true", because they are all wrong things we say to allow you to get closer to the actual truth behind the way the natural world works. Does that make it "bad" for us to teach you these things?
Good teachers will acknowledge an omitted technicality if it's brought up to them, and Religion isn't a simplified version of anything anyway.
EDIT:
...It's a complicated version of nothing.
Though I suppose this could potentially apply to religions that are openly incomplete (Taoism) or openly not true (SubGenius, Discordianism, LaVeyan Satanism, the Cthulhu Mythos) but not to Abrahamic religion, never to Abrahamic religion.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 04:56:04 pm
No actualy I am asking to make sure this is my god, and not some hypothetical devil or some other. Just because something posing as god tells me to do something doesn't mean I have to do it, I need to know it is godI have one question for the 'if god commanded you would you kill me?', have you done anything to give reason or need for me to kill you?That's what a moral relativist would ask... Trying to investigate the situation and weighing factors instead of relying on ironclad rules of conduct in real world situations.
By questioning the rules (and in this case, hypothetical God) you clearly know for yourself that absolute morality isn't enough. Ideals are an important psychological tool, but they shouldn't get in the way of doing the right thing... Or force people to do the wrong thing.Abraham thought that god would raise issac back from the dead. He knew that his family would have to come from issac so he wasn't afraid of him dying forever. It still took a lot of faith to do though.I've never heard this before... Could you show us where it says that?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2015, 04:56:47 pm
Em, there is evidence his father was misleading him. The only point in which he may have realised what was happening was when he was being bound. At the youngest point of your estimation he was 15. So, a child below 16. He realises when his father starts attempting to bind him. He is naturally confused. How could his father do this? Is his father doing this? It would become almost surreal to him. And it doesn't take all that long to do a rough bind and proceed from there.
And then we have the point that even if the son were to consent then it makes it not in the least bit more moral. It may even make it worse if you think of the father emotionally blackmailing his child to take part in this cult-killing.
In modern times, we would see Abraham as a dangerous religious fanatic whose zeal brought him to the pyre but didn't bring him the full way. Because it's in the Bible, he's lauded as an example of good faith. If all Christians were to have such "faith" I would be very worried.
Abraham thought that god would raise Issac back from the dead. He knew that god would grow his family from Issac. So he knew that Issac wouldn't stay dead. Abraham loved Issac a lot, (Genesis 22:2) so this was a difficult thing for him to do. Abraham would never kill Issac if he thought he would lose him. The faith that Abraham had was that god would grow a family out of Issac. Abraham had faith that God's earlier promises would come true.
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2015, 04:58:55 pm
Em, there is evidence his father was misleading him. The only point in which he may have realised what was happening was when he was being bound. At the youngest point of your estimation he was 15. So, a child below 16. He realises when his father starts attempting to bind him. He is naturally confused. How could his father do this? Is his father doing this? It would become almost surreal to him. And it doesn't take all that long to do a rough bind and proceed from there.
And then we have the point that even if the son were to consent then it makes it not in the least bit more moral. It may even make it worse if you think of the father emotionally blackmailing his child to take part in this cult-killing.
In modern times, we would see Abraham as a dangerous religious fanatic whose zeal brought him to the pyre but didn't bring him the full way. Because it's in the Bible, he's lauded as an example of good faith. If all Christians were to have such "faith" I would be very worried.
Abraham thought that god would raise Issac back from the dead. He knew that god would grow his family from Issac. So he knew that Issac wouldn't stay dead. Abraham loved Issac a lot, (Genesis 22:2) so this was a difficult thing for him to do. Abraham would never kill Issac if he thought he would lose him. The faith that Abraham had was that god would grow a family out of Issac. Abraham had faith that God's earlier promises would come true.
So the whole point, to prove faith, was pointless as Abraham knew there would essentially be no repercussion. That seems like a foolish test for God to make.
Jesus could be a devil. Why do you believe he is God, when humans are fallible beasts and liable to write certain...exaggerated things?No actualy I am asking to make sure this is my god, and not some hypothetical devil or some other. Just because something posing as god tells me to do something doesn't mean I have to do it, I need to know it is godI have one question for the 'if god commanded you would you kill me?', have you done anything to give reason or need for me to kill you?That's what a moral relativist would ask... Trying to investigate the situation and weighing factors instead of relying on ironclad rules of conduct in real world situations.
By questioning the rules (and in this case, hypothetical God) you clearly know for yourself that absolute morality isn't enough. Ideals are an important psychological tool, but they shouldn't get in the way of doing the right thing... Or force people to do the wrong thing.Abraham thought that god would raise issac back from the dead. He knew that his family would have to come from issac so he wasn't afraid of him dying forever. It still took a lot of faith to do though.I've never heard this before... Could you show us where it says that?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2015, 05:02:54 pm
So the whole point, to prove faith, was pointless as Abraham knew there would essentially be no repercussion. That seems like a foolish test for God to make.That's not what I am saying. sorry if my previous post was confusing, but God promised Abraham that Issac would father a great nation. Abraham had enough faith in that promise to be willing to sacrifice Issac. He had faith that God would somehow still keep his promise. He thought that God would raise Issac from the dead.
Post by: scrdest on February 17, 2015, 05:12:47 pm
Conclusion does not follow from premise here.So the whole point, to prove faith, was pointless as Abraham knew there would essentially be no repercussion. That seems like a foolish test for God to make.That's not what I am saying. sorry if my previous post was confusing, but God promised Abraham that Issac would father a great nation. Abraham had enough faith in that promise to be willing to sacrifice Issac. He had faith that God would somehow still keep his promise. He thought that God would raise Issac from the dead.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2015, 05:26:20 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 08:35:25 pm
As far as I can tell I believe it.
I'm asking these questions about the scenario to give myself proof that it is god
Post by: freeformschooler on February 17, 2015, 09:02:33 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 17, 2015, 09:07:38 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on February 17, 2015, 09:10:48 pm
What is Lent?
protestant detected
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lent
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 17, 2015, 09:12:06 pm
Post by: mastahcheese on February 17, 2015, 09:14:26 pm
It's a thing for crazy people.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2015, 09:16:01 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 17, 2015, 11:13:35 pm
No actualy I am asking to make sure this is my god, and not some hypothetical devil or some other. Just because something posing as god tells me to do something doesn't mean I have to do it, I need to know it is god... how would you tell? The judeochristian god is noted in biblical text as commanding some pretty horrible things and... not stopping it. Issac is one thing, but the bits where forces under god's command ripped pregnant women to pieces (hosea 13, nach) and whatnot are... there.
More generally, how can one be sure of anything in the bible itself if you believe there is a being capable of genuinely posing as the divine? That would seem to undermine the basis of... basically everything. Infinite deceiver can infinitely deceive. You open up the possibility that the entire belief system is, in fact, a grand scheme to damn billions. In the case of systems where salvation is contingent on specific beliefs -- like belief in the divinity of Jesus -- simply having attributed the acts in the original text to the wrong person would seem able to doom the souls of the entire religion's following in one stroke...
---
Which leads to a question. Is there actually anywhere in the bible where demons or whathaveyou do pose as YWHW? Know there's bits with false gods or whatev', but what about the proposed genuine article? What about other holy texts? Demons posing as (one of the) god(s) is a pretty common thing in discourse and whatnot, but I'm actually having a little trouble recalling cases of it being in actual canon texts and such. Usually it's either of some lesser being or a different critter (false god, opposing god, etc.), from what I can remember...
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2015, 11:30:30 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 11:54:28 pm
The old testiment IIRC showed that there was going to be a coming of a sacrifice (there were many comparable things between (Isac, I know I spelt it wrong but cut me some slack I'm tired) and Jesus) in the form of god's son.
Then Jesus appears, gets crucified, lives a sinless (by the records which I choose to believe) life, and dies to save our sins (not in this exact order :p )
Sure he could be a false prophet, in which case my beliefs are also riding on the Old Testament so it looks like I don't know where I'm going but it's better than hell.
Post by: Bohandas on February 18, 2015, 01:06:59 am
The old testiment IIRC showed that there was going to be a coming of a sacrifice (there were many comparable things between (Isac, I know I spelt it wrong but cut me some slack I'm tired) and Jesus) in the form of god's son.
...just like how Nostradomus "predicted" 9/11.
EDIT:
That's the great thing about non-literal writing; it matches up to just about anything you want it to, because there's very little if anything that it doesn't say.
EDIT:
Did that come off as confrontational? If so, then sorry.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 18, 2015, 07:37:14 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 18, 2015, 10:27:44 am
Knowing the concepts of goodness, does this make you good?
Ignorance of the bad, hiding from it does this make you good?
Killing the ignorant and the destroyer, is this goodness
Over zealosy, and passion for one goal/idea/deity is it a good thing?
How much do you love? Could you measure it?
Why do we love?
Why must we serve? Be it money, our dog, cats, a deity, sensation, exhilaration.whatever.
Personal notes will offend highly, bordering on platinum banhammering material
This is AO material and a parental guardian is highly advised
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I wish I was a smart as the rest of you geeks. But im not.
Im more cunning though
Post by: Rolan7 on February 18, 2015, 10:51:25 am
I looked through a (skeptic's) list of Jesus prophecies, looking for one about him being the son of God. The closest I could find was Hosea 11:1. Matthew quotes it:
Quote
2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.Seems like a pretty clear prophecy. It's not like Jesus was born in Egypt, but by fleeing to it at a young age, God can then call him out of it later.
Except the actual Hosea verse is... well, here:
Quote
11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.It's a reference to the Exodus, not Jesus. Israel is the figurative son of God. The context of the chapter is clear about that, but here's more support from Exodus:
Quote
4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
So that particular "prophecy" wasn't a prophecy at all, just a reminder of God's previous acts for Israel.
The only other prophecy (that I could find, anyway) of Jesus as God's son is Isaiah 7:14. Here's what Matthew says:
Quote
1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,And here's the prophecy from Isaiah. I suggest following the link because it's an... interesting prophecy, which I can't do justice to without a massive quote:
1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/7.html
Quote from: isaiah 7
7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
7:12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
To summarize: The king of Judah, Ahaz, is worried about Syria (as he should be, it turns out later). God promises that Syria won't defeat Judah and replace him as king. And God volunteers a sign, in this context: A "virgin" will bear a child named Immanuel.
So there are a few problems with this prophecy as relates to Jesus.
1) Jesus arrived far too late to reassure Judah about the coming invasion from Syria. (Apparently Syria kicked ass and took slaves... but didn't place a king, so God was right).
2) Jesus was never called Immanuel
3) The word in Isaiah apparently translates to "young woman", not "virgin". At least according to some scholars.
So this prophecy also was mistakenly associated with Jesus by Matthew.
And... Those were the only two prophecies I could find which supposedly predicted Jesus's divine or virgin birth. Also, divine/virgin birth was super common among mythological heroes, as this list shows:
http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 18, 2015, 10:57:27 am
Post by: Baffler on February 18, 2015, 01:26:35 pm
To the 12 Catholics here/other denominations that do it: what are you doing for Lent? I'm going to be joining the Catholics for a fast tomorrow. Considered giving up coffee for Lent, but let's not be reckless here.
I haven't decided yet. I'm divided on what to give up, but I'm fairly certain that I'll start volunteering at the parish soup kitchen.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 18, 2015, 02:34:47 pm
I could have sworn Jesus was called Emmanuel within his life...
Well... having a dig around on that word is kind of interesting. It literally is a masculine name meaning "God is with us". It appears in the book of Isiah, and also in the Gospel of Matthew. However, Matthew uses the Greek translation rather than the Hebrew one. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, it was common in Jewish writing of the time to reinterpret the scriptures in order to signify a new meaning, so putting great stock in the claims in the NT might be a less than safe approach when considering prophecy. Wikipedia also notes that the gospel of Matthew was probably written in the last two decades of the 1st century, by a highly educated Jew who believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. It seems that in turn the gospels move the goalposts somewhat, quoting the Wikipedia article:
Quote
At first, titles such as "Messiah" and "son of God" had described Jesus's future nature at the "deutera parousia", the Second Coming; but very soon he came to be recognised as having become the Son of God at the resurrection; then, in Mark, he becomes Son of God at his baptism; and finally Matthew and Luke add infancy narratives in which Jesus is the Son of God from the very beginning
It is easy to retcon things to match prophecy after the event - so not really within his life, it seems. After all, there are no really detailed references to Jesus from during his life.
Post by: ShadowHammer on February 18, 2015, 06:12:20 pm
To the 12 Catholics here/other denominations that do it: what are you doing for Lent? I'm going to be joining the Catholics for a fast tomorrow. Considered giving up coffee for Lent, but let's not be reckless here.I intend to not eat junk food.
Post by: Helgoland on February 18, 2015, 06:47:58 pm
To the 12 Catholics here/other denominations that do it: what are you doing for Lent? I'm going to be joining the Catholics for a fast tomorrow. Considered giving up coffee for Lent, but let's not be reckless here.I think I'll get into premarital intercourse, but that's less a matter of it being lent and more of a matter of having someone to do it with.
Post by: Frumple on February 18, 2015, 07:00:32 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 18, 2015, 07:00:55 pm
Im a touchy subject..To the 12 Catholics here/other denominations that do it: what are you doing for Lent? I'm going to be joining the Catholics for a fast tomorrow. Considered giving up coffee for Lent, but let's not be reckless here.I think I'll get into premarital intercourse, but that's less a matter of it being lent and more of a matter of having someone to do it with.
Wassup believers here is another silly wolf question: could god create a more powerfull god?
Another: God spoke to me last night and told me to find one of his followers, then to ask them to kill me.
Would you do it?
Could you do it?
Or would you say im crazy?
If im crazy, then what makes the prophets speak the truth?
I miss K33n and the comments that he/she made and then thread was blocked in fear the crusaders would rise and start purifying the non believers.
In fear
And they shall no [NOFEAR]
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 18, 2015, 07:11:50 pm
Wassup believers here is another silly wolf question: could god create a more powerfull god?Yes, he is all-powerful and is perfectly capable of doing this. But, he is also omniscient and all-wise and perfect. Doing this would be contrary to his nature.
Another: God spoke to me last night and told me to find one of his followers, then to ask them to kill me.I'll answer back with a question. Did god do any of this to you last night? If not, then there is no need to worry about this.
Would you do it?
Could you do it?
Or would you say im crazy?
If im crazy, then what makes the prophets speak the truth?
Post by: freeformschooler on February 18, 2015, 09:10:26 pm
Meanwhile: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/18/newton-religious-school-postpones-lent-due-to-snow-says-we-have-suffered-enough/
Post by: Sheb on February 19, 2015, 04:51:26 am
To the 12 Catholics here/other denominations that do it: what are you doing for Lent? I'm going to be joining the Catholics for a fast tomorrow. Considered giving up coffee for Lent, but let's not be reckless here.I think I'll get into premarital intercourse, but that's less a matter of it being lent and more of a matter of having someone to do it with.
Hey, Congrats Helgoland! May you two rot in hell happily ever after!
Post by: That Wolf on February 19, 2015, 11:23:51 am
I have a story, it involves an event that I still ponder to this day what it was.
My semi grandad is actually just my grandmas bf but who cares about that.
At the age of... maybe 11 12 I was at the grandads fathers house, he was a ww2 navy veteran and the first time I met him, I saw a strong man in a weak body, white hair and an epic white beard, a weathered face that had seen much and had forgotten even more.
He told me to come close to him and quickly picked me up placing me on his lap and he placed his firm and almost skelletal hand on my head and tosseld my hair, asking me the basic questions "what are you going to do when your older" all that. I liked him but was intimidated by him.
He died a few years later and then the semi grandfather got the house and after a troubling time in my life I ended up living there for a bit (small beach house) I liked it. It had a homely warmth in it.
One day while playing my N64 legend of zelda majoras mask (still my favourite game, its beautifuly dark and has a great interweaving story for such a small amout of production time)
I was in the annoying sand temple, ikana i think. So while playing this and trying to remember the dungeon I was alone in the house and the doors where wide open like always so I could have easily heard footsteps.
I decided to go to clock town after derping on the temple. Probably to attack the bomb bag theif.
I felt a hand touch the top of my head from behind. Except it felt like it touched my skull, it immediatly sent shivers down my back and I got up and looked around for anyone.
I told my father about it and he heard me but kind of ignored it (not a very open man my father, he wont speak of religion or deep shizz for any matter)
Ive told people with many answers been given.
So here it is. A little story about me. Can you answer it?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 19, 2015, 12:35:44 pm
that was hilariousTo the 12 Catholics here/other denominations that do it: what are you doing for Lent? I'm going to be joining the Catholics for a fast tomorrow. Considered giving up coffee for Lent, but let's not be reckless here.I think I'll get into premarital intercourse, but that's less a matter of it being lent and more of a matter of having someone to do it with.
*returns with an armored female dwarven corpse carried by the teethyou didn't ask a question :\
I have a story, it involves an event that I still ponder to this day what it was.
My semi grandad is actually just my grandmas bf but who cares about that.
At the age of... maybe 11 12 I was at the grandads fathers house, he was a ww2 navy veteran and the first time I met him, I saw a strong man in a weak body, white hair and an epic white beard, a weathered face that had seen much and had forgotten even more.
He told me to come close to him and quickly picked me up placing me on his lap and he placed his firm and almost skelletal hand on my head and tosseld my hair, asking me the basic questions "what are you going to do when your older" all that. I liked him but was intimidated by him.
He died a few years later and then the semi grandfather got the house and after a troubling time in my life I ended up living there for a bit (small beach house) I liked it. It had a homely warmth in it.
One day while playing my N64 legend of zelda majoras mask (still my favourite game, its beautifuly dark and has a great interweaving story for such a small amout of production time)
I was in the annoying sand temple, ikana i think. So while playing this and trying to remember the dungeon I was alone in the house and the doors where wide open like always so I could have easily heard footsteps.
I decided to go to clock town after derping on the temple. Probably to attack the bomb bag theif.
I felt a hand touch the top of my head from behind. Except it felt like it touched my skull, it immediatly sent shivers down my back and I got up and looked around for anyone.
I told my father about it and he heard me but kind of ignored it (not a very open man my father, he wont speak of religion or deep shizz for any matter)
Ive told people with many answers been given.
So here it is. A little story about me. Can you answer it?
Post by: i2amroy on February 19, 2015, 01:28:48 pm
Quote
Can you answer it?Of course, since "it" could be anything in this case, I think I'll answer the question with the answer of "yes", where "it" is the question "What is the answer of 3+7?" and the respective answer to that question being "10".
That said if you want a more scientific answer, I'd say you were hit by a faint bit of a draft (since you mention the doors were wide open) that created the feeling of something brushing against the hairs on your head. At this point your fight-or-flight response kicked in (especially since I can attest that that particular dungeon develops a rather creepy atmosphere after a while) which intensified the sensation (since all of your hairs tried to stand up) and created the shivers that ran down your back. Personally I've experienced a rather similar thing a couple of times, though it tends to happen on your neck instead of your head since the hairs there are finer and more sensitive.
Post by: TD1 on February 19, 2015, 02:09:37 pm
Quote
Yes, he is all-powerful and is perfectly capable of doing this. But, he is also omniscient and all-wise and perfect. Doing this would be contrary to his nature.
Post by: That Wolf on February 19, 2015, 02:27:31 pm
But I just had a story to tell.
I love that game. Wheres my bunny hood.
Alright lest I derail again I will keep it religious.
So would you say link was dead/having a spiritual exp in clock town? or is it the nature of time travel? Cause the song of sorrow/healing is sarias song backwards isnt it.
Post by: TD1 on February 19, 2015, 02:34:54 pm
QuoteYes, he is all-powerful and is perfectly capable of doing this. But, he is also omniscient and all-wise and perfect. Doing this would be contrary to his nature.
Err, this was meant to have text with it...which seems to have gone. So, I'll type it out again.
If he is perfect, then he can not make a more perfect being.
If he is all powerful, he can't make a more powerful being as to do so would make him not all powerful. If this is true, he is also not all powerful.
The "all powerful" tag contradicts itself in many ways.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 19, 2015, 02:58:22 pm
"Can God create a rock he cannot lift" is still an interesting question, though, for a different reason. It's another way of asking whether God can relinquish any of his power - stop being all-powerful. Ironically, for the answer to be yes, he has to have a certain weakness: He can't have perfect foreknowledge and control of his actions. Otherwise any release of power is simply a choice he has made, and all the consequences are directly by his design.
Even if God had the ability of perfect prescience and gave it up, he still knew every consequence when he made that decision. Everything is still exactly according to his original design - even if he manages to avoid peeking later.
Which is back into the (rather frustrating) free-will discussion, of course. It's just clear to me that, for there to be actual free will, God could never have been completely omnipotent and omniscient. Not that that disproves the Christian God... Frankly, he's portrayed as having a lot of flaws in judgement, not to mention character. It just highlights the impossibility of God being perfect.
Post by: i2amroy on February 19, 2015, 03:08:40 pm
I think a big problem people run into with the whole "all powerful" definition is the fact that they try to mix multiple systems. If you have something that is all powerful, in the system you can't make something "more powerful" than that. It's like comparing infinity and infinity +1. Because infinity is a concept and 1 is a number the statement "infinity = infinity + 1" is a totally valid one. Similarly a "more powerful being" than one that was "all powerful" could be said to have the same amount of power:
infinite power = infinite power + 1 power
Post by: Rolan7 on February 19, 2015, 03:19:24 pm
Except that I don't think the Bible supports him being perfectly prescient, or even all-powerful really... He creates the world in stages, the Israelites lose some battles despite his blessing, and well... the Problem of Evil. He acts like he gets tired, or at least needs time to plan things. He lets himself get convinced by mortal arguments for chrissakes :P Whereas a perfect being would have been aware of the argument and made his decision at the beginning of time.
Post by: i2amroy on February 19, 2015, 03:27:53 pm
With perfect prescience he would know which branches would be chosen, rendering the branches meaningless. Besides, he can alter reality at a time to any degree - there are no branches, because if necessary he can rewrite the entire world (or change someone's mind) at just the right time.Point. (Course I'm really just playing devil's advocate here, personally I'm a hardcore determinist. :P)
Post by: That Wolf on February 19, 2015, 03:40:18 pm
Link to the past (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s182g4vwprA)
Cause back in my day Id do anything and I just ate them to get away.
They just enhanced my problems and made me look at what I was doing.
And I changed, slowly and im still changing.
Introduce yourself to my gods. Listen to the lessons they teach. Never forsake your own thoughts or religion, just let it enhance you.
A key grows in autumn. It will open the door
I took a shortcut a path that many take a life to get to.
I recommend them. Treat with respect and reverance and please don't eat to many.
thanks for letting me say my peice sorry for being a dick.
Im going quiet here unless im questioned,
Love you guys n gals
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 19, 2015, 03:49:41 pm
Quote
He lets himself get convinced by mortal arguments for chrissakesSource? That sounds... unusual.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 19, 2015, 05:02:33 pm
Quote
18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
There's also the practice of prayer, which makes perfect sense if God isn't of infinite intellect. It's a way to crowdsource the triage of issues needing attention.
Also, I happened across a line which supports my point that the Biblical God is limited:
Quote from: Judges 1:19
And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Post by: TD1 on February 19, 2015, 06:30:42 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on February 19, 2015, 06:33:35 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 19, 2015, 06:41:28 pm
Post by: Helgoland on February 19, 2015, 06:42:54 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 19, 2015, 10:55:01 pm
So I heard something from somebody today and nobody here has said anything about it. In reference to the garden of eden:
The apple eating in the garden of Eden is representing sex, god didnt want humanity reproducing and punished us for this.
Any thoughts on its validity?
It makes the first testament seem like a massive error log with god using his 'limited' powers to fix the fuck ups he made.
Especialy the nephilim, what are also mentioned in sumarian texts
Why do angels even have working reproductive organs?
So..
Many..
PLOT HOLES!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
edit:reading it made me laugh so I added a word to lower comedic value
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 19, 2015, 10:57:36 pm
That statement makes no sense because God specifically told Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28)
Post by: That Wolf on February 19, 2015, 11:12:32 pm
Haha wtf are nephilim then?
Why did god flood the earth again??
The sumarian text says something like 'the sons of gods found the daughter of man attractive and created half breeds'
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 19, 2015, 11:22:20 pm
Giants were already on earth. (genesis 6:4) "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Nephillum means "to fall" so the nephillum are the fallen angels who most likely possessed humans and made them breed.
Post by: That Wolf on February 19, 2015, 11:44:57 pm
That statement makes no sense because God specifically told Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28)How about look at it from my perspective. Maybe the "be fruitful and multiply" is literal, not a comandment but a law. Be fruit full (eat fruit) and multiply.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 19, 2015, 11:49:45 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 19, 2015, 11:50:29 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 19, 2015, 11:52:01 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 19, 2015, 11:53:15 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 12:03:49 am
The bible has been around for a few translations, also nobody except adam and eve heard what god said
Wording terms like 'fruitful' didnt exsist at the time, but where developed by many people.
Why would god and the first two humans need special wording about birthing?
The bible is open to interpretation.
Dont get caught up in wording invented by society.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 20, 2015, 12:07:33 am
Adam and Eve probably didn't write the book of the bible so it was definitlycpassed down quite a ways
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 12:08:31 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 12:12:44 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 20, 2015, 12:13:36 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 12:18:16 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 12:39:45 am
I'm pretty sure that part of the bible was written by people who has been hearing the story from generations of passing it down the line.Basicly what im saying. Its chinese wispers
Adam and Eve probably didn't write the book of the bible so it was definitlycpassed down quite a ways
So back to what I was clearly saying.
The fruit of knowledge. not specific knowledge. Perhaps creations knowledge was in it among sentience and lucifer wanted humans to become more.
So eating it alowed child birth among the many other symptoms like realisation of their nakedness.
So when god says be fruitfull and multiply, what if it is a literal statement, also a warning.
Because if they where all born with language and passed it down why would "be fruitful" not be literal.
If you are born with language you have no need to dance around with words and you would say give birth.
Was that enough of an explanation for the closeminded?
If not say so and Il write it up again.
Edit:
The sumarian texts say god and lucifer are on equal terms and have different goals, both of the same race and power (both weak)
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2015, 12:49:35 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 12:50:26 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 01:33:03 am
"The tree of knowledge of good and evil". Why do people always miss off that last bit?Because good and bad dont exist and are included in the title of fruit of knowledge.
Knowledge is word enough to encompass it all.
Why correct something so trivial?
Yeah and I always question the validity of everything. Especialy fairy tales written by dehydrated sunstroked desert peoples.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2015, 01:38:47 am
Because good and bad dont exist and are included in the title of fruit of knowledge.Good and evil exist in the context of the Bible, which is, oddly enough, what you're discussing. It impacts the scope of the knowledge - this is knowledge about good and evil, not... particle physics, or whatever.
Knowledge is word enough to encompass it all.
Why correct something so trivial?
...
Especialy fairy tales written by dehydrated sunstroked desert peoples.
Quote from: OP
Please be respectful of other people's beliefs, even if you think said belief is foolish or blatantly incorrect.
...
making jokes about beliefs, etc. in a derogatory manner is forbidden.
Post by: Angle on February 20, 2015, 02:01:30 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 02:05:35 am
Unless you do believe in fairy tales written by the dehydrated.
If so I am sorry.
I dont mean to offend. Just what I say can be strewn as such material.
Post by: Descan on February 20, 2015, 02:09:00 am
I though bear fruit was like aligator pears?... Remember what I said about not trolling? :/
The bible has been around for a few translations, also nobody except adam and eve heard what god said
Wording terms like 'fruitful' didnt exsist at the time, but where developed by many people.
Why would god and the first two humans need special wording about birthing?
The bible is open to interpretation.
Dont get caught up in wording invented by society.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
In case you aren't just being a lackwit ass, you REALIZE that that phrase is just flowery bullshit to make the bible sound all divine and crap when it was translated, right? The original language didn't necessarily need to be something akin to "fruitful."
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 02:29:31 am
Or maybe my level of being offended is higher than yours. I dont get offended easily
Yeah ofcourse its bs written to be poetic. but it is confusing for many and how can that help?
Allright Il leave it be if im offending
Thanks for the warning Descan
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2015, 03:09:56 am
I never was disrespectful about anybodys religion at this time.You must have a different definition of "respectful" to me, then, because you're making jokes that are explicitly derogatory (and maybe even a little racist).
Unless you do believe in fairy tales written by the dehydrated.
And you keep doing it literally the sentence after you insist that you're not doing it.
Please get your act together.
Post by: Bohandas on February 20, 2015, 03:24:50 am
I never was disrespectful about anybodys religion at this time.You must have a different definition of "respectful" to me, then, because you're making jokes that are explicitly derogatory (and maybe even a little racist).
Unless you do believe in fairy tales written by the dehydrated.
And you keep doing it literally the sentence after you insist that you're not doing it.
Please get your act together.
It would only be racist if he explicitly said that a white (or whatever) person living in the same desert would not be dehydrated
EDIT:
Or if he explicitly said that middle-eastern people would still be dehydrated even if they live spmewhere with a lot of rainfall or large bodies of fresh water.
EDIT:
Also, I feel compelled to point out that he doesn't seem to make any explicit reference to not being disrespectful in the quoted post, only to not having been dosrespectful previously.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2015, 03:26:23 am
Post by: Bohandas on February 20, 2015, 03:32:09 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 03:39:13 am
On another note.
Would you consider the glass of water you drink a part of you?
Too deep?
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2015, 03:39:56 am
Screw it, I'm going to bed.
Post by: Arx on February 20, 2015, 06:16:45 am
Why correct something so trivial?
Because it's the difference between Adam and Eve being unthinking animals and Adam and Eve being unaware of the concept of morality. One might as well call the Tree of Life just the Tree - I mean, it's safe to assume anyone eating from it would already be alive, right?
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 06:27:09 am
Interesting you say that. Where adam and eve "unthinking animals" before the consuption of the fruit. So they had no choice but to eat it and the god gets upset? Im sure thats wrong.Why correct something so trivial?
Because it's the difference between Adam and Eve being unthinking animals and Adam and Eve being unaware of the concept of morality. One might as well call the Tree of Life just the Tree - I mean, it's safe to assume anyone eating from it would already be alive, right?
Do you consider the animals and plants that you eat to be a part of you?
Post by: Arx on February 20, 2015, 06:32:11 am
Interesting you say that. Where adam and eve "unthinking animals" before the consuption of the fruit. So they had no choice but to eat it and the god gets upset? Im sure thats wrong.Why correct something so trivial?
Because it's the difference between Adam and Eve being unthinking animals and Adam and Eve being unaware of the concept of morality. One might as well call the Tree of Life just the Tree - I mean, it's safe to assume anyone eating from it would already be alive, right?
Yes, and that's exactly why it's important that it's the Tree of Knowledg of Good and Evil. They had knowledge, but not that which pertained specifically to morality.
Do you consider the animals and plants that you eat to be a part of you?
I probably have a bit of an odd stance on whether plants and animals are a part of me. I am intensely aware of the fact that my body is actually just a highly complicated self-regulating system, and have an odd sense of 'self'. In the sense that my food and drink is a part of the self-regulating system that I am/inhabit, yes, I do. However, I don't think they have any bearing on my self/spirit.
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 06:47:45 am
If not where does one draw the line that sustinance becomes you and you stop being you.
If you severed your hand. Is that hand 'you'
If its not anymore. Does eating it make it you again?
Post by: Arx on February 20, 2015, 07:06:21 am
It depends on how one defines oneself; I separate my consciousness from my vessel, although my vessel is obviously what holds and sustains my consciousness.
The cells are no more part of me than single enzymes or proteins, which are no more part of me than individual atoms.
If I severed my hand, it would be damage to my mechanical vessel. The severed hand would be no more or less part of me than anything else, really.
If I ate the severed hand (>That is horrible and disgusting. It will no doubt set you apart and create fear in your team mates. So of course. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=106279.msg3191568#msg3191568)) it would still be no more or less a part of me.
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 07:21:32 am
That we are just one?
The only seperation being ego.
I respect your answer by the by
Post by: Arx on February 20, 2015, 07:22:26 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 20, 2015, 08:04:25 am
Wolf said that eating the fruit would cause childbirth
That is untrue because they could already reproduce. It just wouldnt have been painful, just like they were already naked but they didn't notice they were naked.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 08:49:34 am
Post by: Frumple on February 20, 2015, 09:05:46 am
The folks that wrote the bible were likely in significantly different situations, though, so it's somewhat arguable how meaningful that truth is.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 09:07:58 am
Post by: Frumple on February 20, 2015, 09:11:13 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 09:16:11 am
Post by: scrdest on February 20, 2015, 09:29:01 am
Jesus is God, he is omniscient. He would know if those books were flawed and since he quoted them many times (Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19 the list goes on) we can be sure that this scripture is true.He is quoted to have quoted them, and is said to have been omniscient. And even presuming he was, there is the question of how omniscient he was while being a human.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 20, 2015, 09:38:22 am
Post by: Bohandas on February 20, 2015, 10:04:36 am
Interesting you say that. Where adam and eve "unthinking animals" before the consuption of the fruit. So they had no choice but to eat it and the god gets upset? Im sure thats wrong.Why correct something so trivial?
Because it's the difference between Adam and Eve being unthinking animals and Adam and Eve being unaware of the concept of morality. One might as well call the Tree of Life just the Tree - I mean, it's safe to assume anyone eating from it would already be alive, right?
Yes, and that's exactly why it's important that it's the Tree of Knowledg of Good and Evil. They had knowledge, but not that which pertained specifically to morality.
Actually the issue still stands as they still lacked the specific relevent knowledge.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 20, 2015, 01:53:09 pm
Jesus is God, he is omniscient. He would know if those books were flawed and since he quoted them many times (Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19 the list goes on) we can be sure that this scripture is true.
The scripture was written long after the event. You can not quote what has not been written yet. If anything, those verses are quoting Jesus. Careful - your assertions that the scriptures are true because of gods omnipotence are very close to circular reasoning, as it is in the very same scriptures that the claims of omnipotence can be found.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 03:00:00 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on February 20, 2015, 03:09:48 pm
It is more proven then the battle of Troy but people still have a hard time believing it for some reason.
The four primary sources could have been falsified years later or maybe just the written compilation of a bunch of things falsely attributed to a spiritual leader who lived a few generations ago.
Its not that I disagree with you, I am a Christian, but I'm saying your reasoning here is faulty.
Also, IIRC, no one's FOUND Troy yet and its widely regarded as a non-historical event made up as a story or a legend. Not sure though.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 03:17:43 pm
The oldest complete book of the gospel has been dated to around 300 AD.
40% of the entire gospel has been found on parchments dating before 200 AD.
Post by: Angle on February 20, 2015, 03:19:11 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 20, 2015, 03:21:32 pm
It was written by FOUR different primary sources who witnessed the event. All within their lifetime. This is the best kept record of any event at the time. It is more proven then the battle of Troy but people still have a hard time believing it for some reason.
There have been pieces of the gospel written down and dated to as low as 125 AD. That is only about 100 years after the event.
The oldest complete book of the gospel has been dated to around 300 AD.
40% of the entire gospel has been found on parchments dating before 200 AD.
As pointed out to you - after the events depicted. Not first hand accounts.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 03:22:09 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 03:26:12 pm
It was written by FOUR different primary sources who witnessed the event. All within their lifetime. This is the best kept record of any event at the time. It is more proven then the battle of Troy but people still have a hard time believing it for some reason.There have been pieces of the gospel written down and dated to as low as 125 AD. That is only about 100 years after the event.
The oldest complete book of the gospel has been dated to around 300 AD.
40% of the entire gospel has been found on parchments dating before 200 AD.
As pointed out to you - after the events depicted. Not first hand accounts.
The gospel was handed down by scribes who autographed the text throughout the ages. The paper they used was very brittle, though, so the first copies most likely were destroyed. Those numbers were just what have been proven. There are a few cases of the gospel Mark being found with a 1st century date, but their ages have not been confirmed yet. These old manuscripts with little to no changes from the current version are overwhelming evidences that the original authors were Matthew Mark Luke and John.
Source (http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/earliest-gospel-of-mark-found/)
Post by: TD1 on February 20, 2015, 03:29:04 pm
God created Adam and Eve with the ability to speak and hear. Humans have always been able to talk and listen. If you want to look at the original Hebrew text, the word "pə-rū" is a word explicitly used to mean "to bear many offspring" so it is impossible to interpret that any other way.Given that evolution would very heavily imply humans, and indeed all beings, started without such senses, do you believe evolution is, for lack of a better word, false?
I think that they want a higher power in their life, but don't want to admit there is a god. Just a theory though, you should ask them.One could reword this to "they want a higher power, but want it known there is no God." :P
Quote
Matthew Mark Luke and JohnAre these their actual names?
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 20, 2015, 03:37:01 pm
Basically, current scholarly thinking throws serious doubt if any of the authors/compliers of the gospel had any direct connection to Jesus or any of the disciples.
Lots of "ifs and maybes" in your source. Interesting claim though it is, the page itself warns about rushing to conclusions regarding the date.
Post by: Frumple on February 20, 2015, 03:40:41 pm
... haven't you actually had that question answered before? I could have sworn you were participating when someone brought up the apparent oddity of Matthew('s anglicizing).QuoteMatthew Mark Luke and JohnAre these their actual names?
But if not, no. They're not. They're just the modern english rendition.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 03:49:21 pm
I believe in micro evolution (giraffes grow longer necks in areas with taller trees). It has been proven. What has not been proven is that an ape can turn into a human.God created Adam and Eve with the ability to speak and hear. Humans have always been able to talk and listen. If you want to look at the original Hebrew text, the word "pə-rū" is a word explicitly used to mean "to bear many offspring" so it is impossible to interpret that any other way.Given that evolution would very heavily imply humans, and indeed all beings, started without such senses, do you believe evolution is, for lack of a better word, false?
I believe that god created several distinct "kinds" of animals (cats, wolfs) which then evolved into the different spices of cats and dogs (lions, tigers, foxes, dogs)
It was these "kinds" of animals that Noah took on the ark, so the evolution happened again.
Spoiler: example (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rolan7 on February 20, 2015, 03:53:57 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 20, 2015, 03:56:05 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 20, 2015, 04:01:34 pm
Creationists have been unable to specify with consistency what the created kinds are. If kinds were distinct, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For example, the twelve-spotted ladybug could be placed in the twelve-spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kind, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where one sets the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts.
Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures).
Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past. All life is one, and much diverged. Speciation has been observed.
Post by: Bohandas on February 20, 2015, 05:46:08 pm
It was written by FOUR different primary sources who witnessed the event. All within their lifetime. This is the best kept record of any event at the time. It is more proven then the battle of Troy but people still have a hard time believing it for some reason.
Jospeh Smith had eight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses). I guess you'd better become a Mormon.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 05:48:20 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 20, 2015, 05:49:52 pm
It is more proven then the battle of Troy but people still have a hard time believing it for some reason.
I'm pretty sure that there's much better evidence for the siege of troy than mere hearsay.
Actual artifacts are worth more than the testiony of a hundred people.
Post by: Bohandas on February 20, 2015, 05:53:55 pm
Then how come their book has been changed throughout history?
How come the Bible has?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Biblical_significance
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 05:54:18 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 20, 2015, 05:55:29 pm
Then how come their book has been changed throughout history?
Well, considering you have the Old and New Testaments you can understand how messages can be altered and the religion changed.
Post by: Bohandas on February 20, 2015, 05:58:54 pm
It is more proven then the battle of Troy but people still have a hard time believing it for some reason.
The four primary sources could have been falsified years later or maybe just the written compilation of a bunch of things falsely attributed to a spiritual leader who lived a few generations ago.
Its not that I disagree with you, I am a Christian, but I'm saying your reasoning here is faulty.
Also, IIRC, no one's FOUND Troy yet and its widely regarded as a non-historical event made up as a story or a legend. Not sure though.
to my knowledge, there have been no artifacts. Just some literature written between 300 and 600 years after the event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Korfmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Iliad#Geological_evidence
Post by: TD1 on February 20, 2015, 06:10:25 pm
Somehow missed this post.I believe in micro evolution (giraffes grow longer necks in areas with taller trees). It has been proven. What has not been proven is that an ape can turn into a human.God created Adam and Eve with the ability to speak and hear. Humans have always been able to talk and listen. If you want to look at the original Hebrew text, the word "pə-rū" is a word explicitly used to mean "to bear many offspring" so it is impossible to interpret that any other way.Given that evolution would very heavily imply humans, and indeed all beings, started without such senses, do you believe evolution is, for lack of a better word, false?
I believe that god created several distinct "kinds" of animals (cats, wolfs) which then evolved into the different spices of cats and dogs (lions, tigers, foxes, dogs)
It was these "kinds" of animals that Noah took on the ark, so the evolution happened again.Spoiler: example (click to show/hide)
If you're going to have any sort of biological stance, then Noah's ark is out the window anyway. Two of every animal? Not a big gene pool.
I think it was Dawkins that used the example of a mountain cliff. You look up, and see the height many many feet above. You walk around to the other side and see the slope leading to the top of the mountain. Creationists tend to see the cliff, but not the slope.
If you accept micro evolution, it automatically makes macro evolution feasible. Have one species, separate them (e.g. continental drift) and wait a few thousand years. Their micro evolutions over a laaaaaarge amount of time will make two different species.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 06:13:08 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 20, 2015, 06:16:08 pm
One quick google search:
Quote
The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old! Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize.
6000 years isn't....well...
Post by: Frumple on February 20, 2015, 06:19:36 pm
Post by: TempAcc on February 20, 2015, 06:25:33 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2015, 06:30:45 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 20, 2015, 06:33:12 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 06:33:57 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 20, 2015, 06:36:14 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 20, 2015, 06:40:54 pm
[snip]I must have missed that the last time I was paying attention, or forgot in the interim. Thanks.
I think we've adequately proven that you can't disprove science by using slightly less reliable science.You might be able to discredit or obfuscate it with slightly less reliable science. YEC is entirely unreliable non-science, though, so it doesn't particularly manage that.
E: Though that's perhaps too inclined towards snark to be appropriate. I've got a decent answer and will drop the line of discussion unless something constructive can be added.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2015, 06:42:47 pm
Is the half life of carbon effected by the magnetic field?Yes, I said that.
Post by: TD1 on February 20, 2015, 06:47:24 pm
Quote
Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about 10-15 percent, judging from the above studies. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40,000 years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C-14 remaining are much harder to measure.From here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html).
Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago. The earth's magnetic field seems to have the greatest effect on C-14 production, and there is no reason to believe that its strength was greatly different even 40,000 years ago. (For a refutation of Barnes' argument see Topic 11.)
Therefore, atmospheric variation in C-14 production is not a serious problem for the carbon-14 method. The evidence refutes Dr. Hovind's claim that the C-14 content of our atmosphere is in the middle of a 30,000-year buildup.
Still reading up on this argument. Haven't heard it before.
Post by: Vilanat on February 20, 2015, 07:26:41 pm
That theory also suggests that a lot of concepts of god/gods is actually only the birth of abstract concepts that started to take shape as visual entities that explained stuff and that the evolution of religions/gods is simply an evolution of human understanding of universal laws, either physical or moral laws.
The change in god throughout the revelations is actually the different and evolving ability of the "prophets" to perceive, understand and communicate their insights.
Regardless if humans actually visualized stuff externally, because their language was severely limited, they communicated the theories/concepts through metaphors so they could explain them to themselves and to others. in essence, if abraham had lived today, he wouldn't have "seen" nor communicated an angel diverting his hand from killing his son, nor a single powerful god. he would have thought that sacrifice is immoral and that there is a unified set of rules that apply to all and communicated so. its not that he merely couldn't communicate it, its that he couldn't actually understand it without visualizing a giant, extremely powerful being.
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 08:21:48 pm
Please dont claim microevolution is apart from macroevolution.
Just cause the drug-fried prophets who wrote the books claiming what god had said means nothing.
Imagine if religion was just a new concept, our science would be far more advanced and the new 'bible' would clearly state evolution as a creation of god.
I look at the dogs we have, the many variations, from a wolf to a pug (this sickens me) it clearly proves microevolution as a fact, so whats so hard to imagine that if you leave a species long enough it will become seperated into at first a sub species then unable to breed with the original genetic pool.
Just because your books say that god created everything as it is.
I mean shit if you believe in the books, god changes his mind a clear sign of his lack of infinate wisdom. So why couldnt he have set evolution in place and the decided to give rules later.
Its because you couldnt fathom a microbe to have a soul. Personaly if you say animals have don't have souls, then people dont. Because, *drum roll* we are animals. And the books are clearly a humans guide to becoming apart from animals and nature, a mind set that is currently fucking our world. A bible wont save your life in the woods. It sure as shit didnt save mine.
Quote from: frumple
drug-fried[Citation] haha
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rolan7 on February 20, 2015, 08:27:53 pm
Post by: Teneb on February 20, 2015, 08:36:12 pm
-snip-That Wolf, could you be a bit more clear when you post? LSP level should be fine. Otherwise people will ignore you at best and report you at worst.
Post by: Angle on February 20, 2015, 08:52:15 pm
-snip-That Wolf, could you be a bit more clear when you post? LSP level should be fine. Otherwise people will ignore you at best and report you at worst.
+1
Post by: Bohandas on February 20, 2015, 09:07:46 pm
-snip-That Wolf, could you be a bit more clear when you post? LSP level should be fine. Otherwise people will ignore you at best and report you at worst.
What does LSPstand for?
Post by: Angle on February 20, 2015, 09:13:23 pm
Post by: Teneb on February 20, 2015, 09:28:03 pm
Lord Slow Poke. He's a regular here with a relatively incoherent style, though he's usually fairly comprehensible. He's currently muted for something or another at the moment.His mute has already been lifted (though he seems to have vanished for most of this month), but please let's not continue this derail. Take it to PMs or another thread if you really want to talk about it.
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 09:42:23 pm
Why should I be comprehensile tail?
Im not in the business of making myself understood.
Im just a side effect of the two part title and and it being an open discussion.
To me It makes sense what I say.
To sum it up. Im here to learn and throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
My earliest posts should make the most sense, from there on they stop being axiomatic.
Many of the veiws I have presented arent even mine, because its mainly bible fanatics, and related items.
There isnt enough variation here. Yes I know why. Yes I disaprove. Yes I attempt to steer the boat sometimes.
Clarification Edit:
What I mean by throwing 'stuff' at a wall and seeing what sicks. Is if anything I say is helpful in any way, I've helped and thats all I want to do.
I understand that I may be seen as a troll. Im not trying to offend, if anything im just annoying and misunderstood because of lack of writeable emotional expression.
I just try to help.
And from knowledge gained I realise why im hard to understand. I don't filter my thoughts into readable documents.
Im due a software package update
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2015, 09:46:33 pm
Quote
Im here to ... throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
6. Do not post anything solely to see the reaction you will receive. That is almost the very definition of trolling.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 20, 2015, 09:54:50 pm
That doesn't mean things need stirring up, though. It's just a slow topic, and certain groups are underrepresented. I'd rather wait for a good answer than see a barrage of new, rather offensive questions. Even (especially) from someone who's mostly on my "side".
But on that topic, I wish the Christians here would ask more questions of us nonbelievers. Put us on the defensive for once :P
(And I'd still like to hear directly from a Jewish person about the afterlife, for Jews and gentiles)
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 20, 2015, 09:58:14 pm
See I thought the purpose of serious discussion was to be comprehensible so you don't confuse the otherside and so they answer your questions properly.
Post by: That Wolf on February 20, 2015, 10:10:43 pm
But on that topic, I wish the Christians here would ask more questions of us nonbelievers. Put us on the defensive for once :P
This is a good point.
I have an inkling why they don't ask though.
You could/can ask about anything that you want to know.
Specificly like Rolan said to put us on the defensive would be fun.
Id say thats why these threads die out, cause the minority get bored and the major repeat eachother.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 20, 2015, 10:12:11 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 20, 2015, 10:19:28 pm
Post by: Angle on February 20, 2015, 10:47:35 pm
What would we ask about?
You could ask us about our morality, about our philosophy, about what we think it means to be an atheist. You could ask us how important atheism is to our belief systems - is it a founding pillar o a minor detail? If all else fails, you could try and convert us, though that might get a bit heavy fr some peoples taste.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 20, 2015, 10:48:58 pm
It's a tad personal and hard to convey things properly
Post by: Angle on February 20, 2015, 10:57:04 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 20, 2015, 11:00:28 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 20, 2015, 11:01:52 pm
If I wrote any clearer you would see right through it.
Why should I be comprehensile tail?
Three pounds of flax
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2015, 11:03:49 pm
Yes sir, yes sir, three pounds, relax!"
Post by: That Wolf on February 21, 2015, 02:45:14 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 21, 2015, 03:52:00 am
Post by: Vilanat on February 21, 2015, 04:03:31 am
That's an interesting theory Vilanat, I'd be interested to know more if you see it again. I wonder if it can be observed in those isolated human populations which haven't developed much... Maybe that's even where the research came from?
So, i tried to find the exact book/paper/article but still no luck. i will keep searching for it though.
I did find several similar theories:
Basically, this theory speaks about the Inner voice that was perceived not as our own but as God's command.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
Here's a summary and criticism of the theory
http://www.functionalneurology.com/materiale_cic/224_XXII_1/2108_the%20bicamiral/index.html
This theory suggests that before the times of the egyptians/abraham humans didn't "see" the rules behind objects or phenomenons and attributed personality to them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoeic_thought
Wolf speaks in parables. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Wolf's parables and posts are actually pretty straight forward to me, maybe because they are heavily based on "Agnostic" Eastern thinking.
Post by: That Wolf on February 21, 2015, 04:33:49 am
I was wondering if any one here thinks the Voynich manuscript has any religious or spiritual significance?
Or just the writings of an insane artist? Im sure many of you know about it but for who dont.
Its pretty interesting, currently untranslatable and filled with pictures of herbs most of which arent identified, astological charts, drawings of naked people, zodiac depictions, many characters some only used a rare few times. Like I said interesting and could be one of the better hoaxes around..
Carbon dating says its 600-700 years old.
It looks like a book youd find in a wizard possesion.
Post by: Arx on February 21, 2015, 11:00:05 am
What would we ask about?
You could ask us about our morality, about our philosophy, about what we think it means to be an atheist. You could ask us how important atheism is to our belief systems - is it a founding pillar o a minor detail? If all else fails, you could try and convert us, though that might get a bit heavy fr some peoples taste.
I don't ask people about atheism because I can just imagine myself as a non-Christian. There's no complicated holy text to fail to understand or anything. If atheists had to comply with The God Delusion or somesuch, there'd be a lot more questions.
I think atheism by its very definition isn't something that needs much questioning to understand.
Post by: scrdest on February 21, 2015, 11:10:07 am
I don't ask people about atheism because I can just imagine myself as a non-Christian. There's no complicated holy text to fail to understand or anything. If atheists had to comply with The God Delusion or somesuch, there'd be a lot more questions.You'd be surprised how many people seem to believe that is in fact the case.
Post by: Bohandas on February 21, 2015, 11:43:24 am
That's an interesting theory Vilanat, I'd be interested to know more if you see it again. I wonder if it can be observed in those isolated human populations which haven't developed much... Maybe that's even where the research came from?
So, i tried to find the exact book/paper/article but still no luck. i will keep searching for it though.
I did find several similar theories:
Basically, this theory speaks about the Inner voice that was perceived not as our own but as God's command.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology))
Bincameralism always struck me as unparsimonious.
EDIT:
It posits everyone being a heretofore unknown kind of crazy to explain phenomena that could be adequetely explained by a few people being well attested kinds of crazy
Post by: chaoticag on February 21, 2015, 12:06:48 pm
I don't ask people about atheism because I can just imagine myself as a non-Christian. There's no complicated holy text to fail to understand or anything. If atheists had to comply with The God Delusion or somesuch, there'd be a lot more questions.I remember getting a question about that some time ago by a pretty christian guy once. He wanted to know what it was I personally believed would happen after I died. I guess more useful questions can be directed at people who identify as secular humanists, spirituals without gods, or Satanic Church Satanists (Not to be confused with Le-vayan[sp?] Church of Satan).
I think atheism by its very definition isn't something that needs much questioning to understand.
Post by: i2amroy on February 21, 2015, 01:27:54 pm
He wanted to know what it was I personally believed would happen after I died.Personally IMO when you're dead that's it. No afterlife for me! :P
Post by: Angle on February 21, 2015, 02:51:51 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4
Post by: TD1 on February 21, 2015, 04:12:27 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 21, 2015, 06:18:30 pm
Where were you before you were born? Probably in the same state as when you die. Or, more to the point, lack of state.In a womb....
You mean before conception right?
Post by: TD1 on February 21, 2015, 06:35:52 pm
Post by: SirQuiamus on February 21, 2015, 07:11:50 pm
If atheism is defined simply as the lack of religious belief, you might as well be questioning a beardless woman about the beard she does not have: ("You seem to be completely beardless, madam; can you tell us a bit about your lovely beard?") The source of confusion is the fact that atheism is frequently presented, by proponents and opponents alike, as somehow comparable to a religion -- a distinct "belief system" with positive content. This would only make sense if scientific and common-sense beliefs were mutually exclusive with religious beliefs, and clearly, they are not.I don't ask people about atheism because I can just imagine myself as a non-Christian. There's no complicated holy text to fail to understand or anything. If atheists had to comply with The God Delusion or somesuch, there'd be a lot more questions.What would we ask about?
You could ask us about our morality, about our philosophy, about what we think it means to be an atheist. You could ask us how important atheism is to our belief systems - is it a founding pillar o a minor detail? If all else fails, you could try and convert us, though that might get a bit heavy fr some peoples taste.
I think atheism by its very definition isn't something that needs much questioning to understand.
Wolves dont bark, trees doThe Voynich manuscript is the earliest pre-alpha version of Dwarf Fortress. The resemblance is uncanny.
I was wondering if any one here thinks the Voynich manuscript has any religious or spiritual significance?
Or just the writings of an insane artist? Im sure many of you know about it but for who dont.
Its pretty interesting, currently untranslatable and filled with pictures of herbs most of which arent identified, astological charts, drawings of naked people, zodiac depictions, many characters some only used a rare few times. Like I said interesting and could be one of the better hoaxes around..
Carbon dating says its 600-700 years old.
It looks like a book youd find in a wizard possesion.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 21, 2015, 07:19:36 pm
Spoiler: I agree with the obligatory xkcd on the Voynich manuscript. (click to show/hide)
Post by: That Wolf on February 21, 2015, 07:24:36 pm
I think it's fairly obvious what I meant.Yes It was. My point without pointing it out was that you did exsit in the womb without memory of it. So why cant you exsist before conception without memory of it??
The Voynich manuscript is the earliest pre-alpha version of Dwarf Fortress. The resemblance is uncanny.
Oh my this had me laughing makes sense. We should steal the book for Tarn. He must really miss it by now.
Thanks for that comic strip Orange. I hadnt seen it before. I laughed again.
Wow what a good day
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 21, 2015, 07:27:48 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 21, 2015, 07:33:50 pm
Edit: this is what wolfy thinks a good joke is.
He was wrong! Now look at him. Disgraceful
Post by: mastahcheese on February 21, 2015, 07:34:28 pm
Great filmThat's "Free Willy"
Totally different.
Post by: Bohandas on February 21, 2015, 07:47:32 pm
Post by: SirQuiamus on February 21, 2015, 07:50:26 pm
Atheists: What do you think of free will?Some atheists believe in free will, and some of them don't. That question is not an essential part of their "belief system," and in either case, the answer has no practical implications. (For the record, I don't believe in free will. I didn't choose this belief.)
Also:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: That Wolf on February 21, 2015, 07:53:23 pm
Atheists: What do you think of free will?Some atheists believe in free will, and some of them don't. That question is not an essential part of their "belief system," and in either case, the answer has no practical implications. (For the record, I don't believe in free will. I didn't choose this belief.)
Also:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This is a dwarven bathtub / vomit-powered dwarfputer. Obviously.
Not only is it the vomitubcpu its a human farm aswell. They are all female. The children are minced for parts
Post by: Bohandas on February 21, 2015, 07:59:59 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 21, 2015, 08:05:11 pm
You can only be partialy free. Free of emotions, responsibility, servitude and so on. Free will means that when your bone gets chipped youl pass out from pain and get your head caved in.
Post by: Angle on February 21, 2015, 09:08:19 pm
Atheists: What do you think of free will?
Well, it depends on what you mean by that. I think we're deterministic processes, maybe with some randomness throw in by quantum mechanics. I believe that human decisions can be traced back to root causes: Genetics + Environment + Upbringing + ..., etc. In other words, I believe that all of our decisions could be perfectly predicted if one had perfect information and Infinite Processing Power
Post by: Bohandas on February 27, 2015, 08:28:48 pm
Well, it depends on what you mean by that. I think we're deterministic processes, maybe with some randomness throw in by quantum mechanics.
Chaos theory would seem to imply that differences on the quantum level would translate into different outcomes on larger scales.
Post by: Angle on February 27, 2015, 11:01:41 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 28, 2015, 11:40:34 am
Theoretically. I'm not sure if that's applicable in this case, and even if it is, That doesn't really change anything. Then we're just deterministic processes + a roll of the dice.If that's the case, it does. Every single bit of randomness not only propagates, but also interacts with every other bit of randomness; it would mean the randomness increases exponentially for each element of the system, but since a number of combinations cancel each other out, it would mean that the totality of universe, humans included, wouldn't be perfectly predictable, but be one massive multi-dimensional normal distribution of each independent randomized parameter.
That, in turn, means that 99.9% of everything is, for the most part, normal-ish, but there is a possibility for rare tail conditions which are completely unexpected, and since, statistically, no matter how low probability, an event with non-zero probability's chance of occuring at least once approaches 1 as time approaches infinity. Some events are unlikely enough that they would not happen until the heat death of the universe, of course, but the point stands.
Post by: Angle on February 28, 2015, 01:14:14 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 28, 2015, 03:55:56 pm
Post by: lemon10 on February 28, 2015, 04:14:35 pm
But the point remains that neither o those things provides us with free will. Whether the universe is random or deterministic, we still don't have free will.I personally agree with Angle.
If everything is deterministic, then everything was determined long before we were born, and the idea that we can actually choose anything is pretty laughable.
If its not, then we still don't choose. Semi-random quantum events choose, and we have no more free will than a program with a perfect RNG built in. Yes, its fundamentally impossible to predict what we are going to do, but that doesn't mean that we actually choose, the universal RNG does.
How would you define free will?No clue. That has personally always seemed more like the problem of those that say that we have it.
Post by: Angle on February 28, 2015, 04:20:49 pm
How would you define free will?
Hmm... Difficult. I'd probably say something like: The ability to defy causality and make decisions unencumbered by previous conditions, or something like that. In truth, it's not really a coherent concept, which is why I don't believe in it.
Post by: Descan on February 28, 2015, 05:40:53 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 28, 2015, 05:59:31 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 28, 2015, 06:15:22 pm
Denying that people choose is silly. We clearly observably choose. Determinism just means our actions all have reasons, and that given the same exact reasons you'll make the same choice.
Saying we don't choose because the outcome is predetermined is nonsensical. Would you say people don't really roll dice because whenever they do, the result is predetermined?
This is the false correlation that I was talking about earlier. The fact that we have will does not automatically makemsaid will free.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 28, 2015, 07:08:39 pm
This is the false correlation that I was talking about earlier. The fact that we have will does not automatically make said will free.That's precisely what penguin was saying.
Post by: Descan on March 01, 2015, 02:04:28 am
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on March 01, 2015, 02:37:07 am
To block anyone, go to your own profile, mouse over modify profile, click on the Buddies/Ignore list, then type in the exact name of the person you want blocked.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 01, 2015, 03:04:34 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 01, 2015, 10:37:06 am
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 01, 2015, 11:28:06 am
Philosophically I may not have free will, but I still feel like I have a choice in my actions in life, so whatever. :vThis.
Like I pointed out earlier, free will is not a meaningful concept anywhere outside theological discussions. For example, "God is good" --> "God cannot compel us to sin" --> "We must have free will." Once you bring it to the practical level of actual choices and behaviour, the question simply ceases to matter: there's no subjective or objective difference between "I want to drink a glass of water" and "I am compelled to drink a glass of water by the deterministic homeostatic processes of my body." (the same goes for simply choosing to rob a bank and being compelled to rob a bank by an unconscious urge to prove yourself a self-sufficient Nietzschean superman)
Post by: TD1 on March 02, 2015, 02:55:32 pm
*Looks around*
Oh, wait... :P
Post by: Magistrum on March 02, 2015, 10:35:05 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 02, 2015, 11:56:32 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 03, 2015, 11:37:04 am
Post by: Angle on March 03, 2015, 11:53:48 am
Post by: That Wolf on March 03, 2015, 12:02:37 pm
Mostly just more weird mushroom nonsense and Dwarfy being generally anti-theistic.I understand because of social norms one could easily find my easily gained insights as weird or abhorrent.
Infact they are a normal form of spiritual growth (in controlled settings) and have been seen in many veiws as a shortcut to what some meditative practices take years to achive with the same results.
This being said, most of my "weird mushroom nonsense" is mainly in the beggining of my thread introduction.
In the latter I have introduced other works not of my own but hold similar veiws.
Im not a drug addict taking them every month ritualisticly to meditate upon.
I just meditate normaly and love the life around me.
I often strike out at western religions because they are founded on mythology and ancient barbaric practices, nor does it have any way in a guide to actualy contemplate your universe and mind, infact it harms that kind of development by stating you have a soul and that it is always in judgement.
It brings us back to helpless days of childhood where you listen to the parent and their rule or be punished, and being in a child like state is not necessarily good for proper spiritual development. One needs to be stable and not prone to fantasy. I also beleive that not only being emotionally developed but also physically and mentally, including knowledge of the sciences.
In this way it can be hard to turn ones knowledge away, only to accept it as truth or close to.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TD1 on March 03, 2015, 12:23:38 pm
Post by: Bohandas on March 03, 2015, 12:25:44 pm
Whereas drugs are merely life denying.
What is that even supposed to mean?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 03, 2015, 12:53:54 pm
is there any way to not have a thread pop up in the updated threads thing?
Post by: Frumple on March 03, 2015, 12:55:22 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 03, 2015, 12:56:50 pm
But I don't think those are the drugs That Wolf is talking about. Recreational drugs deny reality by replacing it with imagination, or dulling the pain. Not that either of those things are necessarily bad, but I'm very skeptical of spirituality which requires mushrooms or LSD.
Post by: TD1 on March 03, 2015, 01:33:26 pm
Was it Nietzsche that said religion is life denying? Either way, it means the drugs cause focus on the drugs and their "meanings" rather than reality.Whereas drugs are merely life denying.
What is that even supposed to mean?
Post by: Bohandas on March 03, 2015, 02:52:38 pm
I think I'm done coming to this thread
is there any way to not have a thread pop up in the updated threads thing?
Post divisive comments until it gets locked :P
Post by: Ghills on March 03, 2015, 03:18:41 pm
Well then what's the point of even arguing about it? :P I mean aside from as a game. What actual effect does a concept of free-will beyond the mere idea of choice have?
I'm not really sure what free will is supposed to be anymore. The most common way people explain it is "Well you know I'm totally free to quit my job right now and become a bank robber" or some other irrational harmful thing that they're not actually going to do. So I guess free will is the ability to act irrationally and unpredictably?
LDS theology holds that the importance of agency is so we can freely determine whether or not we want to be like God. The point of existence is character growth and choosing the kind of person we want to be. Some people are going to choose to focus on immediate gratification or otherwise not meet Heavenly Father's standards, just like some people choose to prepare badly for tests or don't pay attention to their work. We try to support people in making better choices, but not everyone is going to.
Agency could be boiled down to the ability to choose between rational and irrational. We think the moral choice is always the rational choice in the long-term, although it mightn't be apparent while making the decision. That's why we have commandments, scriptures and revelation - they're Heavenly Father's cheatsheet on how to make rational and happy choices while we aren't living with Him.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 03, 2015, 05:26:16 pm
I think I'm done coming to this threadPost divisive comments without any supporting evidence and insult everyone who disagrees until it gets locked :P
is there any way to not have a thread pop up in the updated threads thing?
Post by: UXLZ on March 03, 2015, 08:58:30 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 03, 2015, 09:20:55 pm
So, what does everyone think about free will?
Post by: Criptfeind on March 03, 2015, 09:27:43 pm
In that sense I don't think we have free will.
On the other hand it doesn't really matter.
Post by: Angle on March 03, 2015, 09:34:29 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on March 03, 2015, 09:39:01 pm
Don't we all judge people based not only on their actions, but also what those actions make us think that they are?
Post by: Angle on March 03, 2015, 10:00:23 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on March 03, 2015, 10:08:30 pm
Spoiler: I INVOKE NEWTON'S FLAMING LASER SWORD! (click to show/hide)
Although I guess I don't have anything better to do, so I guess I might as well toss my tuppence onto the pile anyways, despite the topic's general irrelevance. Basically, my point of view boils down to this:
You make choices because you make them. You will always make the SAME choices, given the exact same starting parameters, but one of the parameters is your identity. If you were a different person, you would choose a different choice. But you're not. You choose what you would choose just as if you were given "Real" free will, wherein your decision process is independent from reality. Not that real free will is feasible at all, logically. "Real" free will would only be accomplished by having something magically different that could make two hypothetical people who were born and lived under exactly the same circumstances different people. That's STILL not "really" free will, since the magical different thing would just be an additional parameter to factour into things, if one completely undetectable to entities that are not similarly "magical".
^No idea where God would come in to any of this. They could probably make actual free will[<-Maybe They have? No real way to find out.], being omnipotent and all, but I have no idea as to how that would WORK.
FAKEEDIT:
We might not have free will, but our actions and choices are still caused by what type of person we are
^This is the gist of my position.
Post by: Micro102 on March 03, 2015, 10:26:12 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 03, 2015, 10:28:07 pm
I'd say we have free will, in the sense that everything we do is predetermined, but only because everything we choose to do is predetermined. I am posting this only because I want to post this, it's just that everything that led up to me choose to do this was already going to happen.Just wondering, predetermined by what?
Post by: Micro102 on March 03, 2015, 10:31:14 pm
I'd say we have free will, in the sense that everything we do is predetermined, but only because everything we choose to do is predetermined. I am posting this only because I want to post this, it's just that everything that led up to me choose to do this was already going to happen.Just wondering, predetermined by what?
Ah, I imagine that everything can be measured, and if you measure everything it is possible to predict everything. Therefore everything can be predicted, and thus everything is already going to happen.
Post by: Angle on March 03, 2015, 10:32:05 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 04, 2015, 12:18:59 am
Nope. Once you post in a thread, it's there forever. Unless the thread gets deleted or permanently locked, anyway..-. Dang
I guess I might lurk around this thread
But I think I'm done posting in here
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 04, 2015, 03:24:19 am
:(Nope. Once you post in a thread, it's there forever. Unless the thread gets deleted or permanently locked, anyway..-. Dang
I guess I might lurk around this thread
But I think I'm done posting in here
Post by: That Wolf on March 04, 2015, 07:46:05 am
There are drugs which make you more alert and aware of the real world...I will answer this.
But I don't think those are the drugs That Wolf is talking about. Recreational drugs deny reality by replacing it with imagination, or dulling the pain. Not that either of those things are necessarily bad, but I'm very skeptical of spirituality which requires mushrooms or LSD.
I agree with you in a way. As a permanent solution psychedelic compounds are not useful, however most our psychological reasearch was formed during the 40s due to the reasearch on many compounds.
For me personaly it pushed my perception, and introduced a spirtitualty into my life I never would have found any other way and I believe there are many others in the same predicament that I was in.
However
It isnt for everyone, especialy the sanity is an unachored peice of paper easily blown away by a light breeze kind.
For the comment on the alertness of somebody on lsd or psilocybin, I will describe my personal experiences of both
Lsd: after 40 minutes of being slightly nervous of what was about to happen,my friends and I (one now a doctor, the other an artist studying language and social development, im just a cook) finaly started to feel the effects of it, I can decribe an intense alertness of not only others emotions but the environment and sounds around me, I was filled with a joy and the energy of a child and we started racing eachother only to become exausted and in a pile on the ground laughing at eachother, we finally looked at eachother and saw eachother we continued to decribe the feelings to eachother and listened to tool, tom petty, billy holiday etc and ate doritos (The bag seemed to last forever) all the while we all could decribe and easily pinpoint the intense feeling of being home. It does sound weird, but it was the warm feeling of home.
Psilocybin: alot calmer of a feeling. I could read emotions better than normal, the beginning effects are tingling in the hands a increased heartbeat and the obvious dilation of the pupils creating slight optical effect (very slight) I personaly began to feel a oneness with all. Stones, bugs, water... everything. Only peaked by the actual knowing of it. Its like (to me) a feeling if the bottom of your feet met the earth and the top of your head touched the sky and above, all touching and seemed to become one and touch eachother ( sounds like im mad) it at first startled me but I began to feel comfortable with the sensation. Music was very clear and each note becomes noticeable and distinguished, above all was the state of love for my fellow life, flora and fauna was so very interesting for me to observe and I loved all of it, not any mesurable love but a constant and understood love (something that if we all experienced every day the world would be a nice place not the compound but the love) I am the first person to be skeptical about these things and I would never suggest harmful narcotics or neurodegenratives like MDMA or PCP (despite the experience you can have with such, like unfiltered love) because I don't want to harm anyone, I only want to share what I know for your benefit.
Both have the feeling of still being yourself and being alert but thinking differently. A quote from a skeptical friend who wanted to scientifically observe us while under the influence (to see if we were different)
"you guys dont seem out if person, your still making me laugh but your also saying meaningful things" my response to this was gripping my face and screaming "I have no idea where my hands are." Knowing my humor we all laughed and had a mild night.
Biologically they are safe. Mentally however certain people in certain 'set and settings' can have dysphoria.
I have, and I can only say that once the door is opened ( positive or negative ) it doesn't close, both mine are open.
I can sympathize for people with mental disabilitys now though. I can only imagine the prisions some brains can be.
Only have seen a small side to it.
What I gained was the ability to sympathize and see through others eyes, to see that the state of conciousness is unchanging and that it is pure.
From what I used to be, im different
If you say that thats a bad thing then I can only wonder.
So for me and many others it can change you for the better.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TD1 on March 06, 2015, 06:50:13 pm
https://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/philosophy/a2/a2-religious-language/900-ajayergodtalk
Post by: Arx on March 07, 2015, 02:07:22 am
Otherwise, my impression was "you can't even prove there is probably a god because I don't like metaphysics", "I don't think there can be a god because the supernatural doesn't make sense", "if you can't define God in terms that I approve of He doesn't exist", and finally "if you can't empirically measure it then religious experience is bunk."
I assume there's some vital context I don't have on the first, because as an argument that makes as much sense to me as "I don't believe in sub-atomic particles because I don't like quantum mechanics".
The second has the same problem as the first.
The third is like a blind man saying elephants don't exist because he can't see that they're grey, at least from my impression of it.
The last point I actually sort of agree with, but it seems to hinge on his earlier assertion that there can't be a god he doesn't understand, which is not the best way I can think of to swing that argument.
Of course, there might be something I'm missing because a) this is apparently supposed to be about talking about God and b) I'm sick as a dog right now.
Post by: Bohandas on March 07, 2015, 02:23:39 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 07, 2015, 02:45:19 am
Post by: That Wolf on March 07, 2015, 07:59:28 am
Eh. We can make deductions about a hypothetical god from the observable universe, it's just not necessarily wholly accurate (limited human cognition, bias, and so on and so forth). Things like "if God's so good why do bad things happen", among other things.+1
God, just like any other theory should be held as such.
When relativity was a theory people accepted it as matter of fact, and until proven, theorys should be treated as such.
Its a dark and terrible world full of pain and wants, but if you search for your own peice of peace you can find it.
Perhaps thats just annother test God has set out for us.
What does the bible say about stillborn souls and similar situations? When does one become 'alive' and gain a soul?
It was probably brought up in the earlier threads.
Post by: TD1 on March 07, 2015, 08:26:54 am
At the centre of the world there is a giant death ray. A tribe of aliens are drilling down to find it as we speak. They happen to be fish like, though, and so their drill is at the deepest part of the ocean floor. I got this information from a book written thousands of years ago, so no, we can't talk to the author. This is my theory. I now expect you all to hold it as fact.Eh. We can make deductions about a hypothetical god from the observable universe, it's just not necessarily wholly accurate (limited human cognition, bias, and so on and so forth). Things like "if God's so good why do bad things happen", among other things.+1
God, just like any other theory should be held as such.
When relativity was a theory people accepted it as matter of fact, and until proven, theorys should be treated as such.
Its a dark and terrible world full of pain and wants, but if you search for your own peice of peace you can find it.
Perhaps thats just annother test God has set out for us.
What does the bible say about stillborn souls and similar situations? When does one become 'alive' and gain a soul?
It was probably brought up in the earlier threads.
Post by: scrdest on March 07, 2015, 08:30:39 am
What. Terminology pedantism aside, a theory is assumed *false* until proven. And a theory is proven by taking a prediction it makes that in a given condition X a result Y will occur and deemed plausible - not true, plausible - after various predictions are fulfilled over and over and over. And one single false prediction being found is the greatest thing that can happen to you as a scientist, because it means overturning an existing theory completely.Eh. We can make deductions about a hypothetical god from the observable universe, it's just not necessarily wholly accurate (limited human cognition, bias, and so on and so forth). Things like "if God's so good why do bad things happen", among other things.+1
God, just like any other theory should be held as such.
When relativity was a theory people accepted it as matter of fact, and until proven, theorys should be treated as such.
Meanwhile, religious claims are either unprovable at all or proven false before the followers claim the prediction really was something else all along - case in point, 'When Prophecy Fails'.
Post by: Arx on March 07, 2015, 08:33:55 am
Post by: TD1 on March 07, 2015, 08:39:33 am
Post by: That Wolf on March 07, 2015, 08:45:31 am
As should be treated as such.
One accepts facts and builds on them.
Theorys should be tested until it breaks down or becomes a fact.
Yes the bible has obviously being proven false in the prophecies. But a deity itself should not be outright disproven due to lack of evidince.
Prophecy itself is a joke because human action is easy to predict so why rely on such?
Yes I agree you should never trust a religion that avoids to prove itself and asks you to have faith.
Blind faith is just that, blind.
Post by: scrdest on March 07, 2015, 09:06:46 am
Post by: TD1 on March 07, 2015, 10:23:37 am
Post by: Mechatronic on March 07, 2015, 10:55:08 am
Post by: Descan on March 07, 2015, 11:36:07 am
I guess that makes a hypothesis a first-draft? And an experiment is... submission to the publisher?
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 11:38:13 am
And an experiment is... submission to the publisher?That sounds almost religious, Descan~
Post by: Descan on March 07, 2015, 11:41:57 am
I just follow the evidence. If a God pops up and says hi, I'll acknowledge it. Probably wouldn't worship it, that's an ethical factor and unless it has a very good explanation, it can't be a very ethical being.
So I'm not against religion, I'm just against falsehoods and unethical behavior. Just that I consider most religions to be one and the same to that.
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 11:52:47 am
Post by: Descan on March 07, 2015, 12:04:11 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 07, 2015, 12:21:26 pm
Nonono, I meant that it sounded like the 'publisher' was God - you submit your thesis, and he decides - via your experiment failing or succeeding - whether he accepts it or not.Wow, that could be a basis of a very weird, very interesting fantasy cosmology concept.
Creator as a particularly uncreative being that pretty much crowdsources the rules for the universe, but once they're down, they're set in stone.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 07, 2015, 12:24:43 pm
Logical positivism was an early 20th century branch of philosophy, so there's been about a century of philosophical musing on it. In simple terms, it assumes that the world, and our thoughts about it, consist of elementary facts and that we can apply logical rules to these facts to establish the truth. However, probably the most famous phrase is translated as something like: on that we cannot speak we must remain silent. This is sometimes interpreted as ambivalence in logical positivism towards nonsense, mysticism, gods and so on. It doesn't outright deny their existence but says that philosophers can't say anything about them because they're inherently outside of logical analysis.I guess that's what faith is: Belief in things which are outside of logical analysis, which (as the author put it, a bit oddly) "Cannot be true or false".
Miracles destroy faith, because they're inherently observable. If Jesus comes down and heals a leper in front of a crowd, they might quite reasonably conclude that he's telling the truth about being the son of God and they should worship him. Or at least that he has vast unexplained powers and they should do as he says to be safe.
So if God really wants faith, maybe it makes sense that miracles never happen in a way that the scientific community can verify them. If transubstantiation suddenly started working, scientists would start praying, but they wouldn't gain faith.
Because faith in existing religions only comes from indoctrination. Nobody comes to the Father except by Jesus? Well, nobody comes to Jesus except by their father... or other Christians. When allowed to find their own faith, people invent animism or materialism. Which evolve into polytheism for stability, and then... Monotheism evolved from polytheism, and now self-propagates because of tenets like hell/salvation and the stability it brought to aggressive states, allowing them to conquer en mass (pun intended).
Also, God and Jesus supposedly jumpstarted Christianity with an incredible amount of flashy public miracles. So much so that the uncorroborated, decades-later reports of such are treated as proof by people even today. (Which is actually pure faith, but it looks better to have faith in a shaky document trail than an oral tradition and groupthink.) Why was it okay to be an observable God then, but not now?
Post by: scrdest on March 07, 2015, 12:27:20 pm
Post by: Micro102 on March 07, 2015, 01:29:49 pm
But in the end, you are going to have faith about the existence of this attempt to make pure faith, which god would have wanted to happen, which would require faith in that too, and so on so forth :P
Post by: Arx on March 07, 2015, 02:17:46 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 07, 2015, 02:37:01 pm
You can google pretty quickly re: the philosophical aspects. For buddhism, intent is more important that most things, and the (non)proliferation of suffering more or less the largest issue. To kill something out of necessity or self-preservation (and not enjoying the act), and that something being a thing which is incapable of suffering (which... bacteria are definitely below that threshold -- they're more biological automata than a living thing in regards to most things), is more or less a non-issue.
Hindu's a little more complicated, iirc, but it's not as predisposed against violence as buddhism, or radical systems associated with either. There's probably a few sects that would support such a stance, but... it's only a few, at most.
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 03:06:43 pm
So, a question for all the Buddhists/Hindus/others who believe in the sanctity of all life etc.: would you take antibiotics?Any buddhist still around to answer that question probably eats plants to stay alive, so I guess the answer is an automatic 'yes' :P
Post by: mastahcheese on March 07, 2015, 03:11:28 pm
I know I take antibiotics.So, a question for all the Buddhists/Hindus/others who believe in the sanctity of all life etc.: would you take antibiotics?Any buddhist still around to answer that question probably eats plants to stay alive, so I guess the answer is an automatic 'yes' :P
Then again, I'm not exactly a hardcore Buddhist, and the idea of "sanctity of all life" is not really one I'm all that keen on.
Post by: Angle on March 07, 2015, 03:19:32 pm
Also, check this out: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 03:27:44 pm
So, why do people have faith in one thing instead of another? Like, why have faith in your particular christian sect, instead of another christian sect? or instead of Islam?Well, the Catholic Church is obviously right, so the question is moot :P
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 07, 2015, 03:36:13 pm
It's... I'm fairly sure the jainists are about the only ones that even approach taking it so far as to attempt to avoid such, Arx. Them, a few insane christian sects, probably some others... but respecting the sanctity of antibacterial life (or at least avoiding antibiotics, even if for other reasons) isn't high on most any belief system's priorities.The sanctity of microbial life may not be very high on anyone's agenda as such, but let's not forget that certain religious denominations have adopted a comparable stance in their effort to bestow human rights to zygotes.
You can google pretty quickly re: the philosophical aspects. For buddhism, intent is more important that most things, and the (non)proliferation of suffering more or less the largest issue. To kill something out of necessity or self-preservation (and not enjoying the act), and that something being a thing which is incapable of suffering (which... bacteria are definitely below that threshold -- they're more biological automata than a living thing in regards to most things), is more or less a non-issue.
Hindu's a little more complicated, iirc, but it's not as predisposed against violence as buddhism, or radical systems associated with either. There's probably a few sects that would support such a stance, but... it's only a few, at most.
Post by: Arx on March 07, 2015, 03:47:53 pm
On the Buddhism etc. thing, I wasn't expecting many to be so extreme. It just occurred to me as I was taking my daily medication that I was killing off a bunch of simple organisms for messing up a bigger one, and wondered how many people saw that as comparable to eating meat and so on.
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 07, 2015, 04:08:13 pm
I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to compare the zygote to a bacterium.They are certainly as different as two lifeforms can be, but still comparable from an ethical perspective.
Post by: Bohandas on March 07, 2015, 08:01:56 pm
It's... I'm fairly sure the jainists are about the only ones that even approach taking it so far as to attempt to avoid such, Arx. Them, a few insane christian sects, probably some others... but respecting the sanctity of antibacterial life (or at least avoiding antibiotics, even if for other reasons) isn't high on most any belief system's priorities.The sanctity of microbial life may not be very high on anyone's agenda as such, but let's not forget that certain religious denominations have adopted a comparable stance in their effort to bestow human rights to zygotes.
You can google pretty quickly re: the philosophical aspects. For buddhism, intent is more important that most things, and the (non)proliferation of suffering more or less the largest issue. To kill something out of necessity or self-preservation (and not enjoying the act), and that something being a thing which is incapable of suffering (which... bacteria are definitely below that threshold -- they're more biological automata than a living thing in regards to most things), is more or less a non-issue.
Hindu's a little more complicated, iirc, but it's not as predisposed against violence as buddhism, or radical systems associated with either. There's probably a few sects that would support such a stance, but... it's only a few, at most.
As a former zygote I take offense to that.
Post by: Descan on March 07, 2015, 08:15:22 pm
Not... really. Most arguments along that is about the potential around the zygote. A single bacterium isn't about to split and grow into a human any time soon...I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to compare the zygote to a bacterium.They are certainly as different as two lifeforms can be, but still comparable from an ethical perspective.
Post by: TD1 on March 07, 2015, 08:31:23 pm
Oh, poppycock. :PSo, why do people have faith in one thing instead of another? Like, why have faith in your particular christian sect, instead of another christian sect? or instead of Islam?Well, the Catholic Church is obviously right, so the question is moot :P
Even you acknowledge it's not truth.
Besides. Prods are smarter than Romans, so there.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 07, 2015, 09:25:50 pm
Well, the Catholic Church is obviously right, so the question is moot :P+1
So, why do people have faith in one thing instead of another? Like, why have faith in your particular christian sect, instead of another christian sect? or instead of Islam?Eh. It's the wrong question to ask, I think. I don't put my faith in the Reformed Church, I put my faith in Christ. It just happens that the Reformed church takes an interpretation of the Bible that I most agree with.
There's nothing inherently wrong with interpreting the book differently - attending a different church does not make you any less Christian than anyone else. I would have no problem attending a Baptist church or Presbyterian or whatever for worship. (Though I would prefer to go my own church).
Personally, I'd draw the line at stuff like Mormonism, where an entirely new book and doctrine has been tied on. It's technically still Christianity, but it's different enough that I don't consider it to be "my" religion.
Islam is slightly different. I guess it falls into the same category as Judaism. Nominally, those religions are worshipping the same god, but they're missing the somewhat important bit about Christ Jesus being the Son of God. I mean, it's not like Christians are named after him by coincidence.
I'll also clarify that I have no problem with attending a Mormon church, or Jewish synagogue, or Muslim... thingy. I just won't consider it to be a worship service directed to my God. I also don't have a problem with taking part in any feasts or rituals of other religions as long as I make sure they know I'm a filthy heathen and am not actually worshipping their deity.
Post by: Angle on March 07, 2015, 09:40:52 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 07, 2015, 09:41:18 pm
Post by: UXLZ on March 07, 2015, 09:44:24 pm
Discounting other stuff like:
Raised that way, 'religious experience', forced into it etc.
Post by: Angle on March 07, 2015, 09:49:31 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 10:09:26 pm
Dunno.+1
But I find that answering 'stubbornness' leads to much more interesting reactions :P
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 07, 2015, 10:27:15 pm
...or Muslim... thingy....
Mosque, FYI.
To answer the question about why I believe the way I do: I've seen the way people of different faiths live their lives and I think that the LDS way of life is the best/I like the result of LDS living more than the results of living by other faiths (I'm just trying to state my personal opinion here, though). I also have reasons that are more religious like praying about whether it is true or not.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 07, 2015, 10:31:15 pm
It was on the tip of my tongue....or Muslim... thingy....Mosque, FYI.
Post by: redwallzyl on March 07, 2015, 11:27:36 pm
Post by: mastahcheese on March 07, 2015, 11:29:56 pm
so I'm wondering what does everyone believe happens after you die? obviously if you have a specific religion that is set in stone and in that case what would you like to happen if that didn't happen. reincarnation as a future person seems cool you will probably eventually end up in some awesome future if everything doesn't go to shit. :PI've already stated my belief in reincarnation.
Post by: Descan on March 08, 2015, 12:06:25 am
But I actually think we're just really funky machines and that we have as much of an afterlife as a computer does when you smash it and erase the data.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 12:11:27 am
I like that idea of the Egg story. Every human being who has ever lived is the same entity, and the universe is just an egg for another god.
But I actually think we're just really funky machines and that we have as much of an afterlife as a computer does when you smash it and erase the data.
Have you seen Chappie yet?
Post by: Angle on March 08, 2015, 12:15:06 am
so I'm wondering what does everyone believe happens after you die? obviously if you have a specific religion that is set in stone and in that case what would you like to happen if that didn't happen. reincarnation as a future person seems cool you will probably eventually end up in some awesome future if everything doesn't go to shit. :P
Nothingness
Though it is hypothetically possible that the people of the very distant future will discover how to defy entropy, read the entire history of the universe off the fabric of spacetime, and bring us all back to life.
But probably nothing.
Post by: Descan on March 08, 2015, 12:21:26 am
No, but I want to. Probably will go see it with the boyfriend. Why? (No spoilers)I like that idea of the Egg story. Every human being who has ever lived is the same entity, and the universe is just an egg for another god.
But I actually think we're just really funky machines and that we have as much of an afterlife as a computer does when you smash it and erase the data.
Have you seen Chappie yet?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 12:36:25 am
No, but I want to. Probably will go see it with the boyfriend. Why? (No spoilers)I like that idea of the Egg story. Every human being who has ever lived is the same entity, and the universe is just an egg for another god.You'll understand why I brought it up when you go see it.
But I actually think we're just really funky machines and that we have as much of an afterlife as a computer does when you smash it and erase the data.
Have you seen Chappie yet?
Post by: i2amroy on March 08, 2015, 01:56:48 am
NothingnessThis right here. It's why I'm almost certainly signing up to be cryogenically frozen after I die, since it improves the chance I might be able to "wake up" again someday. When this is all that there is, it makes trying to squeeze the maximum amount of time out of it more important. :P
Though it is hypothetically possible that the people of the very distant future will discover how to defy entropy, read the entire history of the universe off the fabric of spacetime, and bring us all back to life.
But probably nothing.
Post by: Bohandas on March 08, 2015, 01:59:14 am
Also, if the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics is correct than from your own personal perspective you may well asymptotically approach death without actually reaching it.
Even of neither of these things though, it helps to consider the universe as a static four-dimensional object. Ypu're not gone when you're dead any more than Florida os gone when you're in California; a different location does not imply nonexistence.
Post by: Bohandas on March 08, 2015, 02:01:32 am
NothingnessThis right here. It's why I'm almost certainly signing up to be cryogenically frozen after I die, since it improves the chance I might be able to "wake up" again someday. When this is all that there is, it makes trying to squeeze the maximum amount of time out of it more important. :P
Though it is hypothetically possible that the people of the very distant future will discover how to defy entropy, read the entire history of the universe off the fabric of spacetime, and bring us all back to life.
But probably nothing.
Cryogenic freezing has too many what-ifs. A better solution woild be to have your head plasrinated so that your connectome can be mapped and uploaded to to a computer.
Post by: Descan on March 08, 2015, 02:04:36 am
Post by: Bohandas on March 08, 2015, 02:09:05 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 02:09:33 am
No, but I want to. Probably will go see it with the boyfriend. Why? (No spoilers)I like that idea of the Egg story. Every human being who has ever lived is the same entity, and the universe is just an egg for another god.You'll understand why I brought it up when you go see it.
But I actually think we're just really funky machines and that we have as much of an afterlife as a computer does when you smash it and erase the data.
Have you seen Chappie yet?
I'm sorry I thought my typing went into this and I didn't just quote woops
Just to see the movie, you'll see why I brought it up
Post by: Angle on March 08, 2015, 02:20:30 am
Post by: Descan on March 08, 2015, 02:20:37 am
Given that the continuity of your consciousness is interrupted often enough anyway, what's the difference?Last I checked, your brain isn't literally destroyed every time you go to sleep. :P
Post by: Angle on March 08, 2015, 02:31:36 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 08, 2015, 02:54:03 am
Relevant! (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1)That's depressing as hell.
Post by: chaoticag on March 08, 2015, 03:04:21 am
Post by: Angle on March 08, 2015, 03:11:32 am
Also: That comic is like, A gigantic gold mine. Seriously, read the whole thing. It's fascinating. There's even one that's super applicable to our discussion on free will earlier: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/70. I still want to argue with it, of course: While I believe in choices, I don't believe we have any choice, in our choices. This mostly only matters when it comes to issues of credit and blame, of course, but whatevs.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 08, 2015, 03:27:30 am
Post by: Angle on March 08, 2015, 03:34:10 am
Post by: UXLZ on March 08, 2015, 03:35:58 am
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 08, 2015, 03:58:44 am
Post by: UXLZ on March 08, 2015, 04:00:14 am
Post by: Arx on March 08, 2015, 04:16:38 am
Quote from: Professor Wikipedia
The human eye and its brain interface, the human visual system, can process 10 to 12 separate images per second, perceiving them individually.
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 08, 2015, 04:27:59 am
When the images are perceived as a continuous movement, it's already a sign of the fact that you are missing something in between the frames and your brain is interpolating to fill in the gaps. The threshold for that is probably higher than 12 FPS, and as we know, about 45 FPS is necessary to prevent flicker on a film/computer screen, but the exact numbers are not relevant to a XXPhilosophical DebateXX.
EDIT: In my opinion, the most frightful aspect of the teleporter thought-experiment is that a supervillain would eventually try to conquer the world with an army of clones. Meeting an atom-by-atom copy of yourself would certainly be interesting, since it would be like looking at a mirror-image made flesh. Your "copy" would say and do exactly the same things as you would, resulting in a very strong illusion of a shared consciousness, which would be enough to convince either of you to voluntarily disappear (or make another "copy", if you are a supervillain). This scenario would be an empirical proof of the epiphenomenality of consciousness, perhaps the strongest proof you could get (too bad it's impossible).
Post by: UXLZ on March 08, 2015, 04:38:32 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 08, 2015, 04:50:04 am
I'll talk more about the oblivion/sleep-death thing in the morning. For now I'm going to bed.
Post by: Frumple on March 08, 2015, 08:37:29 am
Unless the thing's gone buggy and that causes everything to go into super-speed ala old dos games on a modern computer, anyway.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 08, 2015, 09:05:05 am
There's also a visible difference between 60 FPS and even higher rates. Still, not really relevant.you mean another version of Orangewizard will tall more about it. Not you, surely
I'll talk more about the oblivion/sleep-death thing in the morning. For now I'm going to bed.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 10:14:57 am
I don't really like the idea of oblivion and repeatedly dying.+1
I like the idea of eternal living in paradise much better
Post by: Frumple on March 08, 2015, 10:35:02 am
Post by: Rolan7 on March 08, 2015, 10:52:46 am
I'm absolutely scared of dying, but only instinctively... A dreamless sleep isn't terrifying, just disappointing.
Huh. And yet the idea of never waking up just makes my skin crawl. The survival instinct is just that strong, it's an overwhelming yet irrational fear.
Really, the idea of being forced to live forever should be the terrifying one. Though I'd love to spend a few decades or centuries as a time-traveling, completely passive observer. There's no reason to believe that happens, but it wouldn't affect reality at all so... why not?
Post by: TD1 on March 08, 2015, 11:09:42 am
No doubt that's why you believe it.I don't really like the idea of oblivion and repeatedly dying.+1
I like the idea of eternal living in paradise much better
Also, nothingness here too. I'd much prefer immortality (with an in-built die option) but, on the other hand it beats what Cryxis thinks is waiting for me.
Which reminds me of something I said a few years ago and which subsequently stuck in my mind- "religion was made by old men afraid of their own mortality."
Post by: Bohandas on March 08, 2015, 11:11:55 am
But then from one's own perspective it's equivalent to never having existed in the first place (unless we take four-dimensionalism into account
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 11:22:05 am
Don't say I didn't try to help you if we die and you go there.
But if I'm wrong and there is no afterlife I can be fine with the nothingness to come
Post by: Frumple on March 08, 2015, 11:29:58 am
'Course, the heaven generally isn't framed that way, but that's why it's fridge horror instead of just straight up :-\
Bleh. I should have remembered there's a reason I generally don't like thinking too hard about religious afterlife scenarios...
Post by: Bohandas on March 08, 2015, 11:53:50 am
... except it wouldn't be help, t'me. The christian afterlife is damnation regardless of which direction you go, from my perspective. Infinite torture or infinite slavery with a side of grotesque personality reconstruction -- both sound pretty horrible.
Relevent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQoVkd_JcB0#t=07m54s
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Vilanat on March 08, 2015, 11:55:59 am
... except it wouldn't be help, t'me. The christian afterlife is damnation regardless of which direction you go, from my perspective. Infinite torture or infinite slavery with a side of grotesque personality reconstruction -- both sound pretty horrible. I personally want nothing to do with any aspect of an abrahamic afterlife, short of maybe the bit where people are just annihilated.
'Course, the heaven generally isn't framed that way, but that's why it's fridge horror instead of just straight up :-\
Bleh. I should have remembered there's a reason I generally don't like thinking too hard about religious afterlife scenarios...
Its not accurate calling it Abrahamic afterlife, because in early judaism/Torah, there is no afterlife at all, aside from referring to the memories the righteous leave after them. it is estimated that the believe in an afterlife crept into Judaism from the persian religion of Zoroastrianism or perhaps even later on from Christianity or gnosticism.
Post by: Frumple on March 08, 2015, 12:08:35 pm
Post by: Descan on March 08, 2015, 12:27:28 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 08, 2015, 12:31:04 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 12:34:37 pm
Post by: Descan on March 08, 2015, 12:37:03 pm
My point was that, because no religion has any proof to it, then there's no reason to believe in Christ over belief in Thor or Islam or the teachings of the Buddha re: Nirvana, so you could just as easily end up burning in Hades or frozen in Hel than partying with Jesus.
And a lot of those religions also have the whole "faith is a virtue" so that's out too. Can't really say "Well I have faith!" as if that's an argument (you can say it as your own personal reason but that's different than using it as an argument) because they can say the same thing and it'd be equally meritorious.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 08, 2015, 12:39:21 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 12:43:28 pm
I'm fine with my choice, if I'm wrong well darn. But ya I'm entirly ok with my choice in faith, wrong or right. It's morals aren't bad and it's a nice community if you choose right and don't go straight to the only ones people think of because they've given us a bad name
Post by: Arx on March 08, 2015, 12:50:58 pm
My point was that, because no religion has any proof to it
But some have a lot more proof against them than others. Thunder could theoretically be caused by Thor going and personally causing static buildup, but it's unlikely. It's a lot less likely than, say, that if you believe in Jesus you have eternal life, which is unprovable and undisprovable because we can't communicate with the biologically dead.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 08, 2015, 12:55:56 pm
Post by: Teneb on March 08, 2015, 01:03:47 pm
If Norse gods were still worshiped todayNot contesting your argument, but they are still worshiped. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_neopaganism)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 08, 2015, 01:48:28 pm
I mean, there's a lot of proof against the literal word of the Bible. If Norse gods were still worshiped today, Thor-thunderers would be like the people who think Noah's flood actually happened.I believe that the flood was a historical event. It makes a sub-10,000 year earth possible and varying accounts of a large-scale flood have been found in several religions (the tale of giglamesh comes to mind) so I think that it certainly happened.
Christians have backed away from most things proof has built up against, so those disprovable claims must not be the important part of a religion.
Post by: Arx on March 08, 2015, 01:54:05 pm
giglamesh
It spreads...
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 08, 2015, 01:55:52 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 08, 2015, 01:56:28 pm
giglamesh
It spreads...
Let me clarify. I believe in the biblical account of the flood. Not the giglamesh account. I was just pointint out that many accounts of the same event from different cultures generally means it happened.
Post by: Arx on March 08, 2015, 02:00:54 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 08, 2015, 02:20:49 pm
I know that.Did Helgo hack someone's account and post societal religious views, hmmm? :P
I'm fine with my choice, if I'm wrong well darn. But ya I'm entirly ok with my choice in faith, wrong or right. It's morals aren't bad and it's a nice community if you choose right and don't go straight to the only ones people think of because they've given us a bad name
Post by: Descan on March 08, 2015, 02:24:46 pm
I think one of the ideas that secular historians have about the flood account and the different cultures having a flood account is... Well, they're generally in the same area. So the idea is that there was a particularly bad flood of the Tigris or Euphrates, and the story of that flood got passed down through the generations, mutating as it went, and it spread out from Mesopotamia as the people spread out, mingled with other cultures.giglamesh
It spreads...
Let me clarify. I believe in the biblical account of the flood. Not the giglamesh account. I was just pointint out that many accounts of the same event from different cultures generally means it happened.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 08, 2015, 02:43:14 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 08, 2015, 02:44:42 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 02:58:17 pm
Let's to with one that isn't in that region though to back up the claim.
The aborigines (native Australians) believe (or their religion teaches I should say) that there was a great flood, now in this story it was a flood of honey and not of water but that doesn't change there being a great flood at one point.
Post by: Frumple on March 08, 2015, 03:06:32 pm
Let me clarify. I believe in the biblical account of the flood. Not the giglamesh account. I was just pointint out that many accounts of the same event from different cultures generally means it happened.... wouldn't the simple existence of other flood accounts render the biblical one necessarily false? It held that everything except the arkfolk keeled over dead. If there were other cultures with an accounting thereof, that... couldn't have happened. Because they would have been dead. If you're going to point to other cultural flood myths as evidence, you're saying the account you prefer is notably inaccurate...
@ Cryx: It's significantly more likely that there wasn't a great flood, but many different ones that were particularly notable to a specific region, possibly alongside some general water level increases and whatnot. It's not like floods are a particularly uncommon event, especially in areas that are actually significantly desirable for habitation.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 03:11:30 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 08, 2015, 03:11:36 pm
As descan said earlier, as facts get passed on through the generations, details get mixed up untill the story is completely different. What most likely happened is that everyone knew about the flood, but the tower of babel event caused the different language groups to settle away from eachother, and the story got changed from there. I believe in the biblical account because it makes the most sense (giglemesh has the ark be a cube which wouldn't work at all) and because jesus spoke about the flood and never said anything was wrong with the biblical account (Luke 17:27)Let me clarify. I believe in the biblical account of the flood. Not the giglamesh account. I was just pointint out that many accounts of the same event from different cultures generally means it happened.... wouldn't the simple existence of other flood accounts render the biblical one necessarily false? It held that everything except the arkfolk keeled over dead. If there were other cultures with an accounting thereof, that... couldn't have happened. Because they would have been dead. If you're going to point to other cultural flood myths as evidence, you're saying the account you prefer is notably inaccurate...
@ Cryx: It's significantly more likely that there wasn't a great flood, but many different ones that were particularly notable to a specific region, possibly alongside some general water level increases and whatnot. It's not like floods are a particularly uncommon event, especially in areas that are actually significantly desirable for habitation.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 03:14:06 pm
+1As descan said earlier, as facts get passed on through the generations, details get mixed up untill the story is completely different. What most likely happened is that everyone knew about the flood, but the tower of babel event caused the different language groups to settle away from eachother, and the story got changed from there. I believe in the biblical account because it makes the most sense (giglemesh has the ark be a cube which wouldn't work at all) and because jesus spoke about the flood and never said anything was wrong with the biblical account (Luke 17:27)Let me clarify. I believe in the biblical account of the flood. Not the giglamesh account. I was just pointint out that many accounts of the same event from different cultures generally means it happened.... wouldn't the simple existence of other flood accounts render the biblical one necessarily false? It held that everything except the arkfolk keeled over dead. If there were other cultures with an accounting thereof, that... couldn't have happened. Because they would have been dead. If you're going to point to other cultural flood myths as evidence, you're saying the account you prefer is notably inaccurate...
@ Cryx: It's significantly more likely that there wasn't a great flood, but many different ones that were particularly notable to a specific region, possibly alongside some general water level increases and whatnot. It's not like floods are a particularly uncommon event, especially in areas that are actually significantly desirable for habitation.
Post by: Frumple on March 08, 2015, 03:16:55 pm
As descan said earlier, as facts get passed on through the generations, details get mixed up untill the story is completely different.... that position necessarily undermines the entire basis for your belief, though. In holding that that happened, you're opening the possibility -- and, indeed, likelihood* -- that the same thing happened to the biblical account and the details reported there have been mixed up.
*Especially considering most identified potentials for the cause of seriously major historical flooding happened millennium before genesis was penned.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 08, 2015, 03:18:25 pm
But have just about every religion have an account of one during their earlyer time in history is a bit coincidental is it not?
Floods are not really all that uncommon. To a fairly primitive society, it could easily seem like their whole world is flooded when to us it would just seem like a large one. It is also not that far fetched to see how riding it out on a boat is a decent plan. Without doubt over time stories such as that get embellished, as humans are want to do with these things.
Let me clarify. I believe in the biblical account of the flood. Not the giglamesh account. I was just pointint out that many accounts of the same event from different cultures generally means it happened.
But... but there are so many, many problems with the biblical account that make it hard to take as anything other than a story. Flood myths are common in many cultures, but they are not really mutually supporting of anything other than the prevalence of said myths as a cross cultural phenomena.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 08, 2015, 03:19:20 pm
I believe in the biblical account because it makes the most sense (giglemesh has the ark be a cube which wouldn't work at all) and because Jesus spoke about the flood and never said anything was wrong with the biblical account (Luke 17:27)
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 03:20:41 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 08, 2015, 03:22:42 pm
Please read my whole post.I believe in the biblical account because it makes the most sense (giglemesh has the ark be a cube which wouldn't work at all) and because Jesus spoke about the flood and never said anything was wrong with the biblical account (Luke 17:27)
yeah, but that boils down to the bible is true because the bible says it is true. The claims of Jesus regarding the matter (and lets remember that these are at least second hand claims made after the event) are neither here nor there if the claims he is trying to back up are inherently flawed.
Post by: TD1 on March 08, 2015, 03:31:07 pm
I believe in the biblical account because it makes the most senseIf you were to accept things only according to what makes the most sense, you wouldn't believe the entire population of the world was eradicated except for two of every animal.
More to the point, you believe in the Biblical account because it's part of your belief, and to not believe that account would be contrary to your belief. Not because of sense.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 08, 2015, 03:31:29 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 08, 2015, 03:33:50 pm
Of all Biblical arguments, "is Jesus God" is only the most common argument amongst those that believe anything in the Bible at all.
Post by: Frumple on March 08, 2015, 03:40:44 pm
Really, this boils down to whether you believe Jesus is God. Really, that is what almost every argument of the Bible boils down to.I... don't know if that's an entirely accurate assessment. From what I understand of christian history, belief that the bible is a literal account of events is both a primarily minority one and largely a new one, having only gained notable traction fairly recently as history goes. Many christians for much of the belief system's existence have believed in the divinity of SJ while holding the bible itself to be either substantially metaphorical or just plain-clothes flawed. People can, and many, many do, believe that Jesus is God while questioning the literal accuracy of the biblical texts.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 03:42:53 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 08, 2015, 03:48:32 pm
Quote
And He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, gave it to them, and said, "This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me."
By your argument, this is literal. IIRC you're Protestant, and so you believe this to be non-literal.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 08, 2015, 03:49:58 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 08, 2015, 03:50:04 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 08, 2015, 03:56:21 pm
He said do this in remembers cd of me and said the bread was a symbol of his body. I don't see what you're trying to say hereI'm trying to say that you don't take the Bible as absolutely literal. If you did, when Jesus says "this IS my blood" you would believe it.
Indeed, there are a few versions of how many times the cock crowed for...Peter, was it?
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 08, 2015, 03:58:45 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 08, 2015, 04:01:18 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 08, 2015, 04:01:36 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 08, 2015, 04:07:34 pm
He said do this in remembers cd of me and said the bread was a symbol of his body. I don't see what you're trying to say hereHe didn't say it was a symbol, that's just your (heretical :P ) interpretation.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 08, 2015, 05:14:43 pm
Sometimes I wonder whose side you're on II :PThe side of Truth, Justice, and the Non-Zombie Way.
...
... there was apparently an early church belief that the entirety of the story related to jesus occurred in a non-physical portion of reality. That might not be as distanced from church tradition as you'd think, heh.That's pretty awesome, actually.
Post by: redwallzyl on March 08, 2015, 06:12:06 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 09, 2015, 01:59:33 am
He did say that in order to be saved, one must repent of their sins and trust that they will be forgiven through Jesus' sacrifice. Believing Christ to be God (the son thereof notwithstanding) doesn't really come in to it.
Post by: TD1 on March 14, 2015, 03:32:47 pm
Christian Methodist. Willing to answer questions, debate, quote the Bible as my entire statement on a point, be flamed, etc.
Question: Is Methodism strong in Africa? It's strong in my mum's hometown, and she herself was a Methodist until she married my dad.
Also, speaking of my mum in a religious context, I just there now recalled this. Funny what your mind drags up, eh? I was in the car talking to her about Harry Potter (My favourite at the time- I was may 11/12) and asked her if magic was possible. She said no. To which, after a moment, I replied something along the lines of "But...if God made the world, isn't that magic? And all Jesus' miracles?" another no, because apparently to God it's not magic, and therefore it's not magic.
Anyway, to tie it into discussion, why can't miracles and such be counted as magic?
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2015, 03:57:28 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 14, 2015, 04:02:30 pm
Post by: Arx on March 14, 2015, 04:03:19 pm
As far as magic: God doing something is sort-of distinct. It depends on how you define magic, really; so in the OT, it would be mostly calling on spirits and such, so the distinction is that God is more powerful and more...directly affiliated than a spirit. You'd have to do something to persuade the spirit to help you, like cut yourself or sacrifice a child. God, on the other hand, would help you out provided you did as instructed.
If you take magic as being like in most recent fantasy, then the distinction is that magic is a blind force channeled by the caster, whereas God is thinking and may or may not help you depending.
The distinction is much blurrier if you think about in terms of the OT. Incidentally, I don't rule magic out as existing; the Bible doesn't contradict it and implies it a few times.
Post by: TD1 on March 14, 2015, 06:51:02 pm
To be quite frank, an impersonal force that can be channelled by one person out of a billion seems much more likely to me than the Abrhamic God.
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 14, 2015, 06:55:56 pm
To be quite frank, an impersonal force that can be channelled by one person out of a billion seems much more likely to me than the Abrhamic God.I'm kind of curious what is leading you to draw this conclusion, they seem equally likely to me when looking at it that way.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 14, 2015, 06:57:56 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 14, 2015, 07:01:29 pm
It's more likely simply because it gets rid of much of the dogma and, in the case of the older religions, mis translations/tellings of the tale. Also the fact that many Biblical assumptions based off the faith have been diproven by science over the years, whereas an impersonal force is at least conceivable scientifically speaking.
And yea, what Orange said as well. Call it a "blanket belief."
Not that I believe it in the least, though :P
Just think that, were we to compare, it stands the better chance of being correct.
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2015, 07:37:31 pm
One's specific, one's general. If I roll a dice, it's more likely to come up with an odd number than exactly five.Eh, probability doesn't really work like that in the cases at hand - Hume's arguments about induction apply to probabilities as well. Just ask youself: How would that probablility even be defined? 'Probability' here is just a shorthand for a false kind of argument.
@Dwarfy: Why would there be no more miracles today, then? And once you fix this hole, your construct becomes just as 'unlikely' as the Abrahamitic God...
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 14, 2015, 07:41:13 pm
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 14, 2015, 07:43:27 pm
These arguments are like saying the normal color of the sky is equally likely to be green as it is to be plaid, because plaid is more complex. The reality is there's a 0% chance that it's either.But in the case of the sky you have something that you can see with your own eyes. We don't actually have a way of proving or disproving the existance of a God or gods as far as I know, it's a matter of personal belief
Post by: TD1 on March 14, 2015, 07:48:20 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 14, 2015, 07:50:37 pm
Spoiler: missing_the_point.jpg (click to show/hide)
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 14, 2015, 07:52:26 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 14, 2015, 08:53:34 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 14, 2015, 10:34:37 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 14, 2015, 10:38:33 pm
Religion doesn't make sense to me. Mostly because I really don't have a religion... does that count as a religion?
If you believe there is no higher power, you're an atheist. If you don't believe in a higher power, you're an agnostic.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 14, 2015, 10:45:33 pm
Religion doesn't make sense to me. Mostly because I really don't have a religion... does that count as a religion?
Generally: If you think/believe that God/gods/some other higher power doesn't/don't exist, you're an atheist. If you don't have a reason to think He (or She/They/It) does or does not exist, you're an agnostic.
No no, sorry. Let me clarify, I get religion from that standpoint. In fact, I would generally classify myself as an atheist, but i'm loathe to use that because what REALLY confuses me is belief. Or rather faith, I don't see how billions of people can blindly believe in their respective belief systems to varying degrees of rigidity. I was "raised christian", so to speak, and I went to CCD. My parents never prefaced religion in any way. As far back as i can remember I questioned how people could believe in something that was just told to them. This isn't a rag on christianity, I just happen to be most familiar with it.
It's not even that i'm a empirical hardliner either. I still have hopes and dreams and believe in promises made by many people, but still, it seems to me almost brainwashing. Thoughts?
Post by: Frumple on March 14, 2015, 10:51:46 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 14, 2015, 10:56:20 pm
You'd probably classify as some variation on irreligious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligious), then, if you wanted to classify things. The thing worth note is that a person's stance on religion can differ from their stance on theism/spirituality... metaphysics in general, really.
Yes, but what is a person's drive to develop and continue that stance?
Post by: Frumple on March 14, 2015, 11:01:38 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 14, 2015, 11:03:09 pm
Which stance? Irreligion, or religious belief?
religious belief I suppose. Although I can'y say that I am entirely aware of the reasons that I reject religion.
Post by: Frumple on March 14, 2015, 11:07:44 pm
... if you're looking for a simple or singular answer, you're not going to find it, heh.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 14, 2015, 11:21:02 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 14, 2015, 11:36:49 pm
Beyond that, with the exception of the safety bit it's... usually not really awful, especially considering how little religion really interacts with most people's lives. You get an easy social group, comforting and group-affirming ritual, and a facade of metaphysical certainty for what is often relatively little cost. It's... not really difficult to see why people would go that route, especially if it's not something they find themselves conflicted about, for whatever reason. Sometimes if they do, too.
Post by: TD1 on March 15, 2015, 08:42:37 am
Post by: Arx on March 15, 2015, 09:20:18 am
And it is a nice social group. You're pretty unlikely to meet the really twisted types, you can sing along without people giving you weird looks, and it's actually pretty good for business networking if that's your thing.
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 15, 2015, 09:25:52 am
Obviously how much religion plays into a person's life will vary by faith and by person, so take this with a grain of salt.
Post by: TD1 on March 15, 2015, 12:32:41 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 15, 2015, 12:34:21 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 15, 2015, 12:40:08 pm
Post by: Angle on March 15, 2015, 01:29:31 pm
Nah, I just love arguing.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
As for myself, religion is pretty meh. I was raised Unitarian, and was never much interested in it - I remember when I was young and some friends were saying something about god, and I was all "Who dat?" and they were all "There's a man in the sky!" and I was "...No, seriously, who dat?". I find science much more useful for establishing an understanding of the world, philosophy much more useful for juding whats moral and whats not.
Post by: TD1 on March 15, 2015, 02:47:56 pm
Apparently there were three pillars to arguing god's existence. Post Kant and Hume they were arguably destroyed. Ontological, design and cosmological. This led to a "sea change." We stopped arguing for god's existence and started arguing for religion. Thus we moved into the post Kantian philosophy of religion. Hegel says we should move back to arguing about God.
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 15, 2015, 06:27:06 pm
Hegel would hate you :P...although it's up to debate whether Hegel ever wanted to argue for God's existence as an external object, like most philosophers had been doing until his time. I'd rather say that Hegel simply took the Christian concept of God for granted, and his attempt to prove the "concrete" existence of a God is yet another demonstration of the "subjective movement of Spirit" within his own dialectic. It's pretty interesting from a psychological point of view, but since Hegel was mostly unable to tell the difference between words and things, he was poorly qualified to make any existential arguments about anything.
Apparently there were three pillars to arguing god's existence. Post Kant and Hume they were arguably destroyed. Ontological, design and cosmological. This led to a "sea change." We stopped arguing for god's existence and started arguing for religion. Thus we moved into the post Kantian philosophy of religion. Hegel says we should move back to arguing about God.
Post by: That Wolf on March 18, 2015, 09:02:04 am
To sum it up, it states god and the multiple other ?gods? Exsist.
"In our likeness"
Another reason to say the bible is the knockoff version of the real thing
Post by: Bohandas on March 18, 2015, 09:17:55 am
Post by: HeroPizza42 on March 18, 2015, 10:28:43 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 18, 2015, 10:36:01 am
Genesis verse 26
To sum it up, it states god and the multiple other ?gods? Exsist.
"In our likeness"
Another reason to say the bible is the knockoff version of the real thing
This is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit talking about themselves. They do this alot. "Let us make man in our own image"
The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are different from eachother, but together they are God.
Post by: freeformschooler on March 18, 2015, 10:38:23 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 18, 2015, 11:04:15 am
+1Genesis verse 26
To sum it up, it states god and the multiple other ?gods? Exsist.
"In our likeness"
Another reason to say the bible is the knockoff version of the real thing
This is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit talking about themselves. They do this alot. "Let us make man in our own image"
The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are different from eachother, but together they are God.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 18, 2015, 11:13:32 am
That second explanation suggests that angels naturally look like humans, though, which is a little odd. Some angels can at least appear human-like (enough that the people of Sodom called them men). But other angels are 6-winged beasts (Seraphim) or burning wheels (Orphanim).
Trying to figure out if even Satan's default image is humanlike, but apparently not. He was/is a cherub. Which are *not* exactly cute winged babies. They are large enough for God to ride on, and have four faces - Human, Eagle, Lion, and either Ox or "cherub" (indescribably unique, I guess).
It's possible that the angels (or all the ones God was addressing then) have a human-like form, and that shared image is what God was referring to.
That would also explain why God's appearance is supposed to be beyond comprehension, and nobody can see him without dying, and yet many people had face-to-face meetings with him. Jacob even *wrestled* with God, and WON. And was awarded the existence of Israel:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/32.html
Awesome origin story aside, it suggests God (like the angels) has a limited human body he can walk around in. And while this obviously isn't the true image of heavenly beings, the fact they have it in common makes it a fine image to create humanity in.
The bible is *fascinating* sometimes.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 18, 2015, 11:26:14 am
Post by: Bohandas on March 19, 2015, 12:37:04 am
Trying to figure out if even Satan's default image is humanlike, but apparently not. He was/is a cherub. Which are *not* exactly cute winged babies. They are large enough for God to ride on, and have four faces - Human, Eagle, Lion, and either Ox or "cherub" (indescribably unique, I guess).
I thought he was a seraph
Jacob even *wrestled* with God, and WON. And was awarded the existence of Israel:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/32.html
Awesome origin story aside, it suggests God (like the angels) has a limited human body he can walk around in.
Or alternately, that wrestling is fixed.
Post by: wierd on March 19, 2015, 12:56:32 am
the cherubim were the "watchers", discussed at length in the apochryphal book of enoch. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm)
The "demons" of abrahamic religions are the "giant" offspring created by the fallen watchers getting it on with human females that they found sexy. (genesis chapt 2, and first part of enoch.) To make this "work", the watchers altered themselves. in doing so, they ceased being the perfect creations of god, and became corruptions that could not be redeemed. Lucifer was the architect of this, after convincing a good third of the angelic hosts to abandon god, god's creation plan for mankind, and do thier own thing instead. Lucifer was #2 on the totem pole, being the literal right hand man of God. (the other being Michael, who remained loyal during the attempted coup) The angels are not normally physical beings, and are instead "spirit beings." This is why alterations were necessary, and also why they could not be redeemed afterwards. Thier offspring, being a synthesis of fleshly bodies and spirit bodies, had no real place either in heaven or on earth, and "survived" after thier deaths as incorporiated spirit beings, but retaining fleshly appetites. Their fathers were banished (to what I swear sounds like a description of a big metallic asteroid), and imprisoned away from the earth until the end of days, before the time of judgement-- at that time, they will be judged along with what remains of thier children, and the wicked fallen of the human race.
Demons possess humans in order to sate these more carnal apetites/vices, and also out of spite; they hate humans, who are given every chance to succed, where they are/were denied even a single chance, and were doomed the moment they were concieved. These hybrid offspring are called "nephilim", or "fallen ones."
Yay religious studies. Yay.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 19, 2015, 12:59:24 am
Lucifer (satan) is a seraphim, yes.
the cherubim were the "watchers", discussed at length in the apochryphal book of enoch.
The "demons" of abrahamic religions are the "giant" offspring created by the fallen watchers getting it on with human females that they found sexy. (genesis chapt 2, and first part of enoch.) To make this "work", the watchers altered themselves. in doing so, they ceased being the perfect creations of god, and became corruptions that could not be redeemed. Lucifer was the architect of this, after convincing a good third of the angelic hosts to abandon god, god's creation plan for mankind, and do thier own thing instead. Lucifer was #2 on the totem pole, being the literal right hand man of God. (the other being Michael, who remained loyal during the attempted coup) The angels are not normally physical beings, and are instead "spirit beings." This is why alterations were necessary, and also why they could not be redeemed afterwards. Thier offspring, being a synthesis of fleshly bodies and spirit bodies, had no real place either in heaven or on earth, and "survived" after thier deaths as incorporiated spirit beings, but retaining fleshly appetites. Their fathers were banished (to what I swear sounds like a description of a big metallic asteroid), and imprisoned away from the earth until the end of days, before the time of judgement-- at that time, they will be judged along with what remains of thier children, and the wicked fallen of the human race.
Demons possess humans in order to sate these more carnal apetites/vices, and also out of spite; they hate humans, who are given every chance to succed, where they are/were denied even a single chance, and were doomed the moment they were concieved. These hybrid offspring are called "nephilim", or "fallen ones."
Yay religious studies. Yay.
I don't mean to be a nit picker, but can you please cite bible verses that back up your argument?
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 19, 2015, 01:03:37 am
Post by: wierd on March 19, 2015, 01:04:50 am
it is a part of the apochrypha. The only mentions of this event in cannon biblical texts are allusions to "the war in heaven", and the genesis chapt 2 reference about giants.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 19, 2015, 01:09:20 am
Post by: Frumple on March 19, 2015, 01:11:32 am
Post by: wierd on March 19, 2015, 01:20:18 am
God works on a VASTLY different timetable.
The war in heaven happened shortly after the creation of man, and the tempting and fall of man was a part of that coup. other extra-biblical source materials have lucifer being prideful of being a spirit being, and refusing to accept demotion after god introduces the then perfect adam to him. This led lucifer down his spiraling path of destruction and calamity that he drug the whole universe along with him on.
From what I am able to interpret, god created humans in a direct attempt to copy himself, and make "god lite". A kind of testbed platform so to speak. This pissed lucifer off to no end, being the then closest thing to god in existence, and hating humanity from the very start.
This is why he is known as "the accuser", and "the father of lies", and so many other epithets. Prior to this, he was a proper upstanding angel, like any other.
Post by: Frumple on March 19, 2015, 01:27:46 am
People put so much random cruft on that critter. I get that the fanfiction felt the need for some extra spice, but still :-\
The pride, the hatred, the rebellion... buncha' other stuff. More or less none of it supported by canon. It's faintly irritating some days, y'know? Whatever happened to that no-false-witness thing? *grumbles*
Post by: wierd on March 19, 2015, 01:30:18 am
Prior to this, in the period in which the new testament takes place, those books were considered cannon.
(what I am getting at here, is that you cant simply handwave them away.)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 19, 2015, 01:32:37 am
it is discussed at length in enoch. link above.That isn't enough biblical evidence to convince me.
it is a part of the apochrypha. The only mentions of this event in cannon biblical texts are allusions to "the war in heaven", and the genesis chapt 2 reference about giants.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 19, 2015, 01:34:26 am
... of course, that's revelation, which... might not have happened, yet. Right?It's kind of a mixed bag. What weird said is the usual interpretation, even among those of us who agree that most of the fanfics are bunk.
For reference:
Quote from: Revelation 12
7And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.Michael is a/the archangel, which appears elsewhere to be a post of some significance. No idea what it means otherwise.
It's made pretty clear by repetition ad nauseam that the dragon is Satan/etcetera. He was tossed to Earth just in time for a date with a naked couple in a garden, where God basically said "Screw you, snake, eat dust and die (eventually)."
Post by: wierd on March 19, 2015, 01:37:25 am
It cannot be simply handwaved off when reviewing the religion's historic roots. The current bible's form is the result of revisionism by scribes some 300 years AFTER christ, in an effort to standardize the faith's practice.
History. it's good for your mind.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 19, 2015, 01:44:08 am
Lucifer (satan) is a seraphim, yes.First off, Lucifer was a human king. The only mention of Lucifer, Isaiah 14:12 on, is fairly clear:
the cherubim were the "watchers", discussed at length in the apochryphal book of enoch. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm)
The "demons" of abrahamic religions are the "giant" offspring created by the fallen watchers getting it on with human females that they found sexy. (genesis chapt 2, and first part of enoch.) To make this "work", the watchers altered themselves. in doing so, they ceased being the perfect creations of god, and became corruptions that could not be redeemed. Lucifer was the architect of this, after convincing a good third of the angelic hosts to abandon god, god's creation plan for mankind, and do thier own thing instead. Lucifer was #2 on the totem pole, being the literal right hand man of God. (the other being Michael, who remained loyal during the attempted coup) The angels are not normally physical beings, and are instead "spirit beings." This is why alterations were necessary, and also why they could not be redeemed afterwards. Thier offspring, being a synthesis of fleshly bodies and spirit bodies, had no real place either in heaven or on earth, and "survived" after thier deaths as incorporiated spirit beings, but retaining fleshly appetites. Their fathers were banished (to what I swear sounds like a description of a big metallic asteroid), and imprisoned away from the earth until the end of days, before the time of judgement-- at that time, they will be judged along with what remains of thier children, and the wicked fallen of the human race.
Demons possess humans in order to sate these more carnal apetites/vices, and also out of spite; they hate humans, who are given every chance to succed, where they are/were denied even a single chance, and were doomed the moment they were concieved. These hybrid offspring are called "nephilim", or "fallen ones."
Yay religious studies. Yay.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/14.html
As for Satan being a cherub or seraphim, there is some contention. Some say Satan must have been a seraphim because he was of high rank. Others point to Ezekiel 28:15-18, which describe a cherub who seems to be Satan:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ezek/28.html
Either way... Seraphim and cherubim are mainly described as having monstrous forms, but I suggest that all angels (and God) can take human form if they wish. And that shared image is what God referred to in Genesis 1:26:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
Edit: All this is under the assumption of the Bible being true, naturally.
Post by: Frumple on March 19, 2015, 01:47:40 am
Enoch was penned some time in the second century BCE. Or, about 200ish years before christ. At the time christ was traipsing about Jerusalem, it was considered sacred, and part of the religious tradition.All I can really say is it would be (even more) amazing(ly silly) if we held theologians to the early non-biblical texts, too.
It cannot be simply handwaved off when reviewing the religion's historic roots. The current bible's form is the result of revisionism by scribes some 300 years AFTER christ, in an effort to standardize the faith's practice.
I'd be for it. Would be fun to watch.
Post by: wierd on March 19, 2015, 01:51:40 am
There are 4 watchers in the throne room, and get the same basic description they have in the ezekiel reference. The text outright calls them watchers.
It then refers to the fallen angels also as watchers.
Frumple: Oh, you would simply LOOOOOVE enoch then!
The second half of that book discusses hidden knowledge that god gave to enoch, including information about celestial objects, which dont quite match up to modern observations. ;)
Post by: Frumple on March 19, 2015, 01:56:14 am
It'd be great :V
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 19, 2015, 01:57:00 am
Post by: wierd on March 19, 2015, 01:57:46 am
I see what you mean there.
Orange wizard: it uses a capital W on Watchers. So, I dont think so.
(granted, I have only read the translation, and the translator may have simply been wrong.)
For those interested, the part where the big man himself puts the slapdown on the fallen angels and thier giant offspring can be found here.
www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe018.htm
Post by: That Wolf on March 19, 2015, 02:49:12 pm
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 19, 2015, 03:27:46 pm
Post by: i2amroy on March 19, 2015, 03:30:07 pm
Post by: That Wolf on March 19, 2015, 03:32:47 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 19, 2015, 03:33:28 pm
First off, Lucifer was a human king. The only mention of Lucifer, Isaiah 14:12 on, is fairly clear:Only if you forget that 'Babylon' is used metaphorically more often than not.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/14.html
Generally I'd be very wary about a bible commentary by people who wrote it primarily as sceptics.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 19, 2015, 03:56:13 pm
I use that website because it's the King James version, which seems to be the most popular, plus the annotations help me find a place to make my arguments from. But I do read all the passages for myself, particularly the ones I quote.
I presented my argument for Lucifer != Satan here:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=147792.msg5995861#msg5995861
It's a surprising conclusion, but I think that Isaiah 14 (again, the only mention of Lucifer in the Bible) is clear. Lucifer being Satan is a widespread misconception, based on the Bible.
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 19, 2015, 04:41:58 pm
Genesis verse 26
To sum it up, it states god and the multiple other ?gods? Exsist.
"In our likeness"
Another reason to say the bible is the knockoff version of the real thing
Here (and in other similar verses), the LDS view is that it's God and Jesus conversing with each other. Unlike most other Christian groups, LDS people don't accept the idea of the Trinity and instead believe that the Father, Son, and the Spirit are three separate and individual entities who work closely together.
As for the human-likeness of God and spirits, we believe that both the Father and the Son have physical bodies. Additionally, people's spirits look like that person in life and the human-seeming angels actually are the spirits of people who either will live or have already lived. Satan is similar, except he never had the chance to live because he chose to not follow God.
Post by: Descan on March 19, 2015, 05:21:25 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 19, 2015, 09:09:32 pm
One thing I've always wondered about the whole "Looks like the person," is... uhm, when? In their prime? When they died? Will Morgan Freeman look like what everything thinks Morgan Freeman looks like? Or a young version (google has failed me!)?
I'd assume that it would be sometime in their prime, but I guess different people would be comfortable with different ages.
Post by: That Wolf on March 19, 2015, 09:16:29 pm
Playing my ocarina all eternity making it rain
Post by: Rolan7 on March 19, 2015, 10:02:40 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: That Wolf on March 20, 2015, 12:18:35 am
I have a book for this week.
Post by: TD1 on March 21, 2015, 10:55:35 am
And what about a non-sceptic commentary? Either, it will be as biased as all get out. Best just to read and, if you're uncertain, investigate.First off, Lucifer was a human king. The only mention of Lucifer, Isaiah 14:12 on, is fairly clear:Only if you forget that 'Babylon' is used metaphorically more often than not.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/14.html
Generally I'd be very wary about a bible commentary by people who wrote it primarily as sceptics.
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2015, 11:52:04 am
Post by: TD1 on March 21, 2015, 11:57:15 am
Marx is turning in his grave.
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2015, 12:17:35 pm
Post by: i2amroy on March 21, 2015, 03:40:40 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/QY50aMj.png)
Post by: TD1 on March 21, 2015, 03:45:28 pm
I think religion is not a societal construct used by the upper classes to subjugate the lower classes.
Quick! To the spinometer!
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2015, 03:59:13 pm
He's heard that far too often. But watch this:
"In the fight against the bourgeoisie it is necessary for the proletariat to ally itself with reactionary forces such as the Church. Also English beer is just as good as German beer!"
Post by: TD1 on March 21, 2015, 04:10:35 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 21, 2015, 05:03:43 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 21, 2015, 05:10:41 pm
That should get some good friction steam rising.
Post by: wierd on March 21, 2015, 05:11:38 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2015, 05:40:12 pm
By the way, if we hook up Orwell too, the guy in charge of the NSA could say something similar about 1984...
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 21, 2015, 06:02:14 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2015, 06:10:33 pm
Post by: wierd on March 21, 2015, 06:15:40 pm
(http://www.cityfood.com/media/resampled/articleElement/216/resampled_Buddhas%20hand.jpg)
Post by: Frumple on March 21, 2015, 06:21:13 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 21, 2015, 07:12:33 pm
What is that, exactly? For research purposes only, I assure you.
Post by: scrdest on March 21, 2015, 07:13:04 pm
Without daring to invoke the terror of internet rule #34, i'll just post this picture of a unique form of citrus (while not an orange, that's a technicality), and let you draw your own conclusions about how possible pornography with it would be.That's just to citruses what Cthulhu is to humans.
(http://www.cityfood.com/media/resampled/articleElement/216/resampled_Buddhas%20hand.jpg)
Post by: Frumple on March 21, 2015, 07:28:06 pm
...Check the image name :P
What is that, exactly? For research purposes only, I assure you.
If you're talking about the fruit, anyway. Kinda' amusing, actually, considering the thread.
Post by: Bohandas on March 21, 2015, 07:28:34 pm
Post by: Brank on March 22, 2015, 12:28:51 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 22, 2015, 01:12:49 am
I am a Christian!Hello! Welcome! Read the thread if you dare - it's basically just sixty pages of mushrooms and crisis of faith.
...
If you're talking about the fruit, anyway. Kinda' amusing, actually, considering the thread.Of course I'm talking about the fruit. It looks fantastic.
Post by: Arx on March 22, 2015, 06:20:54 am
I am a Christian!Hello! Welcome! Read the thread if you dare - it's basically just sixty pages of mushrooms and crisis of faith.
/me puts his hand up.
And there is the old thread, if you're bored, I guess.
Post by: Grek on March 22, 2015, 06:25:18 am
Totally Relevant:This comic always annoyed me because it makes be wonder why Kim didn't do the obvious thing and dissolve Mark Twain's bones in acid. If spin is inversely proportional to the mass of the skeleton, we can get incredible efficiency by using very tiny bones!
(http://i.imgur.com/QY50aMj.png)
No, I'm not crazy, why do you ask?
Post by: wierd on March 22, 2015, 06:34:58 am
Being a citron, it is mostly rind. However, this makes it IDEAL for making zest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zest_%28ingredient%29) I have never eaten one myself, but I understand that it is very fragrant, and a bit tart. I have eaten european style citrons (grapefruit sized outside, orange sized inside, very thick rind), which are very tart-- but not unpleasant like a sour miniature orange (Those are sour like a lemon!).
Western cuisine uses the buddha's hand as a premium source of orange-like flavored zest for things like orange flavored cakes, cookies, and confectionary glazes.
Western citrons can be crossed with oranges, IIRC-- So it might be possible, with selective hybrid culture, to produce a fingered orange if someone really wanted to.
Post by: scrdest on March 22, 2015, 11:08:11 am
Because very tiny bones would spin faster, but exert less force.Totally Relevant:This comic always annoyed me because it makes be wonder why Kim didn't do the obvious thing and dissolve Mark Twain's bones in acid. If spin is inversely proportional to the mass of the skeleton, we can get incredible efficiency by using very tiny bones!
(http://i.imgur.com/QY50aMj.png)
No, I'm not crazy, why do you ask?
Post by: wierd on March 22, 2015, 11:11:12 am
Now, the interesting question-- would there be a net overall rotation for POWDERED bones?
Post by: Frumple on March 22, 2015, 11:22:07 am
... does make me curious, though. What are the varying religious reasons for burial over, say, cremation or fertilizer or somethin'? What I can usually remember is that it trends to be more tradition than canon based, or hinged on some kind of nebulous "respect for the dead" sentiment...
Post by: Arx on March 22, 2015, 11:25:20 am
Personally, if God's bringing my dead body back to life I'm sure He can do it from ash and teeth as well as bones.
Post by: wierd on March 22, 2015, 11:29:33 am
The new testament story of christ restoring sight to the blind man by making spitball-mudballs, and shoving them into the guy's empty eye sockets and making new eyeballs that way pretty much sums up the "Burnination makes the corpse unressurectable" as being just shit created by the church later, and not really established with biblical precedent.
The real reason was to distance themselves from practices of other faiths, out of religious snobbery.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 22, 2015, 01:55:01 pm
I think in Christianity/Judaism there is a certain amount of "physical resurrection" stuff that makes some people nervous of cremation.You get a new body, so your old body doesn't matter. (read 2 Corinthians 5)
Personally, if God's bringing my dead body back to life I'm sure He can do it from ash and teeth as well as bones.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 22, 2015, 02:24:44 pm
I don't actually know what the official Reformed doctrine on it is. I might remember to ask my minister at some point.
Personally, I don't really know what will happen. Should be interesting to find out, though.
Post by: TD1 on March 22, 2015, 02:52:14 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 22, 2015, 05:18:37 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 22, 2015, 05:22:01 pm
Post by: Bohandas on March 22, 2015, 07:35:24 pm
I think in Christianity/Judaism there is a certain amount of "physical resurrection" stuff that makes some people nervous of cremation.
Personally, if God's bringing my dead body back to life I'm sure He can do it from ash and teeth as well as bones.
And doing it from bones is definitely in the bible, and it's definitely clear that they can even have fallen apart and been scattered:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+37%3A1%2D14&version=NIV
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=pYb8Wm6-QfA
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 22, 2015, 07:39:09 pm
Yes, If God decides to raise you to life in this world, then he can do it. But in heaven, we get a new body.I think in Christianity/Judaism there is a certain amount of "physical resurrection" stuff that makes some people nervous of cremation.
Personally, if God's bringing my dead body back to life I'm sure He can do it from ash and teeth as well as bones.
And doing it from bones is definitely in the bible, and it's definitely clear that they can even have fallen apart and been scattered:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+37%3A1%2D14&version=NIV
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=pYb8Wm6-QfA
Post by: TD1 on March 24, 2015, 03:06:07 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 24, 2015, 03:54:41 pm
To ask the classic question of Vardy: Do you have to queue to see Jesus, given it's all physical?Can you please elaborate? I don't know what you're asking.
Post by: TD1 on March 24, 2015, 04:01:15 pm
You've got your flashy new body from God. Jesus is there... if everyone wants to see him, do they have to queue?
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 24, 2015, 04:18:00 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 24, 2015, 04:22:07 pm
Anyway.
Yes, you could queue for years, but I'd hardly call that a happy heaven. Imagine the queues around famous people. Family members from generations ago. Heaven would be one great heaving queue with billions of different destinations.
Post by: i2amroy on March 24, 2015, 04:25:40 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 24, 2015, 05:00:54 pm
Who thinks animals go to heaven?
If not, why not?
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 24, 2015, 05:26:19 pm
Who thinks animals go to heaven?
This guy.
Post by: Angle on March 24, 2015, 05:27:50 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 24, 2015, 05:44:06 pm
Why don't bees go to heaven - by Ron Williams (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bMi4s_yOE)
Yes. That will do nicely to explain it without me posting something lengthy :P
Post by: Angle on March 24, 2015, 05:53:59 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 24, 2015, 06:05:54 pm
Two new bookmarks made.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 24, 2015, 06:12:44 pm
Post by: Teneb on March 24, 2015, 06:18:56 pm
The definition of heaven is the presence of god (while hell is the lack of it). So you won't need to wait in line to see him. He is everywhere.That raises a question: is he present in our world or not? Because that would mean this is either heaven or hell.
Post by: TD1 on March 24, 2015, 06:20:59 pm
Replace it with anybody, I guess. Justin Bieber. The sooner he dies the better, eh? :P
Oh, and if hell is merely an absence of God, where is it? Does he give us physical bodies there too?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 24, 2015, 06:35:23 pm
He is present, in a different way. Once someone becomes a believer, "it is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me" (galations 2:20) So a believer is in the presense of God, and God has influence over the whole earth without dwelling in unbelievers.The definition of heaven is the presence of god (while hell is the lack of it). So you won't need to wait in line to see him. He is everywhere.That raises a question: is he present in our world or not? Because that would mean this is either heaven or hell.
Post by: TD1 on March 24, 2015, 06:38:33 pm
He's only in unbelievers? Firstly, awfully convenient. Secondly, hardly the type of favouritism a father should show. Like only picking up the phone to certain kids.
Also, then you'd admit that the absolute, constant force in the universe is actually subjective dependent on place.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 24, 2015, 06:39:52 pm
In summary: He is in the whole world, but only dwells in believers.
Post by: Angle on March 24, 2015, 06:42:46 pm
Doesn't hold up.
He's only in believers? Firstly, awfully convenient. Secondly, hardly the type of favouritism a father should show. Like only picking up the phone to certain kids.
Also, then you'd admit that the absolute, constant force in the universe is actually subjective dependent on place.
Post by: Teneb on March 24, 2015, 06:46:00 pm
I think you misunderstood what I said. Please reread it.Does this mean that believers are in heaven even in life?
In summary: He is in the whole world, but only dwells in believers.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 24, 2015, 06:52:00 pm
Partially. We are still corrupted with sin on the earth so we can't be in the full presence until we die and get our new body.I think you misunderstood what I said. Please reread it.Does this mean that believers are in heaven even in life?
In summary: He is in the whole world, but only dwells in believers.
Post by: Frumple on March 24, 2015, 06:56:33 pm
Though, from what I recall re: the metaphysical nature of god, it actually means unbelievers just straight up don't exist, since a thing cannot exist without being of god and having god in them (otherwise god would be bounded and finite, and that's a no-no). To truly not have god in you, you have to disappear in a puff of logic. Something along those lines.
Things get messy when you say something's in everything and then not in some things, really. One of the two has to be false, and the former is usually considered the more important. You've got similar shenanigans going on with one of the standard answers to the problems regarding evil.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 24, 2015, 11:33:12 pm
Animals don't go to heaven because they don't have souls. Officially, at least. Personally I'm on the fence about the whole soul thing. In any case, humans are made in the image of God (whatever that actually means and the more specific implications are up for debate) whereas animals are not. Also is the matter that (as far as we know) (most) animals can't actually believe in the stuff required to go to heaven in the first place... but that draws some unsettling correlations with human unbelievers that I really don't want to go in to.
There's no reason to assume there won't be animals and plants in Heaven, but I don't believe animals on Earth will be reborn in Heaven.
... that got a bit rambly.
Post by: wierd on March 25, 2015, 10:46:51 am
The only reference I remember is in Revelations, meaning it is deeply couched in allegory, but the resurrected faithful attend court in the throneroom of heaven along with god, and are themselves luminous beings "like him." It calls them a numberless multitude. So, rather than a queue, imagine something more like the shuffling masses of a comic con, or similar.
People come and go as they please, but it's reasonably easy to get to any particular "table" of interest. There might be some local queueing, and the big guy might have a large number of fangirls complicating access, but he is omnipresent, and if you want to petition him, it does not need to be in physical locality to the throne.
It's a different kind of existence; dont apply the limitations of the secular world on it.
Post by: TD1 on March 25, 2015, 02:10:28 pm
Dwarfy must've made a typo. I think he meantHe's got the right angle on this... :PDoesn't hold up.
He's only in believers? Firstly, awfully convenient. Secondly, hardly the type of favouritism a father should show. Like only picking up the phone to certain kids.
Also, then you'd admit that the absolute, constant force in the universe is actually subjective dependent on place.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 25, 2015, 02:17:26 pm
I'll use an analogy:
A father gives two sons gifts, but one doesn't accept the gift. Is it favoritism that one son didn't get the gift?
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 25, 2015, 02:23:25 pm
Quote from: Romans 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Quote from: Genesis 25:23
And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
Quote from: Malachi 1:4
They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.
Quote from: Matthew 7:19
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
I could do this all day.
Post by: Naryar on March 25, 2015, 02:37:17 pm
Why do people need a whole mythology to go with their beliefs and philosophy ?
Mythologies tell volumes about the world and human nature, and all of them are fun and interesting to read about, but in the end they are simply stories. Not "this is the truth, accept it as face value".
As for the creation of the universe, I think the big-bang theory is almost less convincing that "a supreme being created it" thing.
If there is a creator, I think he either never intended to take an interest in human affairs, left, or doesn't really care anymore.
and yet i have tried religion, but I think I'm not done for religion. Too many assumptions that you have to believe without having tangible proof of it.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 25, 2015, 02:51:43 pm
As for the creation of the universe, I think the big-bang theory is almost less convincing that "a supreme being created it" thing.
Apples and oranges.
Physics provides evidence to show that the universe is expanding, and was once in a hot dense state. The "big bang" explains observations - nothing more, nothing less. There is no real feasible or credible way to argue against the observations nor conclusions drawn from them. It says nothing about how or why said process occurred, resulting in a universe. Sure, a supreme being "could" have started it all off, but that is basically conjecture at best. The big bang does not preclude theism, nor even attempt to rule it out.
Post by: TD1 on March 25, 2015, 03:15:40 pm
Favoritism? He loves everybody the same.What II said.
I'll use an analogy:
A father gives two sons gifts, but one doesn't accept the gift. Is it favoritism that one son didn't get the gift?
Besides, it's more as if you've had something your entire life, and then some randomer claims he gave it to you. When you refuse to acknowledge this, he turns in spite from you and focuses on your malleable neighbour, who eventually caves and is now his "favourite"
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 25, 2015, 03:21:05 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 25, 2015, 03:24:15 pm
Also, let me add that even if some sort of rainbows and cotton candy god exist, I would not worship him. The act of creation is enough to demand no more than acknowledgment. Making the world as it is, with torture commonplace. Unbearable agony. Bereavement, death, dark, fights, ugliness, disease, parasites, etc. is enough to earn disgust.
The believer seems to be blinded, to me, by imaginary light. God made a perfect world, and yet it's not. God loves us. See previous. Heaven exists. Yea, according to a book specifically designed to spread the religion.
Post by: Frumple on March 25, 2015, 03:25:53 pm
I mean, as amusing as an all powerful divine yandere is... it doesn't really work like that, y'know? That's something, but it's not love.
Which I guess is okay, sorta' -- religious language often shanghais normal language into meaning something entirely different when used in context of the religion. S'just good to make sure you're acknowledging and noting that fact when using the word by the different meaning.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 25, 2015, 03:30:58 pm
Like, those references I posted.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 25, 2015, 03:33:17 pm
But, as Orange Wizard pointed out, God hated and punished a lot of people. Particularly in the old testament, where their sins included "not being his favored race" or "being of his favored race but asking a question". God didn't wait for these people to ask his forgiveness, he destroyed them.
Post by: TD1 on March 25, 2015, 03:35:03 pm
Oh, also, even Jesus did violence against people we may assume he didn't love while he was smashing their stuff at temple
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 25, 2015, 03:39:24 pm
Another problem with religious language is all the translation. Makes it hard to know the original meaning... I think a lot of words in ancient languages don't translate well into English, because they describe concepts which have been abandoned or heavily evolved over the centuries.Generally speaking, the word "love" in the Bible translates more as "brotherly love", or "loving kindness". Basically, generosity, kindness, and other nice things. It's got nothing to do with attraction or actually liking the person involved (though that said, Jesus is described as a friend to believers, so the two are not mutually exclusive.)
Post by: Descan on March 25, 2015, 04:01:19 pm
he still loves you just as much. As soon as you make the decision, he'll be ready. No matter what else you have done.And so does Allah.
Gonna go on Hajj any time soon?
Also, considering a lot of (heavy, fanatic, right-wing) religious people say "I love you, that's why I'm trying to get you (LGBT, black people, immigrants, etc) classed as a lesser person!" I'd say religions definition of love in general is pretty warped.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 25, 2015, 04:21:25 pm
Yes. We are not perfect. Not by a long shot. Every Christian, me included, have looked down on others. But God always forgives everybody, the only difference between a believer and a non-believer is if they accept the forgiveness.
Also, considering a lot of (heavy, fanatic, right-wing) religious people say "I love you, that's why I'm trying to get you (LGBT, black people, immigrants, etc) classed as a lesser person!" I'd say religions definition of love in general is pretty warped.
Post by: Descan on March 25, 2015, 05:40:50 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 26, 2015, 05:02:22 am
Post by: Bohandas on March 26, 2015, 05:20:28 am
Also, considering a lot of (heavy, fanatic, right-wing) religious people say "I love you, that's why I'm trying to get you (LGBT, black people, immigrants, etc) classed as a lesser person!" I'd say religions definition of love in general is pretty warped.
Yes, many depictions of the love of God come off as a combonation of the love of a deranged stalker and the love of a highly overbearing, manipulative, and judgemental parent
Post by: Helgoland on March 26, 2015, 09:21:48 am
Aye, that whole "No matter what I do, I'm forgiven by the one who *really* matters!" kind of also warps perspectives and priorities. Automatically cleans your conscience without actually needing to make amends to the harmed party!C'mon, one could easily take similar cheap shots against atheism. I won't, but one could.
Post by: Descan on March 26, 2015, 10:10:54 am
That's just something that always skeeved me a little. Just feels like a cop-out, even if one doesn't use it that way. The whole "Hitler is in Heaven as long as he repented, while Ghandi is burning in hell." (Though at least I'm unique and snowflakey enough that I don't want either in Hell, no one deserves that. Even Hitler would burn through 10 million life-times worth of pain and torture, and then it's just cruelty. Hell isn't a punishment, it's just torture, because at least with punishment there's the potential for reform and "Don't do that again!" Hell is eternal, though.)
Post by: Baffler on March 26, 2015, 10:17:56 am
Aye, that whole "No matter what I do, I'm forgiven by the one who *really* matters!" kind of also warps perspectives and priorities. Automatically cleans your conscience without actually needing to make amends to the harmed party!
This is the purpose of a penance. You can't be forgiven for something you aren't sorry for after all.
Post by: Arx on March 26, 2015, 10:22:32 am
Also, considering a lot of (heavy, fanatic, right-wing) religious people say "I love you, that's why I'm trying to get you (LGBT, black people, immigrants, etc) classed as a lesser person!" I'd say religions definition of love in general is pretty warped.
No, religious people's view is. You said it yourself, but then extrapolated that to all of religion.
I'm actually pretty sure it's impossible to Biblically justify oppression or insults.
Post by: Helgoland on March 26, 2015, 10:23:25 am
Quote from: Pope John Paul II
The just of the Earth, even those who do not know Christ and his Church, but who under the influence of grace seek God in a sincere heart, are called to build the Kingdom of God, collaborating with the Lord, who is its first and supreme architect.And any good Christian would not want Hitler to go to hell. Wishing eternal torment on someone - on anyone - is a very un-Christian sentiment.
Post by: Descan on March 26, 2015, 10:39:20 am
And I'm not saying Christians want that. If anything, I'm saying God's kind of a jerk for doing it/letting it happen.
As for penance, that may not be how it's supposed to work, but it's completely possible for someone to work under the impression it does. They won't find out for sure until the end, after all.
Post by: Angle on March 26, 2015, 12:17:57 pm
Post by: Ghills on March 26, 2015, 01:17:14 pm
/me shrug.
That's just something that always skeeved me a little. Just feels like a cop-out, even if one doesn't use it that way. The whole "Hitler is in Heaven as long as he repented, while Ghandi is burning in hell."
Wait, what? That line of reasoning is a new one to me.
I think LDS theology is pretty unique among Christian beliefs though. It's much more about people being able to choose who they want to be.
We believe that after this life, everyone gets a chance to be taught the Gospel by believers and angels and repent. After that comes Judgement Day, when people are sorted into 3 degrees of glory. Basically people who want to be like God, people who were good but don't want to be like God ('honorable but blinded by the craftiness of men', etc), and people who were not good. Every one of those groups gets some amount of glory, just less or more depending on which group.
Outer darkness/hell is reserved for the devil and people who deliberately and knowingly choose to follow him, which is very difficult to qualify for (ex, assassinating someone for personal gain while holding the Priesthood). Eternal torment is the torment of seeing everyone else have glory while you don't, knowing that you messed up, being unrelentingly awful and having to live with unrelentingly awful people. It's endless not as a deliberate punishment so much as natural consequence of choosing to be vile and then being stuck that way.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76
Post by: Ghills on March 26, 2015, 01:38:54 pm
That was a typo, I did mean religious instead of religion.
And I'm not saying Christians want that. If anything, I'm saying God's kind of a jerk for doing it/letting it happen.
As for penance, that may not be how it's supposed to work, but it's completely possible for someone to work under the impression it does. They won't find out for sure until the end, after all.
I guess I can kind of see that reasoning, but it relies on an axiom that isn't doctrine (i.e. God should micromanage everything to make it comfortable/happy/the way I want it). The Bible is pretty clear that God's goal is not to make things the way we think they should be.
LDS theology is that the purpose of this life is for people to learn, grow, and make choices...which includes the possibility of making the wrong choice. God mindcontrolling everyone would utterly thwart the purpose of life, because people don't learn and grow when they're forced into one single choice (in fact, trying to remove free will was one of Satan's big sins, along with trying to usurp God's authority and leading a rebellion).
As for people not understanding the point of repentance, well, there's always some people who only hear what they want to hear. LDS doctrine has a clear repentance process (have faith, acknowledge and be sorry for sin, stop doing it, confess to God and those harmed, make restitution) instead of penance, but even after hearing it repeatedly people have trouble with it. Actually changing is hard and some people have a very hard time with it.
Post by: Ghills on March 26, 2015, 01:50:25 pm
The big problem, in my mind, is with faith, which in my experience is basically just a excuse to believe whatever you want. Now sometimes this is used to support nice things - Charity, Generosity, Humility, etc, but more often in my experiance is used to support some rather nasty behaviours - Hatred, Superiority, Hierarchy, Cruelty, etc.
That's not faith. That's people justifying whatever they want to do because they want to do it - any reason works for that. All political ideologies have been used that way. Atheism has been used to justify its own share of incredible atrocities.
The problem isn't whatever principle people are using to justify their sins. The problem is that people will use anything to justify what they want to do so they don't feel bad about doing things that are wrong.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 26, 2015, 01:52:33 pm
Now, of course there are millions of Christians who loudly condemn this intolerance - but two things. One, the Bible really does condemn homosexuality in a few places (not just Leviticus). Two... While yes, God can't be expected to fix every little thing, this isn't little. This is millions of people uniting, *in his name, and their shared faith*, to promote intolerance. If these people have accepted his guiding influence into their lives, how could let such powerful movements form?
Either he's okay with it, or he's not actually guiding them. Maybe because they're of the wrong denomination, I guess.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on March 26, 2015, 02:02:55 pm
God mindcontrolling everyone would utterly thwart the purpose of lifeNobody is asking for that, just that he zaps assholes out of existence the moment they decide to do something that would, idk, infringe on somebody elses free will terminally. Also, natural deaths, especially en masse or among young people. I would argue that they kinda get in the way of free will more than preventing them would.
What does he want us to learn after all? How to navigate the maze of death he set up for us?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 02:06:05 pm
Post by: Angle on March 26, 2015, 02:14:41 pm
That's not faith. That's people justifying whatever they want to do because they want to do it - any reason works for that. All political ideologies have been used that way. Atheism has been used to justify its own share of incredible atrocities.
The problem isn't whatever principle people are using to justify their sins. The problem is that people will use anything to justify what they want to do so they don't feel bad about doing things that are wrong.
Thats true to a degree, but the thing is, when someone justifies they're beliefs with something resembling logic, then you can argue with them, and have a chance to change their mind. What do you do when someone just replies with "I have faith and nothing you can say or do will change that."? You can't argue with that. You can't use reason or logic. You can try and bludgeon them with emotional appeals, but that's rarely effective. You basically are reduced to either giving up or resorting to force - "If you refuse to serve gay people, then we'll boycott your restaurant." and such. If I'm doing something you don't like, you can argue with me. You can use reason and logic, and I might listen and change my mind. But I have no such recourse against you.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 02:16:12 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 26, 2015, 02:16:18 pm
God didn't cause disease or death, that was Adam and Eve back in the garden of Eden (and Satan too)Oddly, yeah. While God lay a multitude of permanent family curses on Adam and Eve for their disobedience, he didn't specifically take their immortality. He warned them they would die if they ate from the Tree of Good and Evil, and apparently he was right.
He did, however, keep them from recovering their immortality:
Quote from: Genesis
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
It's details like this which sometimes make me wish I believed, because God is so often written as a villain being set up to be defeated.
Edit: If only we had a hero like Prometheus, to steal the fruit as he stole the secret of fire.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 02:21:11 pm
It's details like this which sometimes make me wish I believed, because God is so often written as a villain being set up to be defeated.What's stopping you?
Post by: Frumple on March 26, 2015, 02:21:55 pm
God didn't cause disease or death, that was Adam and Eve back in the garden of Eden (and Satan too)Uh... yeah, damning billions upon billions to suffer and die for the actions of two individuals who were functionally brain damaged is... a bit disproportionate. Just a titch.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 02:24:07 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 26, 2015, 02:28:47 pm
Look at it this way: If God had truly wanted Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, why did He put it there in the first place?Quote from: Genesis3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
It's details like this which sometimes make me wish I believed, because God is so often written as a villain being set up to be defeated.
Edit: If only we had a hero like Prometheus, to steal the fruit as he stole the secret of fire.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 02:29:56 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 26, 2015, 02:30:32 pm
From believing? Hrm...It's details like this which sometimes make me wish I believed, because God is so often written as a villain being set up to be defeated.What's stopping you?
I guess the main, simplest reason is that I tried. I was young, and in a bad place emotionally, and I needed some comfort and purpose to keep going. So I prayed to Jesus, in whatever way he might actually exist, and didn't receive any response.
Instead I relied on certain people (also skeptics) and the beauty of nature. So, that's what I believe in now - friendship and natural beauty.
I don't believe in Prometheus just because the story kicks ass, any more than I believe in God.
Post by: Angle on March 26, 2015, 02:31:59 pm
You have to have faith in practically everything in life. You have to have faith that the chair you are sitting on won't break, you have to have faith that your computer won't crash, you have to have faith that the big bang theory is true. So everybody can relate to it.
Uh, no? It's relatively easy to determine if a chair will break or not. The same is true for my computer, except there is a reasonable possibility of it crashing - that's why I save the things I work on very frequently. Big Bang Theory is much the same - it fits our observations of the universe. As such, I will continue to use it until different observations render it obsolete.
Post by: Teneb on March 26, 2015, 02:35:03 pm
Think about it honestly, would you have done the same thing?Not really. Especially due to the fact that he is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, so he knew, and always knew (otherwise wouldn't be omniscient) they were going to eat from the tree and did nothing to stop them. Not even just appear next to the tree and try to talk them out of it. So... he basically set up the whole thing up straight from the start so that two idiots would fuck up and he'd punish them for it.
Post by: Frumple on March 26, 2015, 02:37:46 pm
Think about it honestly, would you have done the same thing?If you're talking about eating the fruit... if I were badly brain damaged too, probably? It's pretty easy to be convinced by random talking snakes when huge portions of your ability to reason are just not there.
Otherwise, hell, when you have an actual god that's actually there with huge flaming letters and whatnot saying "No", that hasn't yet done the whole terrible atrocities thing, then there's actually reason to listen to the hyperpowerful thing that's not yet been a colossal asshat. Back before god started acting like a horrifying and vaguely insane monster, I would have listened. Now is an entirely different story, but back then, with intact faculties, not nomming would have been a fairly easy thing to do.
If you're talking about leaving the decedents of adam and eve to suffer horrifyingly for thousands upon thousands of years... no. I'm not an insane ragebeast that's willing to allow many millions to come to foul ends for the actions of two, if it's within my power to prevent it.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 02:39:35 pm
"Faith is being sure of what you hope and certain of what you do not see."(hebrews 11:1) In other words, believing in something that cannot be proven. You cannot prove that when you sit in your chair this time that it will not break. You can test the strength of the chair as much as you like, but there is no telling if it will actually hold. As for the big bang theory, nobody saw it happen, it cannot be proven. Also, God fits our observation of the universe (the fact that we have one) just as much as the big bang theory does.You have to have faith in practically everything in life. You have to have faith that the chair you are sitting on won't break, you have to have faith that your computer won't crash, you have to have faith that the big bang theory is true. So everybody can relate to it.
Uh, no? It's relatively easy to determine if a chair will break or not. The same is true for my computer, except there is a reasonable possibility of it crashing - that's why I save the things I work on very frequently. Big Bang Theory is much the same - it fits our observations of the universe. As such, I will continue to use it until different observations render it obsolete.
Post by: Angle on March 26, 2015, 02:42:50 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 02:43:17 pm
God gave all creatures free will. That was his choice in creation. The angels have free will as well although we do not know if they succumb to it as easily as humans. God put the tree in the garden as our free will. Adam and Eve had the choice to eat it or not eat it. They chose wrong.free will. (here comes the war)
This does not answer the question.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 02:47:07 pm
Post by: Angle on March 26, 2015, 02:48:28 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 02:49:16 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 26, 2015, 02:51:56 pm
Look at it this way: If God had truly wanted Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, why did He put it there in the first place?Quote from: Genesis3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
It's details like this which sometimes make me wish I believed, because God is so often written as a villain being set up to be defeated.
Edit: If only we had a hero like Prometheus, to steal the fruit as he stole the secret of fire.
Maybe it was a test, and they actually passed, proving humanity was ready for the trials to come. A non-benevolent God who just wants an interesting world full of suffering and heroism is possible.
Re: faith
I think origamiscienceguy was making the point that all statements have to be taken on faith, because we're never 100% sure of anything at all. Even though it takes very little faith to be confident your chair won't collapse. I don't know if that's the same thing, though. Trusting in my chair is an unconscious action I don't waste time thinking about (well, until now :P). Maybe I'm aware of the risk, but it's so slight that considering it is a waste of time. Because if we doubt everything we observe, as we theoretically should, we become lost in ineffectual sophistry.
It might not be faith, just efficient ignorance of far-out possibilities. Semantics, maybe, but it's also semantics to equate "I believe my chair won't break" to "I believe our loving God flooded the world and only one family remained, along with two of every animal, in a boat". At best, the scales are wildly different. (As for that specific example, I know most Christians today consider the flood story to be allegorical or incomplete)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 02:54:36 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 26, 2015, 02:55:42 pm
I believe in confirmation bias too, but I still get a kick out of coincidences.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 02:57:18 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 03:00:51 pm
Post by: andrea on March 26, 2015, 03:02:47 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 03:03:21 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 03:06:48 pm
you can have free will without any choice being possible, but if there is nothing to choose, how different is that from not having free will?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 03:16:07 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 26, 2015, 03:19:13 pm
Post by: Angle on March 26, 2015, 04:17:42 pm
I think that the argument is that the tree being accessible was part of free will. In which case, why weren't there a billion other options? Hell, we still have free will, right? So where's the tree now? Shouldn't we have the option to take another bite, or try the other tree out, etc, etc?
Post by: TD1 on March 26, 2015, 04:34:37 pm
Think about it honestly, would you have done the same thing?Haven't read past this, but God no.
Only someone evil blames someone for what others did. Or someone benevolently stupid. "And the sins of the father shall be visites unto the tenth generation..."
Post by: andrea on March 26, 2015, 05:57:08 pm
I think that the argument is that the tree being accessible was part of free will. In which case, why weren't there a billion other options? Hell, we still have free will, right? So where's the tree now? Shouldn't we have the option to take another bite, or try the other tree out, etc, etc?
(Disclaimer: I am not quite a christian and I am just voicing my thoughts from what I know of the adam and eve story)
Another bite wouldn't make much sense. we already got the full effects from the first one.
As for the billion other options... that is sort of what we got from tasting the fruit of nowledge of good and evil, isn't it? Being able to tell them apart means being able to choose, constantly, and we got thrown in a world with billions of meaningful choices to make ( meaningful here meaning between good and evil).
And for the other tree, the tree of life... I don't think it is much relevant. It is not about choices, but rather achieving a state.
by the way, I have a question to people more knowledgeable:
Is it possible that knowledge of good and evil came not from the tree itself, but from the events that followed? We disobeyed God's orders and as a result we got punished. That would establish the fact that God's commands are good, while satan's temptations are evil ( carrot and stick teaching). Is it a feasible interpretation?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 06:02:56 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 26, 2015, 06:07:04 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 26, 2015, 06:46:27 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 26, 2015, 11:12:22 pm
Post by: Arx on March 27, 2015, 07:48:52 am
If a sub-group of chimpanzees were to evolve to our level of intelligence, tool use, social structure, language and so on, such that they were functionally the same as humans, I wouldn't reject the possibility that they were in His image out of hand.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on March 27, 2015, 08:35:12 am
God didn't cause disease or death, that was Adam and Eve back in the garden of Eden (and Satan too)They may have triggered it, but they certainly didn't set the trap, and they weren't equiped with the tools to detect it. It is a meaningless choice if you are not aware of the consequences, might as well throw a coin.
Allowing the existence of bad choices isn't required for "free will", you can still have meaningful choices even if all of them are perfectly good choices. Unavoidable disasters dont "improve" free will but terminates it. It is clear that god didn't give either Adam or myself every choice possible, since we aint omnipotent or omniscient, so he's quite confortable with limiting free will. There isn't a benevolent reason for god to allow the bad choices of some people to doom some innocents, or even the totality of mankind.
Why, in this universe created by an all powerfull and absolutely benevolent god, the selfish, ignorant, or evil choices of some people more often than not have worse consequences for innocent people than for the sinners themselves?
Will we not have free will in paradise? Is it as shity as here? Or only those who never make wrong choices get in there?
Post by: Frumple on March 27, 2015, 09:47:26 am
And as OW likes to remind people, the bible doesn't really support the image that the critter is all that benevolent. Even if christian believers for a while now have liked playing up the whole omni-benevolence angle, it's not really all that representative of the bible's depiction of the divine. Christian god isn't particularly the nicest thing to roam about. Its actions are definitely at odds with something that is omni-benevolent, but that's pretty easily explained by it, well, not being that. Or all that benevolent at all.
Post by: wierd on March 27, 2015, 10:25:47 am
That the benevolence of the divine is not easily understood (Things seem adversarial to humans, but are actually intended for a benevolent purpose) by humans.
The allegory is "Parent instructing child"-- While falling out of favor today, spanking is the physical bottom slapping of a petulant child, for the purposes of correcting behavior until they are old enough to understand why something is not acceptable to do, to prevent them from falling into a pattern of behavior (and also to train them down a different pattern of behavior that is in their best interests,) Ask any little kid who gets a spanking though-- Mommy and daddy are big meanies who wont let them get their way.
God tries to instruct humanity, and also tries to instruct individual humans. He has a purpose for this instruction, and this instruction can take the form of destructive actions. The "omni-benevolence" that humans idealize, optimizes human petulance, not human benefit. Naturally, a truly benevolent god would not behave this way, lest his creations run totally rampant.
Even in more modern parenting approaches, ask the bratty kid how he/she feels about time-outs, or having their toys/privs taken away. The kid's view of what a benevolent parent would be, would be one where mommy and daddy give them cookies and icecream whenever they want, they never have to clean their room, and they never get punished for anything.
As adults, we like to try to think that we understand things-- but one look at global politics, how we treat the global climate--- hell, ANYTHING related to the public commons, and we clearly get schooled about how we DONT understand things, and as a group, expect cookies and icecream all the time.
The christian god claims to have humanity's total best interests in mind, which is why he chastises with a rod of iron. Quite literally, the bible has that exact message repeated many times.
From what I have been able to determine after reading this particular set of religious texts, the purpose for which humanity was created was NOT blind supplication; god already had angels for that purpose. Rather, it was an attempt at procreation. Something literally LIKE himself. Allegorically, humans are like gods, when measured against other animal forms here on earth. We can literally tear down mountains into rubble, we can make fertile lands desolate for millenia with atomic bombs-- we can even create new lifeforms these days. This appears to be purposeful, and expected. As the christ put it, "The son does as the father does", paraphrased. God created lifeforms, we seem compelled to do so as well, within our more limited capacities. Rather, the christian god has always existed, and we have a moment in which we begin existence. As such, we are not blessed from birth with perfect omniscience, and so we cannot make perfect choices, and as a race, we are POWERFULLY destructive. Since the goal is to ultimately MAKE us into immortal, much more powerful beings later, the avenues of education are not limited to "Do this or else!"-- but also includes "See what happened to you when Robert mugged and raped you to death in that alley? He overpowered you without even a thought for your concern. Now you understand, directly, why this is evil." etc. Remember, death is not an obstacle to god, and is thus as good a teaching tool as any other.
Again, difference of opinion on what "Omni benevolence" means.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 27, 2015, 10:35:49 am
Post by: wierd on March 27, 2015, 10:43:52 am
Post by: Bohandas on March 27, 2015, 10:46:30 am
Look at it this way: If God had truly wanted Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, why did He put it there in the first place?Quote from: Genesis3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
It's details like this which sometimes make me wish I believed, because God is so often written as a villain being set up to be defeated.
Edit: If only we had a hero like Prometheus, to steal the fruit as he stole the secret of fire.
I'm gonna say passive-aggression
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 27, 2015, 11:06:18 am
Post by: wierd on March 27, 2015, 11:12:11 am
Your question could be recast as an ad-absurdium like this:
Why do I need to know the nuances of mathematical proofs, when 1+1=2 is obvious enough?
(and your spoilerized religiously dogmatic screed written by others is just the more populist rehash of the actual source. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2012:5-11) I am not an adherent of this religion, being agnostic. I simply have read the bible, and its attendant literature (apocrypha). It is quite clear that god uses suffering as a correctional/educational tool-- including death. In my example, I used being raped and mugged to death-- a pretty grisly end-- but the bible says that the purpetrators of such acts get taught the other end of the lesson 7-fold after judgement, and having to face their accusers. Dead men really DO tell tales in this case-- Perfectly.)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 27, 2015, 02:05:18 pm
Are you saying that you have never done anything wrong? Because unless you have, you are just as guilty as Adam and Eve.God didn't cause disease or death, that was Adam and Eve back in the garden of Eden (and Satan too)They may have triggered it, but they certainly didn't set the trap, and they weren't equiped with the tools to detect it. It is a meaningless choice if you are not aware of the consequences, might as well throw a coin.
Allowing the existence of bad choices isn't required for "free will", you can still have meaningful choices even if all of them are perfectly good choices. Unavoidable disasters dont "improve" free will but terminates it. It is clear that god didn't give either Adam or myself every choice possible, since we aint omnipotent or omniscient, so he's quite confortable with limiting free will. There isn't a benevolent reason for god to allow the bad choices of some people to doom some innocents, or even the totality of mankind.
Why, in this universe created by an all powerfull and absolutely benevolent god, the selfish, ignorant, or evil choices of some people more often than not have worse consequences for innocent people than for the sinners themselves?
Will we not have free will in paradise? Is it as shity as here? Or only those who never make wrong choices get in there?
Can I have some references that back up this claim?Look at it this way: If God had truly wanted Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, why did He put it there in the first place?Quote from: Genesis3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
It's details like this which sometimes make me wish I believed, because God is so often written as a villain being set up to be defeated.
Edit: If only we had a hero like Prometheus, to steal the fruit as he stole the secret of fire.
I'm gonna say passive-aggression
It can also be explained the way the bible tries to explain it allegorically--Can I have references that back up this claim as well? Because God doesn't need to procreate, and Angels are prone to sin just like us.
That the benevolence of the divine is not easily understood (Things seem adversarial to humans, but are actually intended for a benevolent purpose) by humans.
The allegory is "Parent instructing child"-- While falling out of favor today, spanking is the physical bottom slapping of a petulant child, for the purposes of correcting behavior until they are old enough to understand why something is not acceptable to do, to prevent them from falling into a pattern of behavior (and also to train them down a different pattern of behavior that is in their best interests,) Ask any little kid who gets a spanking though-- Mommy and daddy are big meanies who wont let them get their way.
God tries to instruct humanity, and also tries to instruct individual humans. He has a purpose for this instruction, and this instruction can take the form of destructive actions. The "omni-benevolence" that humans idealize, optimizes human petulance, not human benefit. Naturally, a truly benevolent god would not behave this way, lest his creations run totally rampant.
Even in more modern parenting approaches, ask the bratty kid how he/she feels about time-outs, or having their toys/privs taken away. The kid's view of what a benevolent parent would be, would be one where mommy and daddy give them cookies and icecream whenever they want, they never have to clean their room, and they never get punished for anything.
As adults, we like to try to think that we understand things-- but one look at global politics, how we treat the global climate--- hell, ANYTHING related to the public commons, and we clearly get schooled about how we DONT understand things, and as a group, expect cookies and icecream all the time.
The christian god claims to have humanity's total best interests in mind, which is why he chastises with a rod of iron. Quite literally, the bible has that exact message repeated many times.
From what I have been able to determine after reading this particular set of religious texts, the purpose for which humanity was created was NOT blind supplication; god already had angels for that purpose. Rather, it was an attempt at procreation. Something literally LIKE himself. Allegorically, humans are like gods, when measured against other animal forms here on earth. We can literally tear down mountains into rubble, we can make fertile lands desolate for millenia with atomic bombs-- we can even create new lifeforms these days. This appears to be purposeful, and expected. As the christ put it, "The son does as the father does", paraphrased. God created lifeforms, we seem compelled to do so as well, within our more limited capacities. Rather, the christian god has always existed, and we have a moment in which we begin existence. As such, we are not blessed from birth with perfect omniscience, and so we cannot make perfect choices, and as a race, we are POWERFULLY destructive. Since the goal is to ultimately MAKE us into immortal, much more powerful beings later, the avenues of education are not limited to "Do this or else!"-- but also includes "See what happened to you when Robert mugged and raped you to death in that alley? He overpowered you without even a thought for your concern. Now you understand, directly, why this is evil." etc. Remember, death is not an obstacle to god, and is thus as good a teaching tool as any other.
Again, difference of opinion on what "Omni benevolence" means.
Post by: Bohandas on March 27, 2015, 02:12:37 pm
It can also be explained the way the bible tries to explain it allegorically--
That the benevolence of the divine is not easily understood (Things seem adversarial to humans, but are actually intended for a benevolent purpose) by humans.
The allegory is "Parent instructing child"-- While falling out of favor today, spanking is the physical bottom slapping of a petulant child, for the purposes of correcting behavior until they are old enough to understand why something is not acceptable to do, to prevent them from falling into a pattern of behavior (and also to train them down a different pattern of behavior that is in their best interests,) Ask any little kid who gets a spanking though-- Mommy and daddy are big meanies who wont let them get their way.
God tries to instruct humanity, and also tries to instruct individual humans. He has a purpose for this instruction, and this instruction can take the form of destructive actions. The "omni-benevolence" that humans idealize, optimizes human petulance, not human benefit. Naturally, a truly benevolent god would not behave this way, lest his creations run totally rampant.
Even in more modern parenting approaches, ask the bratty kid how he/she feels about time-outs, or having their toys/privs taken away. The kid's view of what a benevolent parent would be, would be one where mommy and daddy give them cookies and icecream whenever they want, they never have to clean their room, and they never get punished for anything.
As adults, we like to try to think that we understand things-- but one look at global politics, how we treat the global climate--- hell, ANYTHING related to the public commons, and we clearly get schooled about how we DONT understand things, and as a group, expect cookies and icecream all the time.
The christian god claims to have humanity's total best interests in mind, which is why he chastises with a rod of iron. Quite literally, the bible has that exact message repeated many times.
But isn't the finitude of the public commons an aspect of creation?
In a truly ideal world this would all be a moot point because resoirces would be unlimited and byproducts would be dispersed without limit.
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 02:14:45 pm
The Christian faith teaches that the greatest commandment is to love God and the second greatest is to love your neighbour as yourself. The Christian faith teaches that only a sinless person may judge and condemn others. The Christian faith teaches that true religion that is pure and faultless in the eyes of God is to help those in need. The Christian faith teaches that homosexuality is no worse a sin than calling someone a fool.The Christian faith teaches that man whom lies with main is an abomination, to confront sin wherever it may be found, and to live in the righteousness of God's will. Hippie Jesus is kind of a weak position to take.
Do those who formed this law not know how stupid that sounds? Does the Christian faith not teach that you should love thy enemy, hate the sin but not the sinner, and that god is the only one who can judge? What.... what complete and utter bullshit.
There is no Biblical justification for this law. Please don't make it sound like Christianity is at fault here. The problem is with bigots, it's just a justification.
The trouble here, is that while your particular interpretation may read like that, other peoples will differ. And then what do you do? When smeone tries to use science to justify bullshit, like "Homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn't result in pregnancy!" You can beat them with science. You can reply with "Human pair bonding is about more than reproduction," and "Same sex pair bonding provides benefits to society", and you can throw peer reviewed papers at them, until either they give the whole idea up or they stick their fingers in their ears and start screaming "I can't hear you! LA LA LA LA LA LA!", and because relatively few people are prepared to do that, you can pretty effectively marginalize such opinions. But when it comes to faith, you have no such recourse. They can just say "Well I have Faith" and that just ends any meaningful discussion. You're basically reduced to saying "Well I have More Faith.", which is clearly not an effective argument.
Post by: Arx on March 27, 2015, 02:24:13 pm
If someone wants to discriminate against gay people, they are violating several pretty fundamental tenets from the Bible. Unless they are literally Jesus returned, that makes them not acting in accordance with Christianity.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 27, 2015, 02:48:34 pm
I understand that even the most "minor" sin is supposed to keep someone out of heaven, that's why we have to have to let Jesus take the sin. The message is still clear though: God will not abide homosexuality in his presence. It's still wrong, supposedly. And while some passages warn Christians against judging others, many more passages warn them not to *associate* with sinners. Better to "cut off your hand" then let it spread its sinful ways to the rest of your body (AKA, community).
Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." People interpret that as "Don't throw stones." But if you think about it, it means "I'll deal with her myself." And sure enough he forgave her, this time, but he also told her "Don't sin anymore." And, wow, went on to say this:
Quote from: John
8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man."I don't judge people. But when I do judge people, I'm right because God is with me."
8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
That kinda sets a precedent for certain types of Christians, thinking they're being guided by God, to judge people. If God is with you, you can judge sinners... But it's not really you judging them, it's God, just like Jesus didn't judge.
Besides that, the people who want to protect children from sinful influences like non-traditional relationships, or women who are more than slaves to their men, are Biblically *in the right*. Just because all sin is equally 100% deadly doesn't mean it's ever okay, or that you should let young people believe it's okay.
(Though I think there are Christians who don't even try to avoid sin, since the forgiveness is absolute anyway... I consider that to be in bad faith though, not sure if it would really count.)
People need to know what's in the Bible and decide whether it's something they really support...
Quote from: Genesis
3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Christianity is defined by the Bible. It's not a question of me having More Faith, it's a question of people either agreeing with the Bible or being wrong. You cannot claim to be a Christian and not do what the Bible says.The most reasonable Christians recognize that the Bible is heavily allegorical and probably largely corrupted, and just try to live like (the common conception of) Jesus. Biblical Jesus wasn't so great.
If someone wants to discriminate against gay people, they are violating several pretty fundamental tenets from the Bible. Unless they are literally Jesus returned, that makes them not acting in accordance with Christianity.
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 02:50:41 pm
Post by: lemon10 on March 27, 2015, 02:59:15 pm
But those fundamental tenets are completely open to interpretation, which means they're hardly fundamental at all, as evidenced by all the people who believe differently (https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality). Indeed, on this matter, I'm pretty sure that you're in a minority, albeit a quickly growing one.
Quote from: From your link
It is, after all, homoSEXuality. I want to know what right do the politically correct, pro-homosexual minority have to impose their values on the majority? What right do they have to condemn Christians, call us names (homophobes, bigots, etc), and be so very intolerant when we say their behavior is a sinful?Wow. That dude is just crazy. "How dare they call us mean names when we are trying to take away their rights?"
Post by: TD1 on March 27, 2015, 03:00:00 pm
Christianity is defined by the Bible. It's not a question of me having More Faith, it's a question of people either agreeing with the Bible or being wrong. You cannot claim to be a Christian and not do what the Bible says.Ah, okay. Just next time I look at a city being destroyed by you don't take my life in salt.
If someone wants to discriminate against gay people, they are violating several pretty fundamental tenets from the Bible. Unless they are literally Jesus returned, that makes them not acting in accordance with Christianity.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 27, 2015, 03:04:18 pm
Quote
Biblical Jesus wasn't so great.Biblical Jesus spent most of his time telling people to be nice to each other, though. That was pretty much the point of his ministry.
Quote
if all sins are equal in the eyes of God...They're not. The origin of that phrase comes from the idea that anything less than perfection is inadmissible to God, not that being gay is literally as bad as Hitler.
Quote
(Though I think there are Christians who don't even try to avoid sin, since the forgiveness is absolute anyway... I consider that to be in bad faith though, not sure if it would really count.)Yeah, pretty much everyone else agrees with you there. It's missing the point of forgiveness - you actually have to be sorry about it.
To expand on Arx's point, not discriminating against them doesn't preclude thinking that what they're doing is wrong. We shouldn't discriminate against people who don't go to church, either.Christianity is defined by the Bible. It's not a question of me having More Faith, it's a question of people either agreeing with the Bible or being wrong. You cannot claim to be a Christian and not do what the Bible says.Ah, okay. Just next time I look at a city being destroyed by you don't take my life in salt.
If someone wants to discriminate against gay people, they are violating several pretty fundamental tenets from the Bible. Unless they are literally Jesus returned, that makes them not acting in accordance with Christianity.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 27, 2015, 03:11:58 pm
For what it's worth, I think that if Jesus did exist then he was a truly kind and amazing person. Biblical evidence to the contrary generally has possible political motivation.
(And if he didn't exist *exactly*, then his story is based on *several* remarkably good people)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on March 27, 2015, 03:27:21 pm
If someone wants to discriminate against gay people, they are violating several pretty fundamental tenets from the Bible. Unless they are literally Jesus returned, that makes them not acting in accordance with Christianity.given that the book contradicts itself, being a cristian is effectively impossible then
Are you saying that you have never done anything wrong? Because unless you have, you are just as guilty as Adam and Eve.if everyone is equaly guilty wouldn't morality be meaningless? or are you saying that when people are taken by an "act of god" they're being punished for their sins?
tbh, if god does really exist, then yes, i never did nothing wrong, he did all of it. I only took the choices he permited me to take with the information he alowed me to have, and under the influence of the emotions he built into my personality.
Can you blame a psychopath for being selfish if his brain is malformed and he is missing the structure that allows him to feel empathy?
Do you think that it's his soul that is flawed and the brain has a different biological function, taking no part in decision makin'?
Who made his soul\brain so flawed?
Also, i've always felt annoyed by the teaching god theory, as i think the flaws in it are quite obvious. A "good" parent punishes its child to teach him how to live in a cruel world he took no part in designing and can't realistically expect to protect him from, god designed humans imperfectly to maneuvre the death maze he set up for them. An eternal and all powerful loving parent would have no reason to teach it's children to stant up in two legs, cope with pain and loss, or overcome obstacles, he could simply *make him know* what he needs to learn and build him a good house where he needen't fear anything. This would interfere with free will though, maximizing it.
FakeEd: i haven't read the last 6 replies, sorry if the conversation moved on or i'm repeating somming
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 27, 2015, 04:36:31 pm
If Christians discriminate against Gays, they are sinning. This doesn't make them a christian anymore, it just proves that we are not perfect.If someone wants to discriminate against gay people, they are violating several pretty fundamental tenets from the Bible. Unless they are literally Jesus returned, that makes them not acting in accordance with Christianity.given that the book contradicts itself, being a cristian is effectively impossible thenAre you saying that you have never done anything wrong? Because unless you have, you are just as guilty as Adam and Eve.if everyone is equaly guilty wouldn't morality be meaningless? or are you saying that when people are taken by an "act of god" they're being punished for their sins?
tbh, if god does really exist, then yes, i never did nothing wrong, he did all of it. I only took the choices he permited me to take with the information he alowed me to have, and under the influence of the emotions he built into my personality.
Can you blame a psychopath for being selfish if his brain is malformed and he is missing the structure that allows him to feel empathy?
Do you think that it's his soul that is flawed and the brain has a different biological function, taking no part in decision makin'?
Who made his soul\brain so flawed?
Also, i've always felt annoyed by the teaching god theory, as i think the flaws in it are quite obvious. A "good" parent punishes its child to teach him how to live in a cruel world he took no part in designing and can't realistically expect to protect him from, god designed humans imperfectly to maneuvre the death maze he set up for them. An eternal and all powerful loving parent would have no reason to teach it's children to stant up in two legs, cope with pain and loss, or overcome obstacles, he could simply *make him know* what he needs to learn and build him a good house where he needen't fear anything. This would interfere with free will though, maximizing it.
FakeEd: i haven't read the last 6 replies, sorry if the conversation moved on or i'm repeating somming
Post by: Frumple on March 27, 2015, 07:13:53 pm
Christianity is defined by the Bible. It's not a question of me having More Faith, it's a question of people either agreeing with the Bible or being wrong. You cannot claim to be a Christian and not do what the Bible says.... christianity is, and always has been, defined by the church(es). What the bible itself is, was defined by the church at the time. That they primarily use the bible as the foundation for that definition -- which is not, as wierd likes to point out, even the whole of the original texts -- is incidental. A holy text does not make a religion -- a religion makes a holy text. Christians act contrary to the biblical texts all the ruddy time and still claim to be christian. Still are christian, both to themselves, many other people of the general belief system, and most certainly to those who aren't either. Plenty denominations outright ignore or de-canonize (in respect to their congregation, anyway) parts of text entirely, or interpret it to mean things that are radically different -- often outright contradictory -- from what other groups do.
As incredibly nice as it would be to no-true-scotsman away the troublesome members of the belief system, it really doesn't work like that. Especially when significant portions of said belief system are such people. When it comes to things like holy texts, you just... can't really say someone else's interpretation of it is wrong. The texts are what is made of them. They generally are written such that they can't stand on their own.
Post by: Arcvasti on March 27, 2015, 08:18:31 pm
If someone wants to discriminate against gay people, they are violating several pretty fundamental tenets from the Bible. Unless they are literally Jesus returned, that makes them not acting in accordance with Christianity.given that the book contradicts itself, being a cristian is effectively impossible then
Luckily there is a priority system.
Quote from: Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
In this case, "Homosexuality is bad" is overrided with "Don't be a douche"[<-Paraphrased]. If you're supposed to be accepting of the people who are actively harming you, I don't really see why you shouldn't be accepting of the people who aren't, but are being sinful in some abstract way no one's been able to explain satisfactorily to me.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on March 27, 2015, 08:25:03 pm
Luckily there is a priority system.Interpretations differ wildly thoughQuote from: Matthew 22:36-40
Post by: Frumple on March 27, 2015, 08:38:21 pm
Which has actually, y'know, occurred in christianity's history. Was one of the theological justifications for the inquisition BS, iirc. Some people have some pretty incredibly screwed up conceptions of love.
Post by: Bohandas on March 27, 2015, 10:31:33 pm
Are you saying that you have never done anything wrong? Because unless you have, you are just as guilty as Adam and Eve.if everyone is equaly guilty wouldn't morality be meaningless? or are you saying that when people are taken by an "act of god" they're being punished for their sins?
tbh, if god does really exist, then yes, i never did nothing wrong, he did all of it. I only took the choices he permited me to take with the information he alowed me to have, and under the influence of the emotions he built into my personality.
Can you blame a psychopath for being selfish if his brain is malformed and he is missing the structure that allows him to feel empathy?
Do you think that it's his soul that is flawed and the brain has a different biological function, taking no part in decision makin'?
Who made his soul\brain so flawed?
Also, i've always felt annoyed by the teaching god theory, as i think the flaws in it are quite obvious. A "good" parent punishes its child to teach him how to live in a cruel world he took no part in designing and can't realistically expect to protect him from, god designed humans imperfectly to maneuvre the death maze he set up for them. An eternal and all powerful loving parent would have no reason to teach it's children to stant up in two legs, cope with pain and loss, or overcome obstacles, he could simply *make him know* what he needs to learn and build him a good house where he needen't fear anything. This would interfere with free will though, maximizing it.
FakeEd: i haven't read the last 6 replies, sorry if the conversation moved on or i'm repeating somming
Seconded
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 28, 2015, 02:45:33 am
Yeah... wasn't matthew the bit where it said better to cut off your hands and gouge out your eyes than to sin? "Love your neighbor as yourself" can very easily be taken to the point where you're mutilating people out of what you see as love -- better a tortured, mangled, wreck than a damned soul, and praise be unto god if others do the same to you to save your soul from sin.He said it was better to cut off your hand or gouge out your eyes than to cause another person to sin IIRC.
Which has actually, y'know, occurred in christianity's history. Was one of the theological justifications for the inquisition BS, iirc. Some people have some pretty incredibly screwed up conceptions of love.
Post by: Arx on March 28, 2015, 03:20:06 am
Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." People interpret that as "Don't throw stones." But if you think about it, it means "I'll deal with her myself." And sure enough he forgave her, this time, but he also told her "Don't sin anymore." And, wow, went on to say this:Quote from: John8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man."I don't judge people. But when I do judge people, I'm right because God is with me."
8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
That kinda sets a precedent for certain types of Christians, thinking they're being guided by God, to judge people. If God is with you, you can judge sinners... But it's not really you judging them, it's God, just like Jesus didn't judge.
You know the bit where I said they can do it if they're literally the Second Coming of Jesus? And since we're quoting the King James (I'd prefer the NIV, but eh)
"Judge not, lest ye be judged; for as ye judge so shall ye be judged, and as ye mete it out shall it be meted to ye."
Jesus says twice not to judge others, compared to the approximately zero times (to my knowledge) he tells us to kill and deprive homosexuals.
Quote
Besides that, the people who want to protect children from sinful influences like non-traditional relationships, or women who are more than slaves to their men, are Biblically *in the right*. Just because all sin is equally 100% deadly doesn't mean it's ever okay, or that you should let young people believe it's okay.
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there is no Biblical justification for oppressing anyone. Teaching your children that gay people should be celibate is completely different to lynching gay people, preventing gay people from receiving the same service as others, and otherwise discriminating.
But those fundamental tenets are completely open to interpretation, which means they're hardly fundamental at all, as evidenced by all the people who believe differently (https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality). Indeed, on this matter, I'm pretty sure that you're in a minority, albeit a quickly growing one.
"Do not resist an evil doer."
"If any man considers himself religious but does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"Do nothing to others that you would not have done to you."
"For we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, that no one can boast."
I can't personally see a way to justify oppression against those quotes. I can't see a way to interpret them such that they'd allow it, either.
As incredibly nice as it would be to no-true-scotsman away the troublesome members of the belief system, it really doesn't work like that. Especially when significant portions of said belief system are such people. When it comes to things like holy texts, you just... can't really say someone else's interpretation of it is wrong.
Even when they're ignoring direct quotes from their God? Even when they're using certain quotes from the old Law and ignoring others? It's admittedly a little finicky, but ultimately I think there are parts of the Bible where you can look at peoples' interpretations and say "No, that can't be right."
Post by: Grek on March 28, 2015, 09:26:30 am
If God wants you to not oppress others, and to teach your children not to oppress others, there is a moral duty to not to show your children the passages about how gays, liberated women, adulterers and non-christians are sinful until they've become an adult with the moral rectitude to understand that even though someone is a sinner, it is wrong to harass them about, even as part of an attempt to help them reform.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 28, 2015, 05:04:55 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 28, 2015, 05:54:09 pm
Having sex with your wife is a sin. A horrendous act. It is terrible, terrible. Eternal punishment awaits you for what you do.
This is what is called repression. Repressing desires is never good.
I'm not commenting on the whole "Telling children gays are bad early is bad" thing. I'm saying saying it at all is very...well, unchristian.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 29, 2015, 12:11:28 am
For most people, the consequences of being gay are that you might be ostracised by your society. For (some? most?) Christians, the consequences are much, much worse.
I suppose that I should also clarify that I'm using "being gay" in the sense of "homosexual activity". If you don't indulge in it there's no problem. Other than repressed desires, of course.
Post by: Angle on March 29, 2015, 12:40:49 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 29, 2015, 02:02:55 am
Post by: TD1 on March 29, 2015, 06:30:37 am
The logic here is that repressing desires is better than the outcome of indulging them, i.e. Hell. It's the same logic behind the decision to not punch a douchebag in the face even though you really want to: there are consequences to your decision.Let's not forget that the Bible is full of things people generally ignore.
For most people, the consequences of being gay are that you might be ostracised by your society. For (some? most?) Christians, the consequences are much, much worse.
I suppose that I should also clarify that I'm using "being gay" in the sense of "homosexual activity". If you don't indulge in it there's no problem. Other than repressed desires, of course.
So, put a piece of scripture which has been translated half a dozen times into many different versions against the obvious moral problem associated with making somebody's life miserable and full of urges which, though natural to him, he has been made to fear. Even to loathe himself.
And, to put it bluntly, why the hell would God care where you put you cock? The entire thing whiffs of cultural prejudice rather than divine law.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 29, 2015, 01:40:04 pm
And, to put it bluntly, why the hell would God care where you put you cock? The entire thing whiffs of cultural prejudice rather than divine law.Because he made sex as a way of glorifying him. He also gave it to us as a pleasure. But he created guidelines around how to use it. Only in marriage between a man and a woman. That is why he despises adulterers and gays.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 29, 2015, 01:43:40 pm
And, to put it bluntly, why the hell would God care where you put you cock? The entire thing whiffs of cultural prejudice rather than divine law.Because he made sex as a way of glorifying him. He also gave it to us as a pleasure. But he created guidelines around how to use it. Only in marriage between a man and a woman. That is why he despises adulterers and gays.
I am not going to construct an argument against that (horribly flawed as it is), as it is based on faith, and faith alone. There is no arguing with faith. However, I do feel compelled to report it, as it is a downright evil attitude to hold.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 29, 2015, 01:44:40 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 29, 2015, 01:46:21 pm
I was just pointing out what the Bible says.
That does not make it any less unpleasant, especially when we have had another Christian on the forums arguing that the Bible can not be used to discriminate.
Post by: Descan on March 29, 2015, 01:49:33 pm
[/Godwin]
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 29, 2015, 01:50:30 pm
I'm sorry that life is unpleasant. That is something everybody has to deal with.I was just pointing out what the Bible says.
That does not make it any less unpleasant.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 29, 2015, 01:55:48 pm
I'm sorry that life is unpleasant. That is something everybody has to deal with.I was just pointing out what the Bible says.
That does not make it any less unpleasant.
Life is not "unpleasant". Life just "is". Labelling someone as despised by your god makes it more unpleasant than it should be. Acting based on that faith based belief makes it unpleasant for those on the end of it. Having to defend themselves from faith based accusations of this nature - that is something people should NOT have to deal with. Those of us that do not share your faith are dealing with it, by making life more pleasant for those you would marginalise with your views. That is something you are going to have to deal with.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 29, 2015, 02:00:16 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 29, 2015, 02:03:49 pm
God hates Adultery and Homosexuality as the sinWhich quote you're basing that on?
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 29, 2015, 02:05:12 pm
I did make a mistake in what I said. I meant to say that God hates Adultery and Homosexuality as the sin rather than the people. God loves the people, but hates the sin. Hopefully that clears things upIt does. Thank you for the clarification. I would still find it hard to accept that faith based stance as one to form social constructs such as laws on, but it is much less offensive than the way it seemed.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 29, 2015, 02:09:50 pm
Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."God hates Adultery and Homosexuality as the sinWhich quote you're basing that on?
This states how marriage should be done. He speaks about homosexuality in several places:
Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Romans 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
God makes his point about adultery clearly in the ten commandments:
Exodus 20:14, "You shall not commit adultery"
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 29, 2015, 03:12:57 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 29, 2015, 04:41:25 pm
Were they sinning?
Was God sinning when he got Mary pregnant? I don't think it says in the bible that god didn't do it physically.
Also, I repeat, the bible's stance on homosexuality is obviously a reflecion of the times just as the whole not eating pork thing was. Should we not eat pork?
Post by: scrdest on March 29, 2015, 05:20:35 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 29, 2015, 05:46:12 pm
I very much doubt that Adam and Eve were married, unless God presided over that himself. And he had fallen out with them before they even thought of squeezing out children.Adam and Eve were married. God gave Eve to Adam as a wife.
Were they sinning?
Was God sinning when he got Mary pregnant? I don't think it says in the bible that god didn't do it physically.
Also, I repeat, the bible's stance on homosexuality is obviously a reflecion of the times just as the whole not eating pork thing was. Should we not eat pork?
God didn't "do it" with Mary either. God put Jesus in the womb.
Read Acts 10:9-16. In summary, god doesn't care about unclean animals anymore.
Furthermore, that Genesis quote does not preclude multiple wives - and indeed, people in the Old Testament times would marry polygamously and have concubines all the damn time if they had the resources and will to do so, and Salomon in particular allegedly had more wives and concubines than some people meet in a lifetime and God didn't get pissy until he used a very underhanded method of getting another one.
God didn't design men to be married with multiple wives. Every time they did, they were sinning. Actually, Solomon's multitude of wives was his downfall.
Post by: TD1 on March 29, 2015, 06:20:07 pm
Also, they weren't married unless you believe it's possible without a marriage.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 29, 2015, 06:23:12 pm
Also, they weren't married unless you believe it's possible without a marriage.
Can you please clarify? I don't understand what you're saying here
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 29, 2015, 11:09:31 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 29, 2015, 11:14:14 pm
What are we talking about now?I was just pointing out what the Bible says.
That does not make it any less unpleasant, especially when we have had another Christian on the forums arguing that the Bible can not be used to discriminate.
He's saying that for Adam and Eve to be married, there should have been a wedding. Which, to be fair, there is not.Technicaly they were either
A) wed under the eyes of god
Or
B) basicaly there just to populate, it wouldn't be the only time unmarried people did that in the bible
What's the one story if the (four?) women and the last guy on earth who basicaly had sex with him even though he was unwilling just to repopulate?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 29, 2015, 11:16:16 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 29, 2015, 11:32:07 pm
Maybe I'm confused with a story from another religion
Post by: Descan on March 29, 2015, 11:33:07 pm
Bible is fucked up, you guys.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 29, 2015, 11:39:23 pm
The only one like that was Lot and his daughters, and they got him drunk in order to sleep with him and get pregnant by him.It certainly isn't a children's book.
Bible is fucked up, you guys.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 29, 2015, 11:39:36 pm
The only one like that was Lot and his daughters, and they got him drunk in order to sleep with him and get pregnant by him.That was probably it
Bible is fucked up, you guys.
Ya bits of it are messed up but at least it doesn't leave that kind of stuff and make it more questionable than people already think it is
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 29, 2015, 11:40:56 pm
I don't see how it is questionable because of that. It is just saying what happened without any sugar coating.The only one like that was Lot and his daughters, and they got him drunk in order to sleep with him and get pregnant by him.That was probably it
Bible is fucked up, you guys.
Ya bits of it are messed up but at least it doesn't leave that kind of stuff and make it more questionable than people already think it is
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 30, 2015, 12:21:09 am
Bible is fucked up, you guys.People do awful things. The Bible records people doing awful things. Therefore, the Bible is terrible.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 30, 2015, 12:24:24 am
I hope you are being sarcastic.Bible is fucked up, you guys.People do awful things. The Bible records people doing awful things. Therefore, the Bible is terrible.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 30, 2015, 12:25:24 am
Post by: wierd on March 30, 2015, 12:28:09 am
Quote
ter·ri·ble
ˈterəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: terrible
extremely or distressingly bad or serious.
"a terrible crime"
synonyms: dreadful, awful, appalling, horrific, horrifying, horrible, horrendous, atrocious, abominable, deplorable, egregious, abhorrent, frightful, shocking, hideous, ghastly, grim, dire, unspeakable, gruesome, monstrous, sickening, heinous, vile; More
serious, grave, acute;
informalgodawful;
formalgrievous
"a terrible crime"
severe, extreme, intense, acute, excruciating, agonizing, unbearable, intolerable, unendurable
"he was in terrible pain"
very bad, dreadful, awful, deplorable, atrocious, hopeless, worthless, useless, poor, pathetic, pitiful, lamentable, appalling, abysmal;
informallame, lousy, brutal, painful, crappy, godawful
"the movie was terrible"
antonyms: minor, negligible, slight, brilliant, excellent
extremely unpleasant or disagreeable.
"the weather was terrible"
informal
used to emphasize the extent of something unpleasant or bad.
"what a terrible mess"
Given the gravity of the bible, and its implications if true, I would say that "Terrible" is an appropriate adjective, if a little obtuse.
Post by: Bohandas on March 30, 2015, 12:31:26 am
I'm sorry that life is unpleasant. That is something everybody has to deal with.I was just pointing out what the Bible says.
That does not make it any less unpleasant.
Life is not "unpleasant". Life just "is". Labelling someone as despised by your god makes it more unpleasant than it should be. Acting based on that faith based belief makes it unpleasant for those on the end of it. Having to defend themselves from faith based accusations of this nature - that is something people should NOT have to deal with. Those of us that do not share your faith are dealing with it, by making life more pleasant for those you would marginalise with your views. That is something you are going to have to deal with.
No. You're trying to shoot the messenger. That is what the bible says and he made no reference to his personal opinion. The Holy Bible says that gays are evil and Mein Kampf says that gays and jews are evil and Atlas Shrugged says that people who beloeve in helping pthers are evil; whether or not these opinions are true or morally correct to have makes no difference to the fact that that is what these books say
Post by: Bohandas on March 30, 2015, 12:55:30 am
And my father put me in the womb too.I very much doubt that Adam and Eve were married, unless God presided over that himself. And he had fallen out with them before they even thought of squeezing out children.Adam and Eve were married. God gave Eve to Adam as a wife.
Were they sinning?
Was God sinning when he got Mary pregnant? I don't think it says in the bible that god didn't do it physically.
Also, I repeat, the bible's stance on homosexuality is obviously a reflecion of the times just as the whole not eating pork thing was. Should we not eat pork?
God didn't "do it" with Mary either. God put Jesus in the womb.
He's referring to surrogacy
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 30, 2015, 07:58:20 am
I made a mistake earlier. God Loves Adulturers and Gays, but hated adultry and homosexuality. He loves the people but hates the sin.I'm sorry that life is unpleasant. That is something everybody has to deal with.I was just pointing out what the Bible says.
That does not make it any less unpleasant.
Life is not "unpleasant". Life just "is". Labelling someone as despised by your god makes it more unpleasant than it should be. Acting based on that faith based belief makes it unpleasant for those on the end of it. Having to defend themselves from faith based accusations of this nature - that is something people should NOT have to deal with. Those of us that do not share your faith are dealing with it, by making life more pleasant for those you would marginalise with your views. That is something you are going to have to deal with.
No. You're trying to shoot the messenger. That is what the bible says and he made no reference to his personal opinion. The Holy Bible says that gays are evil and Mein Kampf says that gays and jews are evil and Atlas Shrugged says that people who beloeve in helping pthers are evil; whether or not these opinions are true or morally correct to have makes no difference to the fact that that is what these books say
Post by: TD1 on March 30, 2015, 10:35:01 am
Instead, men naturally desire other men. Why?
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 30, 2015, 11:24:21 am
Post by: Angle on March 30, 2015, 11:32:11 am
Hell, by that logic, maybe the parts of the bible that condemn homosexuality are a test too. "Can you guys rise above your need to for easy answers to figure out what's really right & wrong?"
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on March 30, 2015, 12:06:32 pm
Hell, by that logic, maybe the parts of the bible that condemn homosexuality are a test too. "Can you guys rise above your need to for easy answers to figure out what's really right & wrong?"i like that pov. it still doesn't make sense, why would an omniscient and omnipotent entity need a test to know the character of a person? one that he made himself
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 30, 2015, 12:14:37 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 30, 2015, 12:22:03 pm
I'unno, I might be fairly down with a sort of dionysian trickster god that actually wants people to not be jerks, but is compelled by its nature to play a few tricks here and there. Would even fit the problem of evil fairly nicely -- the "all powerful/knowing" thing was just stage-play. And explain its evidenced moral character -- all the raping and murdering and torture and plagues and whatnot was just slight-of-hand to screw with people.
Not really what the believers think. You get a few radicals that do believe stuff like that is a test or corruption due to transfer medium (i.e. mankind), but most aren't exactly singing that tune. I have met a few professed christians (unsurprisingly, they've all been among the best people I've known period) that have bluntly said to me, "God is Good, and if the bible contradicts that, the bible is wrong," though. Usually warms the cockles of my heart, that does.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 30, 2015, 01:48:21 pm
Then why create them with that sin? It's not a hindrance to free will if you make all men want a woman naturally. They would still be able to choose to sleep with a man, but it would be sin.Every human is born with sinful tenancies. You would know this if you watch a toddler. They make sure that the parent is watching BEFORE they do something that they know they shouldn't. It makes sense that some people are born with homosexual tendencies, but that doesn't mean they can't ignore it.
Instead, men naturally desire other men. Why?
Post by: Frumple on March 30, 2015, 01:54:34 pm
Incidentally, you'll get the same behavior from dogs, at times. Are they capable of sin?
Though, for what it's worth, as a rule most people aren't actually that inclined towards harmful action, either for themselves or others. It takes training and a hostile environment to make most adults intentionally hurt each other. People generally trend towards magnanimity of varying degrees when they're not being screwed with through various means. There's exceptions, but that tends to involve brain damage or neurological abnormality of some sort, and you can't really blame the person for that.
Personally, I'd state pretty strongly that humans aren't born with sinful tendencies. Kids below a certain degree of development are literally incapable of meaningfully understanding the concept, and that is grown out of providing the process isn't sabotaged to some degree. Sinful action must be trained to come into existence, either by other humans or the world around them.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 30, 2015, 01:58:20 pm
Post by: Bohandas on March 30, 2015, 02:00:19 pm
... toddlers are barely sentient. There's no more sin there than a dog peeing on a rug. That's just a developing brain learning and growing the way evolution has built it to.
Incidentally, you'll get the same behavior from dogs, at times. Are they capable of sin?
And more importantly, do they have buddha-nature?
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 30, 2015, 02:05:32 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 30, 2015, 02:08:30 pm
Post by: Bohandas on March 30, 2015, 02:09:23 pm
... toddlers are barely sentient. There's no more sin there than a dog peeing on a rug. That's just a developing brain learning and growing the way evolution has built it to.
Incidentally, you'll get the same behavior from dogs, at times. Are they capable of sin?
I'd say that no, they are not, based on he classical arguments summarized here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope#Diogenes_as_dogged_or_dog-like)
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 30, 2015, 02:15:27 pm
The age I am referring to is 4-5 years old. They certainly understand right from wrong. Have you had a close relationship with a toddler? (sister, brother, child)
Oh, yeah, by 4 to 5 they sure should do - based on parental input to define such boundaries, of course. That does not mean they always do what they know is right, for a whole pantheon of reasons. It seems a stretch to me to jump to "sin" as the cause, and as such I do not see how toddlers are a good argument in favour of inherent sinfulness as opposed to it being a social construct.
As for close relationship: I have 2 kids of my own (one that has passed destructive toddler phase, and one just at the end of it) and am the eldest of 3 sons. So, yeah, abundant experience.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 30, 2015, 02:17:25 pm
Post by: scriver on March 30, 2015, 02:24:33 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 30, 2015, 02:25:35 pm
Sin is the violation of a divine law. It is defined by a religious faith, and there is much variance between faiths as to what constitutes one. Most children at age 4 or 5 have little to no concept of what a god is, nor ones divine command, save for regurgitating parrot fashion anything an authority figure has told them. How can they be "naturally" sinning if they have no natural knowledge of what sin is?
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 30, 2015, 02:30:01 pm
That said, the important bit here is the person using toddlers as an example for innate sinfulness. They know what it is, so they can point to toddlers as an example of it. What the toddler knows or does not know is wholly irrelevant.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 30, 2015, 02:52:05 pm
The whole nature of that way of thinking though is so.... projective and circular. A religious faith first defining a concept and then projecting it and its rules and concepts concerning it over those who do not know or reject them as some kind of "pre-judgement"? Something does not sit right there with me. Its... its almost control by fear.
Oh, and the "they know it" makes the projection a subjective one, dependant on who is doing the projecting.
Post by: Bohandas on March 30, 2015, 02:54:58 pm
Shits and giggles is always a possible answer when it comes to the divine. They're generally jackasses to some degree, after all. And considering the original believers in the christian god believed other gods existed, it makes a fair amount of sense that this'un isn't actually all that different.
I'unno, I might be fairly down with a sort of dionysian trickster god that actually wants people to not be jerks, but is compelled by its nature to play a few tricks here and there. Would even fit the problem of evil fairly nicely -- the "all powerful/knowing" thing was just stage-play. And explain its evidenced moral character -- all the raping and murdering and torture and plagues and whatnot was just slight-of-hand to screw with people.
The Book of the SubGenius speculates that Jehovah created the world in order to win a drunken bar bet
Post by: Frumple on March 30, 2015, 03:03:56 pm
That said, the important bit here is the person using toddlers as an example for innate sinfulness. They know what it is, so they can point to toddlers as an example of it. What the toddler knows or does not know is wholly irrelevant.... except toddlers still aren't inclined to sin. They're inclined towards incomprehension (for the younger ones) or disobedience (for older), but those aren't one thing and the same.
Shouldn't be, anyway. I will acknowledge some denominations hold that obedience to your parents/elders/etc. is an absolute unbending law for which any deviance therefrom is sin, but I will cheerfully call those ones bughumping insane. I've had my parents tell me to break the law and do things harmful both to myself and others far too many times -- and gods know I feel no need to ask forgiveness from them for not going along with it -- to consider that anything but raw bupkis. Lines up with those that consider folks that have never heard of the bible as irrevocably damned, too...
---
Though I guess you could call incomprehension or disobedience sin, if you want to... it would fit in with the whole damnation of pacific islanders shtick, and fall in line with the ability to sin without intention or conscious action. Damnation from birth to death bit, too. Nasty way to look at the world, though. Doesn't seem healthy, y'know?
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 30, 2015, 03:22:08 pm
Most churches (AFAIK) don't believe that children must be 100% obedient (although parents will happily profess otherwise) and the term used in most Bible versions is "honour your father and your mother". Obeying them when they tell you to do something awful certainly isn't honouring them.
There's a fair number of people who believe that children are innocent in God's eyes, or that children are forgiven due to lack of understanding, or something similar. I imagine the same would hold true for senility or mental disability, or whatever as well. There's nothing in the Bible to my knowledge that directly contradicts that, at least.
Post by: Angle on April 01, 2015, 10:46:43 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 01, 2015, 10:47:50 pm
Behold, Mortals! http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3012Why is god a flying coin?
Post by: Bohandas on April 01, 2015, 10:54:30 pm
Behold, Mortals! http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3012Why is god a flying coin?
It's abstract
Post by: Rolan7 on April 01, 2015, 10:59:26 pm
Also, I grinned.
Such a Prometheus-like story, except that instead of punishing the actual perpetrator-benefactor, God condemned all humans forever. I really don't see how one act of defiance is supposed to have ruined humanity, God's perfect creation. If Adam and Eve were created so perfect, why were they disobedient?
Not to mention how distressing it is that an apple of *knowledge* poisons all later generations of humans, making us unfit for God's company. Helps explain why so many fundamentalists are suspicious of science and technology. Daring to learn and investigate is hubris!
Again, the whole thing makes more sense if humanity was supposed to be interesting and disobey. Makes a far better spectacle for God, and is more consistent.
Post by: TD1 on April 02, 2015, 06:47:18 am
Goodbye Augustine's solution to the problem of evil.
Post by: martinuzz on April 02, 2015, 08:34:06 am
Post by: Baffler on April 02, 2015, 08:48:15 am
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weihberg
How constructive of you.
Post by: Arx on April 02, 2015, 08:51:55 am
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weihberg
So Naziism is a religion?
Edit: any form of government at all, even. And love, infatuation, and anger.
Post by: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 09:35:49 am
The longer I think about that quote, the more euphoric it appears.
Post by: That Wolf on April 02, 2015, 09:56:31 am
The church on my street has its doors closed most of the time.
Its a shit neighbourhood.
A km away there is a church with no windows, a bus and a large fence surrounding it.
I think its a vampire church
Or demon worshipers, they do own land that goats live on..
They are pretty rich so the lack of windows could mean they have a drugs operation going on?
The bus could be used to smuggle the drugs and move the cartel about.
I was neighbors with some members once, evil people. They had a lovely garden and kind smiles, helpful people, kept to themselves... just another family of gangsters and lowlifes trying to blend in.
Oh gosh, what is in the egg sandwiches that you get from caterers? I have them at funerals all the time.
Oh my armok they are to die for. I last had them at grandads funeral. Yum, I hoard them all and pretend im greaving and as if I need them.
Its clearly bullshit because I just love the eggs.
I should know whats in them Im a cook.
Ahh ignorance is bliss.....
Post by: Rolan7 on April 02, 2015, 10:17:11 am
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weihberg
So Naziism is a religion?
Edit: any form of government at all, even. And love, infatuation, and anger.
... Naziism was based on antisemitism, which is a direct result of Christianity. Nazi Germany was overtly Christian, and the Catholic Church at the time supported it. Yeah, the *actual* reasons were political (and sadistic), but Christianity was one of the primary tools used to paint Jews as the "bad guys", and get decent people to "defend themselves" against the insidious threat.
Of course (most) Christians today will insist that the Nazis weren't real Christians. The antisemetic passages of the Bible go relatively ignored, for now, since we have a fine "enemy" in Islam. But the passages are there, just waiting to provide someone with an excuse.
(A lot of Christians don't even acknowledge that the Nazis *used* religion, they just lump it in with the USSR as an example of atheism gone amok. Which is so wrong it's funny-sad.)
That said, the original quote isn't accurate. Most any sort of idealism can be twisted to evil ends. It just happens with religions so much because they're widespread, usually designed to support holy war, and often controlled by small groups of interpreters.
Post by: Arx on April 02, 2015, 10:28:05 am
The antisemetic passages of the Bible go relatively ignored, for now, since we have a fine "enemy" in Islam. But the passages are there, just waiting to provide someone with an excuse.
Such as?
Post by: Frumple on April 02, 2015, 10:44:52 am
Post by: Rolan7 on April 02, 2015, 11:01:19 am
Quote from: Matthew
27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
There are several verses about the disciples getting persecuted by the Jews, but that's understandable since it probably actually happened. The above verse is different because it's specifically blaming all future Jews for Jesus's death, supposedly of their own volition, which is why it was used a lot to justify antisemitism. Even though it *really* looks like sockpuppeting.
Titus has some specific complaints as well:
Quote from: Titus
1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:He's not saying Jews are greedy deceivers. But he's sure implying it hard.
1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
And here, Jews are "contrary to all men". But don't worry, they'll get what's coming to them:
Quote from: 1 Thessalonians
2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
I just kinda paraphrased this from the first search result for "anti semitic bible verses", which does a better job than I, and discusses some of the history of antisemitism (which I know little about).
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2009/07/new-testament-anti-semitism/
Some interesting bits:
Medieval Jews were accused of "host nailing", driving nails into communion wafers.
Martin Luther wrote a book suggesting Judaism should be abolished and Jews sent to forced labor. Hmmm.
Revelations 3:9 (for what it's worth) speaks of false Jews who are actually the "synagogue of Satan". Which doesn't really support my point, probably, Revelations is just fun.
Post by: Arx on April 02, 2015, 01:41:39 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 02, 2015, 02:36:04 pm
Huh, interesting. Thank you. You can strike Nazism from my list, then. :P
No problem! And again, yeah, the pithy quote isn't accurate. A lot of ideals get subverted for evil, not just religious ones.
Post by: Bohandas on April 02, 2015, 02:48:23 pm
A big single one is Matthew 27, where the Jews and their descendants take responsibility for Jesus's death:Quote from: Matthew27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
There are several verses about the disciples getting persecuted by the Jews, but that's understandable since it probably actually happened. The above verse is different because it's specifically blaming all future Jews for Jesus's death, supposedly of their own volition, which is why it was used a lot to justify antisemitism. Even though it *really* looks like sockpuppeting.
It doesn't really matter either way though because it wouldn't matter even if they did say it. You can't admit to something and then transfer the blame to someone else, especially not someone else who isn't even born yet and therefore could not possibly be complicit; blameworthiness simply doesn't work that way.
Furthermore, a bunch of nobodies who died 2000 years ago are less than worthless as character witnesses for people alive today.
What it boils down to is that those particular jews are no longer alive and no longer relevant.
CONTROVERSIAL EDIT:
On a related note, this is also why there shouldn't be reparations for slavery. Everyone who legally owned slaves and/or was complicit to that systsm (as well as everyone who was legally owned as a slave and was directly victimized by that system) is long since dead; even if they were born during the civil war and lived to be 122 years old they would have died during the 1980's
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weihberg
So Naziism is a religion?
The Thule Society arguably is
Post by: Descan on April 02, 2015, 05:36:23 pm
On a related note, this is also why there shouldn't be reparations for slavery. Everyone who legally owned slaves and/or was complicit to that systsm (as well as everyone who was legally owned as a slave and was directly victimized by that system) is long since dead; even if they were born during the civil war and lived to be 122 years old they would have died during the 1980'sReparations isn't about quid pro quo, and saying it is is misrepresentative. It's about the fact that slavery had a negative impact on the economic outlook and prospects of African Americans that *still exists* today. As in, the average black person today, especially someone who's ancestors were slaves, is worse off than the average white person. And it's pretty obvious why. After slavery was abolished, black people were pretty much told "Alright, you're free now. Go us, we're awesome. Go do whatever," so they didn't have any resources to make their way in life to prosperity. Despite actually being promised some resources to get started, they didn't get any. And it's kind of hard to give your kids a good life if you can't afford it, and they won't be able to give THEIR kids a good life because they couldn't afford it either, and so on down the line. It's like the reverse of inherited plutocracy. Add in racism, especially before 1980s when it wasn't as frowned upon, and even if you WERE an educated black man (or woman), and you were very hard pressed to get a good job, and get paid good money for your work.
Indirect victims are still victims.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 02, 2015, 05:39:33 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 02, 2015, 05:57:17 pm
Post by: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 06:01:35 pm
... Naziism was based on antisemitism,[CITATION NEEDED]
Anti-semitism played a huge role in the ideology of the NSDAP, but 'based on' is plain wrong. Wrongly simplifying like this does a great disservice to the cause of never letting their likes come to power again.
which is a direct result of Christianity.[CITATION NEEDED]
There have been many places and many times in which Christians lived without (overly great) anti-semitism, and conversely there have been lots of times and lots of places with plenty of anti-semitism but little to no Christians around.
Nazi Germany was overtly Christian,[CITATION NEEDED]
Sure, they publicly said stuff like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity), and there certainly were fucknuts like these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians), but National Socialism in itself was hostile to Christianity:
Spoiler: From the Wiki article 'Religion in Nazi Germany' (click to show/hide)
and the Catholic Church at the time supported it.[CITATION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge) FUCKING (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemens_August_Graf_von_Galen) NEEDED (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreuzkampf)]
I'll stay silent about many things, but I won't let you blatantly insult one of my few personal heroes and the people of my native region without giving you a piece of my mind. Not only is that statement flat out wrong, but it spits on the grave of the one man the Nazis were afraid to eliminate and on the memory of the one successful act of German civil resistance against the Nazis. Clemens August Graf von Galen, bishop of the Catholic Church, prevented the Nazis from conducting Aktion T4, the murder of those with mental or physical disabilities (such as myself, I might add), in the Münster region. He had such popular support that the Nazis feared an uprising if they acted against him, and after the war he even bemoaned that he had been denied 'the martyr's crown'.
And oh hey look, there's an ENTIRE FUCKING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON THE SUBJECT! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_persecution_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Germany) Do some research before talking about of your ass like that.
EDIT: And let's not forget the Bekennende Kirche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessing_Church), especially Dietrich Bonhoeffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer) - it's not like the Protestant Church was monolithically supportive of the NSDAP rule, either. Oh, and the Catholic Church in Poland at the time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_persecution_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Poland) In fact, the Dachau concentration camp had a whole section just for priests. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_Barracks_of_Dachau_Concentration_Camp)
On the other hand, let's not forget that Luther himself was a rabid anti-semite even by contemporary standards and had a great influence on modern German anti-semitism. Probably the second-worst German in history, right after Wilhelm II. (Remember, Hitler was Austrian.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 02, 2015, 06:28:33 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 02, 2015, 06:44:36 pm
I guess it'd be more accurate to say that the Nazi party was based on totalitarianism and racial purity. Jews were not the only victims. Blacks and homosexuals were also targeted, as were political dissidents (especially communists).
... However, Jews were singled out, especially in the rhetoric. I think we agree that "antisemitism played a huge role".
I will stand by my statement that antisemitism is a direct result of Christianity. I already provided citations from the Bible, barely even going into the widespead constant persecution Jews have suffered in Christian states throughout history.
Yes, there have been places and situations where Christians didn't persecute Jews, especially in the present day. The persecution hasn't been literally constant.
It's true that there have been non-Christian groups who also persecuted Jews (mainly the other Abrahamic religion, Islam), so I was wrong to imply that antisemitism is *solely* a result of Christianity. It still does result, directly, from Christianity.
As for Nazi Germany being Christian... Well, it was, but it is admittedly complicated. More so than I realized. From what I'm reading, the "Positive Christianity" movement Hitler introduced included some really significant modifications to basic Christian doctrine. Like... it threw out the Old Testament, and tried to somehow make Jesus Aryan. Despite somehow being supposed to be compatible with existing Christianity. Sounds like the sort of doublethink one would expect under Nazi Germany.
So while it was still based on Christianity, and used antisemitic themes which existed in Christianity, it was hardly Christianity as we know it.
I didn't say anything to dishonor that hero, or any of the other heroes who risked everything to oppose the evil of the Third Reich. I said that the Catholic Church supported it, not that every bishop did.
But uh, I think I was wrong to say even that... It's something I've heard a lot, but I'm not actually seeing hardly any evidence of it. I mean, Pius XI did sign a treaty of sorts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
Which *diminished* the church's vocal criticism of the Nazi party... As in, the church (and Pius XI himself, I'm finding) was decidedly outspoken against the Nazi movement until this treaty was signed. The trade off seemed to be that clergy would stop opposing the Nazis politically, and the Nazis would... not kill them, basically. I can hardly blame the Catholic Church for this, and I apologize for spreading a misconception. Or at least, making an argument without properly researching it first.
Post by: Bohandas on April 02, 2015, 06:52:01 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 02, 2015, 09:49:38 pm
The really ironic thing is thatancientmost of historyCanaaneverywhere was a super racist place too.
Post by: wierd on April 02, 2015, 10:22:33 pm
Rome, despite featuring institutionalized slavery, hard-defined class systems, etc-- was one of the first truly cosmopolitan societies, where people of all races could become citizens (If they had the cash).
Prior to that, everyone was too paranoid, eking out a subsistence existence in small villages/towns with agrarian bases, and trying to get a leg up on their neighbors before they could get a leg up on them. (Citystate warfare was the norm back then, and the paranoia of outsiders was very high.)
Greece had a kind of religiously themed "Hospitality" to outsiders, because they felt their gods tested them about it frequently-- but were still very much racist at the core when it came to other ethnicities. (And even felt bigotry about city-state origins, not just being Greek.)
Likewise in Asia.
The "Everyone is equal, and deserving of equal respect, regardless of race, sex, or national origin" is VERY much a modern thing.
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 03, 2015, 04:11:04 am
Quote from: Steven Weinberg
Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.If Twain's mother had been slightly better-educated, her prejudices could equally well have been inspired by mainstream scientific theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#United_States:_slavery_justified) of the time. It is also worth noting that Twain himself did not believe in the absolute equality of the "races," as witnessed by his hatred of Native Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Civil_rights) and the prevalence of racist stereotypes in his novels. His bigotry was not based on religious doctrine, however, but upon "experience" and "hard, empirical fact" – he was a product of his culture, just like every human being who ever lived. Nowadays, when I hear New Atheists declaring that "Science exists in a cultural and ideological vacuum," I probably feel a bit like Twain felt during a white-supremacist minister's sermon.
EDIT: And in modern terms one would call Mrs Clemens "genuinely stupid," rather than "genuinely good."
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 05, 2015, 02:23:47 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 05, 2015, 02:27:36 pm
(Gosh, if the rapture actually happens today, there'll be so much egg on my face...)
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 05, 2015, 02:32:54 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 05, 2015, 02:36:28 pm
Wait... J. is in Heaven with his Father, isn't he? If he wants to do the whole judgementy-thing, he has to come down, amirite?No, the judgement happens after we die. (or after the rapture, whichever comes first)
Post by: Bohandas on April 05, 2015, 02:57:54 pm
HE IS RISEN!!!
Jesus or Priapus?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 05, 2015, 03:00:16 pm
I'm honestly not sure.HE IS RISEN!!!
Jesus or Priapus?
Post by: XXXXYYYY on April 05, 2015, 03:04:30 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 05, 2015, 03:08:09 pm
... I'm missing something here. Someone care to explain?Friday was good Friday. It was the day that Jesus died on the cross so we could be forgiven of our sins. Today is Easter, the day he rose from the grave.
Post by: XXXXYYYY on April 05, 2015, 03:13:43 pm
Ah. So just Easter stuff, not anything special to this year. Good to know.... I'm missing something here. Someone care to explain?Friday was good Friday. It was the day that Jesus died on the cross so we could be forgiven of our sins. Today is Easter, the day he rose from the grave.
Post by: Bohandas on April 05, 2015, 03:22:37 pm
I'm honestly not sure.HE IS RISEN!!!
Jesus or Priapus?
... I'm missing something here. Someone care to explain?Friday was good Friday. It was the day that Jesus died on the cross so we could be forgiven of our sins. Today is Easter, the day he rose from the grave.
The reference to Priapus on the other hand, refers to an ancient greek demigod who was always depicted with a large erect penis, which in combination with vague pronouns and multiple meanings of the word "risen" allowed me to turn the earlier Jesus reference into a vulgar reference to ancient paganism
Post by: Arx on April 05, 2015, 03:24:54 pm
Post by: i2amroy on April 05, 2015, 03:34:52 pm
I'm pretty sure you'd notice the second coming.Depends on whose second coming it is. :P Some religious communities that view themselves as the only "true" religion are pretty small, and for one of them to vanish off the face of the earth might not make that big of a dent in the tens of millions of people who vanish without a trace every year (and that's for the US alone).
Post by: TD1 on April 05, 2015, 04:09:41 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 05, 2015, 04:31:21 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 05, 2015, 04:40:53 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 05, 2015, 04:46:28 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 05, 2015, 04:50:38 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 05, 2015, 05:07:38 pm
Why is there an end times? God wanted us do we could amuse him, or something. Why throw his tous out of the pram (figuatively speaking)?I have not seen anywhere in the bible God mentions creating us to amuse him. Could you find that for me?
Post by: Helgoland on April 05, 2015, 05:35:08 pm
To the religious folks around here: How was your Easter Mass? And what Easter Hymns do you like?
I'm very fond of Großer Gott, Wir Loben Dich (Great God, We Praise You). It's practically the anthem of the region my family comes from. My mom told me a story about it while we had our mock-Easter Bonfire (a tradition in that region, though sadly not here):
There's a lot of peat bogs in that area. One day, a somewhat demented family member (a grandma, I think) of a farmer in that village (a neighbor of my mom's cousin, I think) went out to pick blueberries there. Needless to say, she got lost, which is a pretty big deal in a fucking bog. So they called together the men of the village, who went out to search her - and luckily she was found. Of course, the men should have a reward: They got Freibier for the rest of the evening. But before they started, that farmer made a little speech: That he wanted to thank them, and that they all should thank God. So they all sung that song I mentioned, because everyone knew it by heart (and it really is a good song for that occasion). They sung three verses, and they sung loudly. And apparently a tourist walked by and was very confused to hear a bunch of men in the village pub enthusiastically singing a church hymn...
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 05, 2015, 05:52:57 pm
It's probably not in the bible, but as we know, the ancient Greeks believed that their gods loved screwing people over just for the lulz. It makes a whole lot of sense, you know – the problem of evil was not an issue in those happy days.Why is there an end times? God wanted us do we could amuse him, or something. Why throw his tous out of the pram (figuatively speaking)?I have not seen anywhere in the bible God mentions creating us to amuse him. Could you find that for me?
@Helgo
That's a nice hymn. Here's a link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXmGj6id7eU) I haven't listened to the St Matthew Passion this Easter... should probably do it tomorrow.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 05, 2015, 05:59:22 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 05, 2015, 06:46:57 pm
No. I only have a cadet issued bible, and my phone atm. No doubt later I could make a stab at finding something. Time will tell.Why is there an end times? God wanted us do we could amuse him, or something. Why throw his tous out of the pram (figuatively speaking)?I have not seen anywhere in the bible God mentions creating us to amuse him. Could you find that for me?
Post by: Helgoland on April 05, 2015, 06:56:37 pm
That's a nice hymn. Here's a link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXmGj6id7eU)And now imagine it sung like the finale of Beethoven's 9th :D
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 05, 2015, 07:14:19 pm
Oh yeah, Happy Zombie Jesus Day!I am a protestant, so our Easter celebration is a little bit... different. We sang Forever (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ__W9VH9Lo), Risen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSdw0pblPqs), Alive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEvEVALLjNQ) among others. During the songs, there was party confetti, balloons, and other party items. It was an incredibly fun service.
To the religious folks around here: How was your Easter Mass? And what Easter Hymns do you like?
Post by: Helgoland on April 05, 2015, 07:17:01 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 05, 2015, 07:19:08 pm
I guess I'll never understand why someone would want their church's hymns to sound like mediocre dance music...People were dancing, and jumping, and singing. We were having a party!! (JESUS IS ALIVE!!!!!!)
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 05, 2015, 07:22:18 pm
Songs, sure. But 18th-century hymns, not dancing and confetti.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 05, 2015, 07:23:09 pm
Post by: i2amroy on April 05, 2015, 07:26:31 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 05, 2015, 07:29:20 pm
I've got to say that even while I was growing up as a methodist (which I don't do anymore, but it's how I was raised) in the USA our church services never got that crazy. I think it sounds more like you're from one of them more crazy spiritual type churches. :PDon't worry, that was just during the songs. My pastor still came up afterwards. We don't usually have party balloons or stuff like that, just on Easter. It's supposed to be a celebration after all!
Post by: Helgoland on April 05, 2015, 07:29:40 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 05, 2015, 07:30:40 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on April 05, 2015, 07:36:00 pm
Oh yeah, Happy Zombie Jesus Day!
To the religious folks around here: How was your Easter Mass? And what Easter Hymns do you like?
I'm very fond of Großer Gott, Wir Loben Dich (Great God, We Praise You). It's practically the anthem of the region my family comes from. My mom told me a story about it while we had our mock-Easter Bonfire (a tradition in that region, though sadly not here):
There's a lot of peat bogs in that area. One day, a somewhat demented family member (a grandma, I think) of a farmer in that village (a neighbor of my mom's cousin, I think) went out to pick blueberries there. Needless to say, she got lost, which is a pretty big deal in a fucking bog. So they called together the men of the village, who went out to search her - and luckily she was found. Of course, the men should have a reward: They got Freibier for the rest of the evening. But before they started, that farmer made a little speech: That he wanted to thank them, and that they all should thank God. So they all sung that song I mentioned, because everyone knew it by heart (and it really is a good song for that occasion). They sung three verses, and they sung loudly. And apparently a tourist walked by and was very confused to hear a bunch of men in the village pub enthusiastically singing a church hymn...
In my experience (as LDS), Easter Sunday is like the other Sundays except the topic is specifically the Atonement/Crucifixtion/Resurrection. The same people tend to show up (except the odd relative on Spring/Easter break). However, the first weekend in April is when the church (as a whole, not just the congregation I'm in) has a meeting called General Conference, which is where the church leaders speak and everyone else watches (mostly through online methods because there are only a few thousand seats in the conference building). This replaced the normal Easter meeting. They had some nice talks this year - several Easter-themed ones, a few family-related ones, and one on religious tolerance, among many others. They also had nice music.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 05, 2015, 07:36:05 pm
Germany. What denomination are you from, origami?evangelical. My church puts alot of focus on making sure everything we learn comes straight from the Bible.
EDIT: My church is also like, 40% elementary age kids. On average, I'd say that every family has about 3 kids. It's pretty insane. (I should know, I teach up to 20 2nd graders on some days.)
Post by: Descan on April 05, 2015, 07:44:10 pm
With apologies to literally everybody. <3
Post by: TD1 on April 06, 2015, 04:14:20 pm
The minister had a doctorate in theology, but his ideas seemed stale to me, and though I never talked in depth (one does not argue against God to one of the clergy) I got the idea he was stuck in a bit of a religious rut as it were. He'd parroted the same things so much he'd become firmly set in his views. No flexibility. Same goes for most clergy, though.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 06, 2015, 04:58:05 pm
The minister had a doctorate in theology, but his ideas seemed stale to me, and though I never talked in depth (one does not argue against God to one of the clergy) I got the idea he was stuck in a bit of a religious rut as it were. He'd parroted the same things so much he'd become firmly set in his views. No flexibility. Same goes for most clergy, though.Yeah, I find that. "Your ideas don't match up perfectly to what I was taught? Begone, spawn of Satan!" :P
That said, you tend to find the same with pretty much everyone over a certain age bracket. It's sure as hell not unique to Christianity. My dad still refuses to believe that nuclear reactors don't turn the land for miles around into desolate wasteland, as a purely anecdotal example.
Post by: TD1 on April 06, 2015, 05:02:48 pm
Emm, no.
So yes, it is an age related thing. But also very much caused, in tue case of the clergy especially, because of the amount of societal pressure, and time given over to repeating the same dogmatic mantras over and over again.
Post by: Boatsniper on April 06, 2015, 06:54:02 pm
Then I learned about science, evolution, and sociology.
Today, I am Atheist Agnostic, and I have only one question to ask.
What would you call a religion/faith that has been proven beyond all doubt to be true?
Post by: TD1 on April 06, 2015, 06:57:08 pm
I would cease to be religion and just be a non-hypothetical science. Religion needs doubt in order to grow. Utter truth has never been helpful.
Post by: Frumple on April 06, 2015, 07:52:07 pm
A religion that was entirely proven would... still be a religion, I guess. It would just have provable (as opposed to just assumed) metaphysical weight behind it, and probably look significantly different from what current religious organizations look like. If it had any of the weird cruft the current living ones do, it would also cause really massive changes to physics and whatnot, which would be interesting.
Post by: Descan on April 06, 2015, 08:04:43 pm
One: What would happen if a religion just *happens* to be correct? Like, by chance the universe works the way the religion says it does? That'd be... interesting, I suppose, depending on what the religion is. Could range from "Huh. Cool." to "Overturns human understanding as it stands" depending on a) how correct they got, and b) whether it's correct as in gets our universe correct as currently understood, big bang and all that, or if the universe instead turns out to not be how we think, but instead be how that religion conveys it. Flat plate on the back of four elephants and wot-not.
Two: A religion that attempts to change and correct to fit the facts as we know them. It'd be cool, and noble, but I'm not sure if it'd change anything major. Doesn't exactly fill a void or give new knowledge, it'd be mostly coat-tail riding.
Three: What if the world actually had supernatural entities and phenomenon? Well, after we started understanding them, to the extent we can, they'd cease being supernatural and just become a natural part/effect of the universe, at least the parts we can see/feel/experience/measure. Everything else, we wouldn't even know we didn't know them; we'd think we had the whole puzzle. For all we know, electrons are the intrusions in our world of fairies dancing in another universe, but because we can only see, measure, feel, experience, the electron-part of this weird fairy-dance, we have no way of knowing that electrons are actually supernatural. They'd just be a "natural part of the universe" for us. Same as anything else supernatural. The intrusions, measurable effect on our world would just be a (seemingly whole) facet of our naturalistic universe, working in ways we can't really grok because we're missing a piece of the puzzle, but because we'd have no way of knowing we're missing something, we'd just assume it's a quirky mess. If it even is, it could look whole. The only way we'd know we're missing something big/supernatural, would be if an actual intelligent being were to communicate and say "Yo. You're missing something." and even then, depending on how they communicate, we could still miss it.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 09:30:14 pm
I was a Church of Ireland Protestant. Essentially, Anglican. Small country parish, very traditional.My church sets a theme each year, and my pastor has several series that match with that theme. For example, this year's theme is how we are supposed to love all people, especially those who are different. Our most recent series are how the Bible tells us to love different races, and the series before was how to love people of different religions. (both very hard to do)
The minister had a doctorate in theology, but his ideas seemed stale to me, and though I never talked in depth (one does not argue against God to one of the clergy) I got the idea he was stuck in a bit of a religious rut as it were. He'd parroted the same things so much he'd become firmly set in his views. No flexibility. Same goes for most clergy, though.
Post by: TD1 on April 06, 2015, 09:42:59 pm
Whilst I joke, it is also interesting how often the rosy coloured things are preached, hut not the black. Unless, of course, the preacher wants the black to be spread. "God hates fags"
Post by: Descan on April 06, 2015, 09:46:09 pm
love people of different religions. (both very hard to do)I dunno. It's only so hard, I think, because the same religion says that those different-religion'd people are going to hell/heretics/evil/wrong/temptation/etc. Kind of sets them up as hard to love by itself.
Race thing also isn't that hard, but it's not quite the same thing being ironically-made-hard by the same religion telling you to love them.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 09:52:25 pm
There is at least as much cause to be killing other non-Christians in the bible. Are you ever taught that :PYes, the bible has several instances of God ordering the deaths of many non-christians. However, those people had disobeyed God for centuries, and they didn't turn to him. Even though they most likely heard about the Israelites. (Rehab heard about the Israelites when they crossed the Red Sea, so it is reasonable to assume the others did) Even if they had never heard about God their entire life. The bible says:
Whilst I joke, it is also interesting how often the rosy coloured things are preached, hut not the black. Unless, of course, the preacher wants the black to be spread. "God hates fags"
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 06, 2015, 09:55:20 pm
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."inb4 atheist circlejerk
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 09:56:41 pm
I left that out on purpose. Trying not to offend anyone."For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."inb4 atheist circlejerk
Post by: TD1 on April 06, 2015, 09:59:02 pm
Also, that quote sound like the design argument. Seems to me that if god's divinity is seen in creation, so too must his evilness be seen in it too. It's either believe God has evil in him, or believe such arguments are pot, IMO.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 10:02:33 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 06, 2015, 10:03:46 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 06, 2015, 10:05:18 pm
One of them is anger.
Also, II, pick a side already!
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 10:05:27 pm
Post by: Descan on April 06, 2015, 10:07:37 pm
He's kind of a wonky dude. If not evil, not exactly "father knows best" good. I'd steer clear if I heard of an actual person with his track-record.
Post by: TD1 on April 06, 2015, 10:08:32 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 10:12:11 pm
... Ehhhhhhh... God's pretty evil, mate. Biblically and via creation. Worlds kind of shitty and in lots of evil ways. Disease (and the really horrid ones, like worms in your veins and eyeballs, or your muscles and skin literally turning to bone, trapping you in a cage of your own tissues), natural disasters, 99.99999999% of the universe being inhospitable to life as we know it (human life especially), the favoritism of a tiny tribe in a backwater region that's only redeeming resource wouldn't be relevant for thousands of years (and even then, Israel doesn't have much oil if any :P)That is all mankind fault. If you want to point fingers, you can blame Eve, but we all have sinned. There was no disease, death, or pain before that.
He's kind of a wonky dude. If not evil, not exactly "father knows best" good. I'd steer clear if I heard of an actual person with his track-record.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 06, 2015, 10:13:37 pm
Also, II, pick a side already!I am become Italy.
favoritism of a tiny tribe in a backwater regionThere's a few verses bobbing around about how not all Israel is Israel. That is, God's chosen people is not the nation/group/whatever called Israel, but there's a lot of overlap.
Also, it was twelve tiny tribes.
That is all mankind fault. If you want to point fingers, you can blame Eve, but we all have sinned. There was no disease, death, or pain before that.I blame Satan.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 10:14:32 pm
When he was dragged off by guards? Not fighting them was as far as he went.When he was praying before he was arrested, he said this:
"Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.""
This shows that Jesus is Submitting to the Fathers will, not enslaved by it. He is voluntarily doing this.
Post by: TD1 on April 06, 2015, 10:18:16 pm
Eh. Anger isn't sinful in and of itself. It depends on what you're angry about. Jesus got pretty angry at the merchants and moneychangers in the temple, for example. God has no problem with people being angry about sin, and because sin is disobeying God, God is justified in getting angry at people disobeying him.Someone call America. Sounds like we have a tyrant :P
It also shows he didn't want to.When he was dragged off by guards? Not fighting them was as far as he went.When he was praying before he was arrested, he said this:
"Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.""
This shows that Jesus is Submitting to the Fathers will, not enslaved by it. He is voluntarily doing this.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 10:32:38 pm
He wanted to save humanity. But he would have preferred a lot less suffering.It also shows he didn't want to.When he was dragged off by guards? Not fighting them was as far as he went.When he was praying before he was arrested, he said this:
"Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.""
This shows that Jesus is Submitting to the Fathers will, not enslaved by it. He is voluntarily doing this.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 06, 2015, 10:51:07 pm
But we didn't create diseases, or vile parasites, or dangerous weather. Even if your creation story is correct, God created all of those, and not even in response to Eve's mistake. None of those are mentioned in Genesis 3. One could suggest diseases and parasites were introduced along with mortality, but I don't see anything that actually says that. Creatures were all specifically created earlier, presumably including parasites like tapeworms and nasty insects. Arguably infective bacteria and fungi as well.... Ehhhhhhh... God's pretty evil, mate. Biblically and via creation. Worlds kind of shitty and in lots of evil ways. Disease (and the really horrid ones, like worms in your veins and eyeballs, or your muscles and skin literally turning to bone, trapping you in a cage of your own tissues), natural disasters, 99.99999999% of the universe being inhospitable to life as we know it (human life especially), the favoritism of a tiny tribe in a backwater region that's only redeeming resource wouldn't be relevant for thousands of years (and even then, Israel doesn't have much oil if any :P)That is all mankind fault. If you want to point fingers, you can blame Eve, but we all have sinned. There was no disease, death, or pain before that.
He's kind of a wonky dude. If not evil, not exactly "father knows best" good. I'd steer clear if I heard of an actual person with his track-record.
God's curses were:
Quote
3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
... Is it just me or did women get the bad end of that deal? Everything God did to man, IE hunger and mortality, applies to women too (though the language here amusingly doesn't *say* that). Whereas women also get painful childbirth and are cursed to desire and feel submissive to men. (Free will is soooo important to God, isn't it...)
I guess it's intentional since she's the one who convinced Adam. Even though she had no concept of right and wrong, and was
I do love that a strict reading suggests that Adam gets mortality and a malus to farming, while women don't. I'm imagining Adam going hunting or goofing off while Eve farms, since he's cursed to suck at it (and she's cursed to enjoy serving him). And then both of them being super surprised when she dies.
Edit: And though I mentioned this last time, it bears repeating:
Quote
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:God did this to all of us, forever, deliberately. Punishment is only just when it prevents future crimes by exclusion or rehabilitation, and it's never just to apply it to uninvolved parties like descendants.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 10:57:10 pm
In the garden, everything ate plants. It would make sense that microbes were herbivores as well. (or they photosynthesized)But we didn't create diseases, or vile parasites, or dangerous weather. Even if your creation story is correct, God created all of those, and not even in response to Eve's mistake. None of those are mentioned in Genesis 3. One could suggest diseases and parasites were introduced along with mortality, but I don't see anything that actually says that. Creatures were all specifically created earlier, presumably including parasites like tapeworms and nasty insects. Arguably infective bacteria and fungi as well.... Ehhhhhhh... God's pretty evil, mate. Biblically and via creation. Worlds kind of shitty and in lots of evil ways. Disease (and the really horrid ones, like worms in your veins and eyeballs, or your muscles and skin literally turning to bone, trapping you in a cage of your own tissues), natural disasters, 99.99999999% of the universe being inhospitable to life as we know it (human life especially), the favoritism of a tiny tribe in a backwater region that's only redeeming resource wouldn't be relevant for thousands of years (and even then, Israel doesn't have much oil if any :P)That is all mankind fault. If you want to point fingers, you can blame Eve, but we all have sinned. There was no disease, death, or pain before that.
He's kind of a wonky dude. If not evil, not exactly "father knows best" good. I'd steer clear if I heard of an actual person with his track-record.
God's curses were:Quote3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
... Is it just me or did women get the bad end of that deal? Everything God did to man, IE hunger and mortality, applies to women too (though the language here amusingly doesn't *say* that). Whereas women also get painful childbirth and are cursed to desire and feel submissive to men. (Free will is soooo important to God, isn't it...)
I guess it's intentional since she's the one who convinced Adam. Even though she had no concept of right and wrong, and wasconvincedlied to by a celestial being, and Adam agreed to do it.
I do love that a strict reading suggests that Adam gets mortality and a malus to farming, while women don't. I'm imagining Adam going hunting or goofing off while Eve farms, since he's cursed to suck at it (and she's cursed to enjoy serving him). And then both of them being super surprised when she dies.
There is a debate about what "submit" means in this context. I like to think that it is willingly respect their authority. For example, Men lead the dances. Also, Adam and Eve populated the entire earth in a few generations. I think it goes without being said that Eve was not busy farming most of the time, (not that that's relevant)
Post by: Rolan7 on April 06, 2015, 11:08:36 pm
Quote
thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over theeSeems pretty straightforward, though I certainly don't know Hebrew...
My point stands, though. Even if everything was vegetarian before, which seems to be the implication of 1:30:
Quote
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
I don't see anything saying that it's humanity's fault that animals started eating each other. I don't see where that change occurred at all, honestly. Just that in the next chapter, Abel has a flock of animals and starts butchering them. (Side note, it's interesting how Cain the less-favored was a plant-farmer. God really loves blood sacrifices).
Adam and Eve didn't have any magic power or reason to modify the diet of all Earth's creatures. Even if it was a consequence of them eating the fruit, which I don't see explained anywhere, they certainly had no idea.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 11:11:01 pm
God preferred Abel because he gave the best of what he had. Cain most likely just threw any old plant on.Quotethy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over theeSeems pretty straightforward, though I certainly don't know Hebrew...
My point stands, though. Even if everything was vegetarian before, which seems to be the implication of 1:30:Quote1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
I don't see anything saying that it's humanity's fault that animals started eating each other. I don't see where that change occurred at all, honestly. Just that in the next chapter, Abel has a flock of animals and starts butchering them. (Side note, it's interesting how Cain the less-favored was a plant-farmer. God really loves blood sacrifices).
Adam and Eve didn't have any magic power or reason to modify the diet of all Earth's creatures. Even if it was a consequence of them eating the fruit, which I don't see explained anywhere, they certainly had no idea.
The Bible doesn't say when animals started eating each other, but I like to think (my opinion) it happened after the flood because those animals got along, and there are no records of people dying from disease in that time.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 06, 2015, 11:13:47 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 11:16:11 pm
Did tapeworms and viruses chill in jars on the Ark while they waited for predatory and parasitic behavior to become fashionable?Or just anywhere. If they still photosynthesized, I see no reason why they would need to be anywhere special.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 06, 2015, 11:20:14 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 11:23:23 pm
How did viruses photosynthesize when they're literally smaller than the cell structures used for photosynthesis?Viruses aren't considered living.
You shouldn't take what I'm saying as fact, I'm just throwing out possibilities.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 06, 2015, 11:29:01 pm
God preferred Abel because he gave the best of what he had. Cain most likely just threw any old plant on.
The Bible doesn't say when animals started eating each other, but I like to think (my opinion) it happened after the flood because those animals got along, and there are no records of people dying from disease in that time.
Quote
4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.I suppose this is straying off topic, but I read this as emphasizing the value of meat vs plants for sacrifice. It doesn't say Cain was at all lazy, or kept the best vegetables for himself. The rest of the Bible does make it clear that God needs animal sacrifice, too. Though maybe he formed that preference based on this event.
4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
That's an interesting idea that the creatures were vegetarian on the ark... It does seem to fit the information we're given, though seems odd that the change didn't merit mention. Does that mean you accept that we aren't responsible for disease, though? Assuming you included the bacteria and parasites in that theory, disease only started after the great flood, a long time after Adam & Eve's mistake.
You shouldn't take what I'm saying as fact, I'm just throwing out possibilities.Understood! Try not to feel pressured, I really appreciate you talking to us about your beliefs and theories. I love looking up Bible verses... It seems like every time I do, I understand the stories a bit better. They are fascinating from a mythological perspective. And I like coming up with in-universe theories too.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 11:32:55 pm
"And Abel also brought an offering--fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering."
Post by: Frumple on April 06, 2015, 11:35:43 pm
How did viruses photosynthesize when they're literally smaller than the cell structures used for photosynthesis?The wizard did it, poh. When you're dealing with young-earth creationism and flood geology, that's literally the entire answer. God did it, real geology can get buggered, etc., etc.
Incidentally, the earliest indications of disease I'm finding mention of was lesions characteristic of TB found on human bones a good 500k years old. Trachoma a "mere" 10k or so. Leprosy's been traced back literally millions of years. Seems to be a nice host of things like that -- disease is way older than judaism, nevermind christianity itself. Completely incompatible with the sub-10k year old world folks, though.
Post by: Arcvasti on April 06, 2015, 11:41:27 pm
FAKEDIT: Oh dear many ninjas. What do you call a group of ninjas even? Is there a specific term?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 11:41:30 pm
Radiocarbon dating depends on how much carbon14 was in the atmosphere at the time of that creatures death. If there was much less carbon14 in the atmosphere, then the people that died during that time would appear to be much older then they actually are. The biggest thing that increases the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is volcanoes. And when I read "...on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth..." It seems reasonable to assume that a crapton of volcanoes went along with that. That would cause everyone before the flood to appear much older then they actually are.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 06, 2015, 11:55:17 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 06, 2015, 11:58:02 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 07, 2015, 12:04:47 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 07, 2015, 12:06:47 am
Post by: Rolan7 on April 07, 2015, 12:20:47 am
Which can be consistent with the narrative, of course. God is supposed to be all-powerful, so yeah... Maybe he did modify the animals and bacteria to eat each other, and maybe he waited until after the great flood. And maybe the ark was like the TARDIS, bigger on the inside.How did viruses photosynthesize when they're literally smaller than the cell structures used for photosynthesis?The wizard did it, poh. When you're dealing with young-earth creationism and flood geology, that's literally the entire answer. God did it, real geology can get buggered, etc., etc.
The question becomes not "How is that possible?" but "Why would He do it that way?". Does it make any sense for God to have a human build a boat to hold samples of every animal, when He could simply allow them to breathe water in the interim? Possibly so, if he wanted to test Noah's family or just do something cool. More problematic are things like Jesus's sacrifice, or Hell, or a hundred other things which I have trouble reconciling with the rest of the book. Though discussion has helped me figure out a few!
Which is one reason why I get annoyed by "God works in mysterious ways". An entity that can do anything, but does unpredictable things with no rhyme or reason, is boring to theorize about. God killing or ordering the rape of people in the Old Testament: makes sense after a while, as his character is established and outright stated to be jealous and wrathful. God then turning around and making a sacrifice of himself, to himself, with no lasting consequences except that he manages to forgive all of humanity for something two humans did? Doesn't really fit with God's established nature, or any sort of internal logic.
FAKEDIT: Oh dear many ninjas. What do you call a group of ninjas even? Is there a specific term?I'd say a "massacre". As everyone knows, ninjas are incredibly fragile and inept in groups, yet more confident and violent than ever. An unfortunate combination, for them.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 07, 2015, 12:23:56 am
Post by: Rolan7 on April 07, 2015, 01:38:01 am
And dinosaurs were represented, but probably as babies. That part makes sense, at least.
Post by: wierd on April 07, 2015, 01:39:46 am
Requires cloven hooves, and chewing of cud.
Birds must be seed eaters.
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 07, 2015, 06:04:45 am
The ark can hold more than all the animals depending on what your interpretation of the word "kind" is. If you treat it as species that can have children with each other, then there would be alot of extra space on the ark.I somehow misread that as: "If you treat the ark as a species that can have children with each other." That actually stands to reason when you think about it: Noah originally had two arks and he bred them to produce a giant fleet that could carry all the different species on Earth.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 07, 2015, 06:12:58 am
Someone needs to make that a movie.The ark can hold more than all the animals depending on what your interpretation of the word "kind" is. If you treat it as species that can have children with each other, then there would be alot of extra space on the ark.I somehow misread that as: "If you treat the ark as a species that can have children with each other." That actually stands to reason when you think about it: Noah originally had two arks and he bred them to produce a giant fleet that could carry all the different species on Earth.
Post by: Helgoland on April 07, 2015, 06:14:23 am
And think about the consequences of making that movie - what will the shipping look like? :P
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 07, 2015, 06:16:49 am
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 07, 2015, 06:19:02 am
I wish we had multi-tile creatures available for modding...
Post by: Frumple on April 07, 2015, 07:20:13 am
How would arks mate though?As OW mentioned obliquely, kancolle has most of the answer your questions. Kancolle's copious amounts of porn has the remainder :V
And think about the consequences of making that movie - what will the shipping look like? :P
Post by: TD1 on April 07, 2015, 07:49:33 am
How would arks mate though?The wizard did it. Honestly, makes as much sense as anything else in the Bible. And given it fixes the problem with a good dose of divine providence, it sounds like the sort of explanation a Christian might make.
Post by: Arx on April 07, 2015, 07:51:02 am
Plant reproduction makes more sense, though. If there's a castle of some kind, it just flowers and fruits.
Post by: TD1 on April 07, 2015, 08:01:34 am
Post by: Magistrum on April 07, 2015, 08:13:47 am
For all I know the ark is just a big chest(By my notion of a cubit [basically your forearm + hand length] the ark was around 22 m by 130 m, and around 13 meters high) so it really fits a lot of stuff there, but I'm not too sure about all the species...
Post by: Frumple on April 07, 2015, 08:24:51 am
Post by: Arx on April 07, 2015, 08:49:26 am
Post by: Magistrum on April 07, 2015, 08:52:19 am
Not that ark. The other ark. The floaty one.Yes, that ark. The floaty one.
Why do everyone think the ark is something other than, you know, an ark?
The thing Noah did for certain wasn't a boat.
Sorry if it's just my bad english, but isn't "Ark" a box? like a chest? A boxy-chesty thingy?
Post by: Descan on April 07, 2015, 08:55:17 am
Also, "ark" is only really used in relation to the two instances in the bible. The Ark of the Covenant, and Noah. So it's a bit hard to do the whole "what does it usually mean?" there.
Post by: Frumple on April 07, 2015, 09:19:19 am
I guess if you were going full ham the noah box-ark could be a gigantic sperm bank type thing. Frozen fertilized eggs or somethin'. That'd fit things better, perhaps, size wise. And if it was run off biodiesel type stuff, it would even allow for the all-vegetarian thing -- technically they would be sustained by plant matter :V
More likely it was silly people describing what they considered a big boat while not actually having any idea about how to build a boat nor the extent of existent species. 22x130x13 would be the equivalent of holding your hands really wide and going, "Thiiiiis big!" Like with fish.
Post by: Magistrum on April 07, 2015, 09:27:42 am
I think Noah did put all the species there since:
*Vermin do not occupy space.
*Creatures can be stacked infinitely as long as only one of them be standing at a given tile.
*As for keeping everyone feed, he probably knew how to do quantum stockpiles(The cheaty bastard).
Anyway, Frumple can't be trusted since he is kyuuky.
Post by: i2amroy on April 07, 2015, 11:24:00 am
Sorry if it's just my bad english, but isn't "Ark" a box? like a chest? A boxy-chesty thingy?Originally that's what the term meant, yeah, but do to the prevalence of the story of Noah's Ark it has also come to mean any sort of thing that can draw parallels to Noah's Ark, be that by being a boat or by having life saving properties in the face of an apocalypse.
Post by: Bohandas on April 07, 2015, 12:09:34 pm
... Ehhhhhhh... God's pretty evil, mate. Biblically and via creation. Worlds kind of shitty and in lots of evil ways. Disease (and the really horrid ones, like worms in your veins and eyeballs, or your muscles and skin literally turning to bone, trapping you in a cage of your own tissues), natural disasters, 99.99999999% of the universe being inhospitable to life as we know it (human life especially), the favoritism of a tiny tribe in a backwater region that's only redeeming resource wouldn't be relevant for thousands of years (and even then, Israel doesn't have much oil if any :P
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=lEU-rkbodsc
Post by: Rolan7 on April 07, 2015, 12:26:05 pm
I don't recall hearing this one before, thanks.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 07, 2015, 02:22:25 pm
Isn't "Ark" just a huge chest?Those are the dimensions. I can tell you that the ark is probably boat shaped and not a chest. Those measurements are how long it is at the longest point.
For all I know the ark is just a big chest(By my notion of a cubit [basically your forearm + hand length] the ark was around 22 m by 130 m, and around 13 meters high) so it really fits a lot of stuff there, but I'm not too sure about all the species...
If I say an airplane is 120x90x20 feet, that doesn't mean it's a flying box.
Post by: TD1 on April 07, 2015, 02:26:48 pm
Not even an exagerration. A post saying nearly that exact same thing was put on my facebook.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 07, 2015, 02:29:34 pm
Yea, Believers (IMO) seem to ignore a lot of things their god supposedly made, just so they can continue to say "omg look at that cute kitty god made awee so cuuuuute"He made even the not so cute things with their own unique abilities to survive. It's pretty interesting too.
Not even an exagerration. A post saying nearly that exact same thing was put on my facebook.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Baffler on April 07, 2015, 02:40:27 pm
Yea, Believers (IMO) seem to ignore a lot of things their god supposedly made, just so they can continue to say "omg look at that cute kitty god made awee so cuuuuute"He made even the not so cute things with their own unique abilities to survive. It's pretty interesting too.
Not even an exagerration. A post saying nearly that exact same thing was put on my facebook.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
They actually look really different in the deep ocean where they live. It's still not much of a looker I'll grant, but that picture shows the often-lethal swelling caused by decompression from the high pressure that it's adapted to in the wild.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rolan7 on April 07, 2015, 02:47:16 pm
Makes sense, though.
Post by: TD1 on April 07, 2015, 02:49:31 pm
Tape worms.Yea, Believers (IMO) seem to ignore a lot of things their god supposedly made, just so they can continue to say "omg look at that cute kitty god made awee so cuuuuute"He made even the not so cute things with their own unique abilities to survive. It's pretty interesting too.
Not even an exagerration. A post saying nearly that exact same thing was put on my facebook.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 07, 2015, 02:50:28 pm
Post by: i2amroy on April 07, 2015, 03:17:50 pm
Anything older than about 50,000 years isn't dated with radiocarbon dating, since too many carbon-14 half-lives have elapsed from that point to get an accurate reading. We tend to use other, much longer lived radioactive isotopes like potassium-argon or uranium-lead dating for those, neither of which was particularly inclined to be present in the atmosphere that much.
Post by: Angle on April 07, 2015, 03:23:50 pm
For myself, I believe, no, I work under the assumption, that there is an objective universe, and that while our perceptions of it may be flawed, we can learn about it if we try hard enough. I value truth and honesty, and struggle above all else to be honest with myself, to not lie to myself or trick myself into believing things that aren't true.
My morals are largely based on what I want, and what I feel is right, and a whole lot of logic and consideration of whether my various values and desires are consistent with each other, and how best to enact them. As for what I want... Well, obviously it all comes down to the pursuit of Felicity, or the state of being happy. And in order to really be happy, I need the people around me to be happy. So I pursue
Also, I feel that the universe is vast and cold, and doesn't care about us in the slightest, and that ultimately it will kill us and destroy everything we've ever loved. And I don't really like that, so much of what I do is a way to metaphorically give the universe the finger. "I don't care if none of it matters in the end, I'm going to live my life as best I can, and I'm going to try and help others to do the same. So suck it!"
Post by: TD1 on April 07, 2015, 03:29:18 pm
I'm not sure if I'm mixing this up with flatworms, but if not then they eat and egest through the same opening. They are interesting, true. Did you know that celebrities used to infect themselves with them so they could eat without becoming fatter? It grew old when bits of it started emerging from their backsides. They are not benevolent little "awww look what god made creatures. Their existence gives the design argument very strong reasons for showing the creator of the universe is satan not goodness incarnate. Moreso, in fact, as all those lovely creatures god made are very good at being very cruel.
Angle: what I find important is myself and mine. Go out of your way to help those you can, and don't obstruct those you can't. I base morality on what is good for myself- my reputation, my memory, and my self-image.
Post by: i2amroy on April 07, 2015, 03:34:22 pm
So for those of us who are Atheists, what kind of beliefs do you hold? What things are important to you, what do you base your morals on, what do you find meaningful, etc?Basically I'm of the opinion that:
1) There is an objective universe with laws that define it.
2) Personally I'm a big fan of a deterministic universe (Which still has totally plausible quantum physics explanations like the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory)).
3) There is no such thing as a "spirit" or "soul". You are totally defined by your physical components.
3b) Because no non-physically defined parts exist, a "god" can therefore not exist.
4) Since you are constrained totally to your physical body, when you die that's it; you are gone permanently.
5) Based off of the previous numbers, my moral system basically comes down to two things:
a) Preserve your own existence at all costs
b) Do things that improve other's chance/duration of continuing their existence
6) Additionally because of #3 I see no reason why technology can't eventually make us functional immortal at some point in the future, nor do I see anything "unnatural" about it. If we can currently begin to treat things like someone being blind there's no reason to think we can't treat someone aging; it's just a matter of scale.
Post by: Angle on April 07, 2015, 03:51:09 pm
So for those of us who are Atheists, what kind of beliefs do you hold? What things are important to you, what do you base your morals on, what do you find meaningful, etc?-Snip-
1) Agree
2) Yup
3) Agree
3b) Yup
4) Well, sorta - Remember, you're not properly matter, you're the pattern that matter makes. If someone we're to switch every atom in my body for an Identical atom, I wouldn't even notice. By the same token, if they were to create a perfect computer simulation, that too would be me. This is complicated by the fact that your "pattern of self", if you will, extends beyond your physical body. It includes your possessions, the places you frequent, and even the people you know. Which makes recreating or simulating it pretty difficult. You could probably get "Close Enough", of course.
5) Hmm...
a) Nope, there are more important things to me.
b) This ones pretty nice, though.
6) Yeah, this sounds pretty good. Though it won't be immortality unless you figure out how to beat entropy, which is likely impossible. But another couple hundred years sounds pretty nice.
Angle: what I find important is myself and mine. Go out of your way to help those you can, and don't obstruct those you can't. I base morality on what is good for myself- my reputation, my memory, and my self-image.
Yeah, I do this too, and it forms the center of my considerations. But I care about other people and wish them to do well. I suppose really, it comes down to the fact that I'm really greedy - I want not only my own happiness, but everyone elses as well.
Post by: i2amroy on April 07, 2015, 04:04:00 pm
6) There's several ways/theories that you could get around entropy even if you can't beat it. For example if the universe is truly infinite we could "offload" our entropy from a finite portion of it onto the rest of infinity to allow that finite portion to run for an infinite amount of time. Or if it turns out that multiple universes exist we could start cracking them like eggs to suck their juicy entropy. :P
Post by: TD1 on April 07, 2015, 04:05:56 pm
Edit: put the question mark on the end by accident.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 07, 2015, 04:07:28 pm
And I like to think that, in the same way my consciousness is constant despite my body constantly exchanging molecules, it'll continue to exist after my body dies. Logically I probably won't remember anything, since memory is a function of the brain. My consciousness might become someone else in a different time, or I might persist as a 0-energy being simply observing all of space and time forever. Maybe even as one of those fairies who only have short-term memory.
Though that might just be the primal instincts in my body shouting "ABOVE ALL ELSE, WE MUST NEVER DIE". Even though I've certainly considered quitting, but decided to let things play out first.
Post by: TD1 on April 07, 2015, 04:13:24 pm
Post by: Descan on April 07, 2015, 04:37:30 pm
I'm sure tapeworms are very interesting if you study them.Maybe but they aren't exactly indicative of a human-centered universe :P
Post by: Descan on April 07, 2015, 04:46:47 pm
Also that every independent mind is important and we should allow each and every one to flourish as much as it wants to, and live as long as it wants to.
Also truth justice yada yada.
Side-note: I'd much rather it be actually-me running around and living forever, not some jackass clone or copy that thinks it's me. I'm not about to tear my brain apart to give a computer a sense of humour, so I'll stick with continuity forms of immortality, like gradual neuron replacement or data-storage grafting.
Post by: TD1 on April 07, 2015, 05:11:13 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 07, 2015, 05:14:51 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 07, 2015, 05:20:54 pm
Leprosy would be, though! It completely adapted to being human-only, like, a few million years back or somethin'. Been parasiting on humans so long it literally can't effect other stuff anymore (though it'll ride on a few things, iirc.).I'm sure tapeworms are very interesting if you study them.Maybe but they aren't exactly indicative of a human-centered universe :P
... as for the morality thing, "An' it harm none, do what you will" is more or less the foundation of my moral theory -- I evaluate good or bad on a personal level by whether and to what degree it causes harm. If it doesn't, I give literally zero damns. If it does no more harm than other, generally accepted actions, damns equally not given. And the harm actually has to be observable and communicable (at least theoretically, if nothing else). Which is to say I don't really get along very well with most religion based morality :V
Is where about a quarter of the irreligion comes from. It's hard to convince me something is wrong without showing me how it's wrong, and if all the negatives have been ground under the dust by several centuries of scientific and medical advances, well. Eat pigs, we've fixed the issues there as much as we have with most any meat. Sodomize anything that's willing, medical science has fixed potential medical issues, there. Wear mixed fabrics, we don't need bullshit tribal markers anymore. Etc., so forth, so on. Maybe hold off on the slavery and killing and whatnot, though. Keep the good stuff! Just... not the rest.
Metaphysics and whatnot, well, I think they're pretty. Really pretty. Also mostly (not entirely, but mostly) useless -- the exact nature of the universe is mostly irrelevant, since we're entirely limited by physical constraints (which may or may not be an illusion, but there's no way of actually telling and how you should act in any given situation is completely uneffected by whether it is or isn't, so...) in how we observe and interact with whatever's there.
A world with or without gods appears the same to us. With or without souls, with or without an actual physical reality, with or without an afterlife or reincarnation, with or without objective morality, or free will, or whatever. The list just kind of spreads on into comprehensiveness. Metaphysics is important and useful strictly to the extent it influences actual action.
Which, to be fair, is not an entirely unnotable amount -- as one of my professors liked to say, "metaphysics precedes ethics." The structure of the latter will be mostly determined by the structure of the former. BS like the just world nonsense a lot of religious theologies encourage would be an example of a negative effect. Stuff like charitable giving/good works and whatnot would be an example of a positive! Just wish more joints in the states actually did that charitably instead of janking it right back into the churches.
Totes okay with giving jackass computers a sense of humor with a me-clone, though. Continuity would be nice, but an infinite chain of frumples going on into perpetuity would be pretty alright, too, even if the first one is dead and gone. Also forks. Forking frumples everywhere. Millions of forked mes, doing all the things a forking horde can. If the future is forking forever, I would be as happy as a forked frumple can be.
A question for the atheists: If you had the option of an afterlife, would you take it?I would, actually. It would give the potential of enacting revenge upon the divine for the millions of years of suffering their shoddy engineering has inflicted on my species. If an eternity of torture meant just one chance to stab a bastard responsible for the state of the world in their equivalent to an eye, I'd take it. That's worth it, to me.
I don't think an afterlife exists, and I think if it did, it would make no difference to how I should act while living (at least without a means of intercommunication, anyway). But I hope it does, because I've got a list of conceptual entities in the back of my head I want to spend an eternity kicking in their equivalent of reproductive organs. One kick for every ill they've allowed fall upon my people.
Post by: TD1 on April 07, 2015, 05:49:15 pm
A question for the atheists: If you had the option of an afterlife, would you take it?Yes. Under the provision that I stay me, and am not made differently. It would prove Nietzsche's slabe morality all too true.
Really, what I want is an after life without the God. I don't know him- he is a stranger people speak of in veiled words. No. I am happy here without him. The after lige, too, would be happy without him.
Edit: ignore spelling mistakes. Using phone still. Very annoying.
Oh, may as well say that this is all irrelevant. Iv wishes were horses, blind men would ride.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 07, 2015, 05:59:30 pm
A question for the atheists: If you had the option of an afterlife, would you take it?Without any qualifications? Hell no. Eternity has an infinite capacity to be horrible. Heck, eternity is arguably guaranteed to be horrible without some sort of memory-erasing provision. Though it's probably fine as long as enough interesting things are happening.
Non-existence, on the other hand, is theoretically absolutely fine. My instincts don't agree, but they literally evolved to persist at any cost.
I appreciate religions (like the Jews) which are content to consign non-believers to nonexistence. I feel like Christianity raised the stakes to serve its own recruiting efforts. In an ironically evolutionary way.
Though I do really want to observe existence forever, with the ability to forget things. I can't think of a better afterlife, and it seems fair since I wouldn't have to exist in a meaningful sense. So I guess I want to be a ghost (despite being somewhat scared of them).
Edit: Typo'd "wouldn't" into "would". Wow, "would" looks super weird now that I'm thinking about it.
Post by: Helgoland on April 07, 2015, 06:04:21 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 07, 2015, 06:12:09 pm
Post by: Helgoland on April 07, 2015, 06:18:17 pm
Post by: lemon10 on April 07, 2015, 06:19:29 pm
3b) Because no non-physically defined parts exist, a "god" can therefore not exist.It depends what you mean by "god". If you mean "Naturally occurring metaphysical being with magical powers" (as nearly every god described in religions are), then I agree.
If by god you mean: "Super powerful (functionally) immortal being/construct capable of doing things (functionally) indistinguishable from magic powers", then I strongly disagree, as such a being is very possible (and probably exists somewhere in the universe). This could include a being powerful/knowledgeable enough to create a universe, which would pretty much make it a god by definition.
A question for the atheists: If you had the option of an afterlife, would you take it?Probably. If I had to choose if I wanted a afterlife or not (without any qualifiers), I would probably say yes after some thought, even though there would be the possibility of some really nasty outcomes.
I appreciate religions (like the Jews) which are content to consign non-believers to nonexistence. I feel like Christianity raised the stakes to serve its own recruiting efforts. In an ironically evolutionary way.Yeah, the concept of hell is one of the strongest points of the Christian religion. It makes the path that results in the most converts the most moral path, no matter what other costs it has (even if it results in deaths and torture). Without it the religion would have been far less effective.
E: I don't think it was designed it that way in order to get converts though, I think Jesus simply taught it as part of the dogma, and it just happened to end up hugely improving the conversion power of Christianity.
Post by: Angle on April 07, 2015, 06:23:35 pm
A question for the atheists: If you had the option of an afterlife, would you take it?
Depends on the details.
Question for everybody: Do you think that humanity as a whole needs a collective mythos?
Define "Mythos".
Post by: XXXXYYYY on April 07, 2015, 06:24:42 pm
A question for the atheists: If you had the option of an afterlife, would you take it?Honestly, it depends for me. An afterlife of tinkering and observing the universe/the systems I make tick by? I'd take it, if I had the ability to enter oblivion at any time. At my core, I think that tinkering and observing's really what I want to do anyway, afterlife or not.
If it didn't have that option, I don't really think so. I love to watch things change and evolve, but eternity is a long, long time.
Post by: TD1 on April 07, 2015, 06:31:20 pm
Question for everybody: Do you think that humanity as a whole needs a collective mythos?No. Doesn't need it. Shouldn't have it. With one mythos, people would become deluded that it is true. It would cause cultural and intellectual stagnation by discouraging thought.
No doubt you'd like Catholicism to be Catholic in more than just name, but it would be the death of intellectual discourse.
Post by: lemon10 on April 07, 2015, 06:32:18 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 07, 2015, 06:41:40 pm
I suspect that an afterlife wouldn't last for eternity though. Its fundamentally not how this universe works, and I see no reason that another would be so fundamentally different. That isn't to say that there wouldn't be the very real possibility it would last for thousands/millions/billions of years, but I'm of the very strong opinion, that if there was an afterlife, it wouldn't last for eternity.Could the afterlife occur in a different universe? Where things last forever?
Post by: Bohandas on April 07, 2015, 06:43:31 pm
Question for everybody: Do you think that humanity as a whole needs a collective mythos?
I can't imagine why it would.
Especially not one that people actually believed in. I mean, I can see the value in some mythoses (mythoi?) being familiar the world over, so that filmmakers can dispense with some of the exposition in movies about Thor or Hercules and get straight to the action, but I can't imagine that we'd need a world wide belief system, or any belief system for that matter.
EDIT:
It is my sincere hope that today's major belief systems will, in the future, exist in the same position of being primarily of interest to to writers of movies and comicbooks in need of quick plots and characters.
Post by: Descan on April 07, 2015, 06:46:29 pm
But the universe doesn't have a personality, obviously, so saying you want to 'dick it back' is nonsensical- the universe just is. Neither good nor bad, but with aspects that we perceive to be good or bad.I feel you are taking my wording far too seriously.
Post by: Angle on April 07, 2015, 06:49:47 pm
Could the afterlife occur in a different universe? Where things last forever?
Theoretically, sure. The point I'd make, though, is that given enough time, you would no longer be you. Things change, including people, and given enough time, they become unrecognizable. Once you've lived a trillion trillion years, learned everything there is to know human history, dreamt of everything, loved everything, hated everything, come to know every other human being, climbed every mountain, every tree, walked every inch that ever was and ever will be, you won't recognize yourself.
As for my morality, it's based on "We're all each other's got, just us against the universe." Universe is a dick, and it's my job to dick it right back, and make it service humans.
...And now I'm imagining porn of this. THANKS DESCAN
Post by: Descan on April 07, 2015, 06:54:18 pm
/me vibrates away!
Also, I might not be the me I am now, but neither am I the me I was when I was a wee babe, so like... What of it?
Post by: Bohandas on April 07, 2015, 06:54:38 pm
3b) Because no non-physically defined parts exist, a "god" can therefore not exist.It depends what you mean by "god". If you mean "Naturally occurring metaphysical being with magical powers" (as nearly every god described in religions are), then I agree.
If by god you mean: "Super powerful (functionally) immortal being/construct capable of doing things (functionally) indistinguishable from magic powers", then I strongly disagree, as such a being is very possible (and probably exists somewhere in the universe).
It's certainly possible to make lightning bolts with a Tesla coil.
EDIT:
and Fracking can cause earthquakes
and comparisons might be made between the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: lemon10 on April 07, 2015, 06:54:46 pm
It totally could. If you took away thermodynamics and replaced it with something else, you could indeed have a universe where things lasted forever. If you had the power to create universes it probably wouldn't even be particularly hard.I suspect that an afterlife wouldn't last for eternity though. Its fundamentally not how this universe works, and I see no reason that another would be so fundamentally different. That isn't to say that there wouldn't be the very real possibility it would last for thousands/millions/billions of years, but I'm of the very strong opinion, that if there was an afterlife, it wouldn't last for eternity.Could the afterlife occur in a different universe? Where things last forever?
I don't really see the point of making a universe where nothing changes and nothing can die (because if anything can die or change, then nothing will really last forever), but I see no reason for it to be impossible.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 07, 2015, 06:58:34 pm
Post by: Bohandas on April 07, 2015, 06:59:36 pm
Post by: Bohandas on April 07, 2015, 07:04:33 pm
A question for the atheists: If you had the option of an afterlife, would you take it?
Yes, absolutely. Death is scary. I mean, I'd prefer eternal nothingness over Hell, but I'm assuming you mean a positive or neutral afterlife.
Personally I'd even take Hell over nothing
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rolan7 on April 07, 2015, 07:05:05 pm
I think the governments of the United States and the People's Republic of China are the closest things to a deity on Earth.Hm. If we're stretching the definition that much, I'd nominate the *founding fathers* of the USA, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong Il, various others people of power, but primarily... Romulus and Remus.
Of course, with pantheons, we can include the many larger-than-life people who contributed to these lasting edifices of power. Like the Roman emperors, and various US presidents. Or at least, their idealized images.
Post by: Bohandas on April 07, 2015, 07:22:11 pm
I think the governments of the United States and the People's Republic of China are the closest things to a deity on Earth.Hm. If we're stretching the definition that much, I'd nominate the *founding fathers* of the USA, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong Il, various others people of power, but primarily... Romulus and Remus.
Of course, with pantheons, we can include the many larger-than-life people who contributed to these lasting edifices of power. Like the Roman emperors, and various US presidents. Or at least, their idealized images.
No, I mean that the organizations wield godlike power (especially in the form of the hydrogen bomb, but also many other things as well) and (precisely because they are NOT specific individual humans) are immortal unless destroyed, and their intervention in the greater politics of the world is reminiscent of the stereotypical image of the gods using mortals and kingdoms as playing pieces in some great game.
EDIT:
Power and immortality are the defining traits of a god; fame and adulation are merely the defining traits of a celebrity, including even mediocre reality TV stars.
Post by: Frumple on April 07, 2015, 07:33:46 pm
"Heracles Inc. is now in business! Excuse us while we beat our subordinate companies to death in a fit of unthinking rage. Twelve decades of fines, coming right up!"
Seriously though, it's not so much specific governments as collective action in general. Most of the things attributed to gods are things we as a species are either capable of, will be in relatively short order, or are actively doing. Floods, plagues? Victory in war, great constructions? Near every miracle -- and definitely every miracle worth note -- is something mankind has already done, and what few aren't are within our technical capability either now or in the near future. And barring disaster, our capability to do so (technology, methodology, etc.) will remain indefinitely. Power, immortality (or at least immune to aging), right there.
It'd just be really expensive and kinda' pointless to turn someone in to a pillar of salt or somethin'. We could do it, via tiny machines or whatev',* there's just no reason to, 'cause it's stupid and cruel and wasteful and etc. The good stuff like small-scale geo-engineering, restoring sight to the blind, limbs to crippled, the dead to life, we already do (to varying degrees of effectiveness. Getting better on all fronts, though!).
*We might even be able to do it pretty quickly if you consider "turn in to" to be "spatially replace and render the former matter nonexistent". Just have to figure out how to shoot a lot of salt at someone really fast, which we could probably manage.
Post by: Bohandas on April 07, 2015, 07:40:33 pm
Three: What if the world actually had supernatural entities and phenomenon? Well, after we started understanding them, to the extent we can, they'd cease being supernatural and just become a natural part/effect of the universe, at least the parts we can see/feel/experience/measure. Everything else, we wouldn't even know we didn't know them; we'd think we had the whole puzzle. For all we know, electrons are the intrusions in our world of fairies dancing in another universe, but because we can only see, measure, feel, experience, the electron-part of this weird fairy-dance, we have no way of knowing that electrons are actually supernatural. They'd just be a "natural part of the universe" for us. Same as anything else supernatural. The intrusions, measurable effect on our world would just be a (seemingly whole) facet of our naturalistic universe, working in ways we can't really grok because we're missing a piece of the puzzle, but because we'd have no way of knowing we're missing something, we'd just assume it's a quirky mess. If it even is, it could look whole. The only way we'd know we're missing something big/supernatural, would be if an actual intelligent being were to communicate and say "Yo. You're missing something." and even then, depending on how they communicate, we could still miss it.
I like the way you think
Post by: TD1 on April 07, 2015, 09:08:29 pm
What do I, as an atheist, actually believe in regarding the universe?Same.
Well, I won't answer like everyone else with the whole "I believe in an objective universe" bit. If anything, the entire idea of something to believe in is... well, never actually in my mind. Sure, I might see a string of coincidences and put them together as "karma," but even that's very loose in how much I attribute to it. I just... don't really need to hold a belief in anything.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 07, 2015, 11:56:32 pm
Post by: Angle on April 07, 2015, 11:59:04 pm
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 08, 2015, 04:23:50 am
A question for the atheists: If you had the option of an afterlife, would you take it?The big question is: "Is there beer in the afterlife?"
...but seriously, no. I would reject any offer of resurrection, because whatever I'd be in the afterlife, it wouldn't be me. "I" am this particular human-shaped slice of space-time, and that's all there is to it.
EDIT:
I didn't mean I had active belief in the universe, I was just prompted to be introspective and that seemed like a good starting point. Religion and the nature of the universe rarely factor into my decision-making.
By "Believe in an objective universe", I mean that I think it exists, in much the same way I believe the computer I'm typing on exists."I strongly believe in the existence of the universe! No, I'm not crazy – I'm just doing philosophy!"
...something something Wittgenstein language-game.
Post by: Arx on April 08, 2015, 05:00:18 am
A question for the atheists: If you had the option of an afterlife, would you take it?The big question is: "Is there beer in the afterlife?"
...but seriously, no. I would reject any offer of resurrection, because whatever I'd be in the afterlife, it wouldn't be me. "I" am this particular human-shaped slice of space-time, and that's all there is to it.
Out of curiosity, does that mean that you believe your self terminates every time you lose consciousness?
Post by: TD1 on April 08, 2015, 07:40:37 am
Post by: Bohandas on April 08, 2015, 09:18:46 am
I've never understood that line of reasoning - when, for example, you sleep you still dream.
Only during one stage of sleep
Post by: wierd on April 08, 2015, 09:44:57 am
This is because it is predicated on the notion that you cease being "you" when something intrinsic about that "you" changes. So, every time you learn something new, you cease being "You", and become that new, more knowing future you. Past you is dead.
I hold that this is an absurd position to take, and so consider the entire string or philosophical sophistry that is woven into that tapestry to be unworthy of consideration; it would require a universe without change to permit "you" to exist in that fashion in any meaningful way. The creator of the statement "died" at least a dozen times trying to write it!
:D
I define "myself" (as an abstract concept) as the evolving computational process that gives rise to my consciousness. That process can theoretically be simulated on any number of substrates, and perhaps even directly duplicated. As such, the idea of an "afterlife" is not outside the scope of rational consideration. In the intervening years between now and my eventual physical death, technology to permit the continuation of that process artificially on new substrates may come to exist-- At which point, a genuine, physical "afterlife" (a life after physical death) would be real and tangible. Further, even further down the road in the future, it may be possible to collect a state-sample from processes that have already terminated. (Time is not as fixed as some people believe it to be, but causality does indeed seem to hold sway here. Since these processes did indeed exist, the effects they had on their local environment may be sufficient to reconstitute them perfectly later. Say for instance, a post-mortem connective scan of their brains, ran through a reconstructive computer program, then fed into the afterlife simulation. Even further down the line, who knows what the future may hold there.) The "supernatural" kind of afterlife is basically the same kind of thing, just where the simulation is being run on a substrate that is outside the makeup of the physical universe, and due to this outside nature, is able to sample the processes it allows to continue non-destructively, continually, and just allows them to continue past death on the new substrate.
Since I have no way of proving nor disproving that such a modality of existence is possible or impossible, I cannot make a value determination either for or against. That is why I am agnostic, and not theistic or atheistic.
Post by: TD1 on April 08, 2015, 10:09:16 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 08, 2015, 10:53:51 am
Post by: Frumple on April 08, 2015, 11:11:19 am
I feel like people give more significance to certain things solely because they're valued by other people.Annnd... fixed.
Of course people give more significance to things a lot of other people value, for several different reasons. That's not a phenomena unique to religion, agnostics, or unverifiable things.
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 08, 2015, 11:12:15 am
That does not necessarily follow from what I said above. In my opinion, the self is neither consciousness, nor the abstract, disembodied pattern of my atoms, and certainly not a supernatural "ghost in the machine." If there is any such thing as "I," it is this particular physical phenomenon, extending all the way from the womb to the grave. (And such things as "consciousness" and "personality" are nothing but epiphenomenal trinkets.)A question for the atheists: If you had the option of an afterlife, would you take it?The big question is: "Is there beer in the afterlife?"
...but seriously, no. I would reject any offer of resurrection, because whatever I'd be in the afterlife, it wouldn't be me. "I" am this particular human-shaped slice of space-time, and that's all there is to it.
Out of curiosity, does that mean that you believe your self terminates every time you lose consciousness?
Post by: Arx on April 08, 2015, 11:14:03 am
Post by: Frumple on April 08, 2015, 11:22:28 am
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 08, 2015, 11:23:24 am
Why shouldn't it?This.
EDIT:
But why should it have to end at the grave?Because that's what I am by definition, like I said above.
Post by: Arx on April 08, 2015, 11:25:01 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 08, 2015, 11:28:13 am
Post by: Rolan7 on April 08, 2015, 11:28:52 am
Which I generally agree with, though I do like to keep an open mind about currently-supernatural spirits. Despite the lack of evidence for their existence. As silly as it sounds, they *could* just be hiding. Ooor, they could be unable to exert any change on the world whatsoever. Which would mean ghost stories are all fake, but we still might keep going in a way after death. Just only able to at most, observe this world.
Post by: wierd on April 08, 2015, 11:31:40 am
"I am the physical manifestation of myself, because my physical manifestation is myself."
Basically.
Nevermind that the atoms in your body are not all that special. Over the course of your lifetime, you will have replaced basically ALL of them with new atoms. Yet your physical self persists, right? ;)
It is not the physical being's existence, it is the arrangement of the parts, and the process those parts are undergoing. Hence, my definition of self.
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 08, 2015, 11:34:07 am
Ah, we encounter the fundamental issue with trying to understand spirituality. It's a pretty good answer, though.I'm starting to think that we're encountering a fundamental clash between infinite and finite spirituality: Apollonian versus Dionysian, Eternal Life versus mono no aware. Very interesting. :)
Post by: Rolan7 on April 08, 2015, 11:35:40 am
The idea isn't that you're the hardware (the brain), it's that you're the software running on it. The software grows and changes too... and can get really broken in some cases... but I think it's fair to call it a single changing entity.
Post by: Arx on April 08, 2015, 11:37:52 am
Ah, we encounter the fundamental issue with trying to understand spirituality. It's a pretty good answer, though.I'm starting to think that we're encountering a fundamental clash between infinite and finite spirituality: Apollonian versus Dionysian, Eternal Life versus mono no aware. Very interesting. :)
Well, I'm quite happy to accept that 'you' are a meat computer. I'm also quite happy to accept that the meat computer breaks down irreparably at a point. I just don't see why that means the data is irretrievable, and the data is almost the entirety of how I define the self.
So yeah, probably some kind of clash at the basic level.
Post by: wierd on April 08, 2015, 11:45:58 am
In this case, replacing the parts over time has no net negative effect on the person, because the "person" is not the physical body per se-- but is instead the process being hosted by that physical body.
The issue gets further complicated however. Let us look at a more easily examined system of similar ontological nature: A personal computer.
Over the years, a person builds a home-built computer from modular parts. As parts fail, they replace them. One of the parts to fail is the hard disk. Prior to cycling it out, they copy all the data off of it. The ontological question now is, did the old data get discarded with the dead HDD, or was the data salvaged from it? ;)
I hold that the question is moot, because in the case of the human body, such copying happens anyway, as the physical atoms are replaced one by one over the person's lifetime.
To continue the computer analogy, we could say that the process supporting human conciousness may operate like a RAID array. As a part of normal operation, parts are swapped out with new ones, and old discarded, and data is recovered internally automatically. That way the organization of the "RAID array" remains constant, even though the data inside, and the drives that make it up, are both "lost" under some notions of ontological origin, and are just replacement parts and copies. Now, we can "fail" drives on the raid array sequentially, and drop in new drives to replace them, and rebuild the array from the parity data. The Raid array will do what it does naturally, and repair the array with the new parts, and continue to serve data as long as you stay under the threshold of replaced parts before parity is unable to reconstitute the array's contents. You can then have drives from each bay in the array that you have swapped out and rebuilt. You can take all those "failed" disks, and pop them into another raid controller, and tell it to resynchronize. You now have a complete copy of the array, on another controller.
There is nothing magically special about a human's conciousness, any more than the data on the raid array. There is nothing special about the physical body of a human, any more than the drives that make up the raid array. Both can be replaced and duplicated within the realm of reasonable justification.
I exist as the currently instantiated process that gives rise to my conciousness. That process can be seamlessly transferred to another substrate through incremental replacement, just as the data on a raid array can be. That process can likewise also be copied onto a new substrate directly while retaining the original, just like with the raid array. I am not magical.
Post by: TD1 on April 08, 2015, 11:59:13 am
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 08, 2015, 12:05:09 pm
It is not the physical being's existence, it is the arrangement of the parts, and the process those parts are undergoing. Hence, my definition of self.Your definition of self is identical to mine, but I'm taking issue with the idea that the "arrangement of parts" is separable from the parts themselves. The concepts of "pattern" and "simulation" sound somewhat incoherent whenever we are talking about reproducing reality (I am real, am I not?): Where does my pattern end and another pattern begin? How does one "read" a constantly shifting and changing pattern? If my pattern is imprinted upon matter, and matter is curvature of space-time, how does one simulate matter without simulating space-time itself? You could easily produce a functional equivalent of me with a few lines of BASIC (something like: "IF Sirquiamu$ = "Thirsty" THEN GOTO BEER"), but what would it take to accurately reproduce this phenomenon that extends temporally and dimensionally across this small slice of reality? You would almost need another universe for that...
Post by: wierd on April 08, 2015, 12:10:01 pm
Further, since the body itself is replacing essentially the entire physical makeup of itself over the course of the human's total lifespan, some mechanism of retention MUST be possible, or people would not be able to exist at all as they currently do.
It is thus not logical nor rational to hold that the data cannot be salvaged, either through incremental sampling, or through post mortem reconstruction.
Surqimus: The basic idea I see for a "Supernatural" afterlife goes a bit like this:
Supernatural actor ("god") decides that he wants to retain the unique pattern of "Surqimus". It does this by examining the entire timeline structure of "Surquimus", from inception to death, (Since being outside space and time, this actor can examine the entire process statically), then "continues" the processing where it was halted, on a new substrate. Take for instance, playing a video game inside an emulator. You make a savestate. You then pick up exactly where you left off by loading the rom, loading the savestate, and continuing execution.
You are arguing that the reloaded process will not be you, because "magic ontological silly". Basically.
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 08, 2015, 12:51:51 pm
You are arguing that the reloaded process will not be you, because "magic ontological silly". Basically.But in a non-technical sense, the reloaded process would not be "me," but "Surquiamos II," because my life already ended, and the back-up copy would remember the moment of his death. The only way to "continue the saved game" would be to modify my memories or reload the entire universe, and that's clearly out of the question.
...I guess it's more about personal preferences than logical possibility, but I don't see how saying that 'Copy of A' is not 'A' can be considered a cranky ontological commitment. If you make an atom-by-atom copy of someone, they will initially be exactly the same person: They will do and say exactly the same things in an uncanny fashion – but only for a time. Initially, either one of them may disappear without anyone noticing a thing, but what about after ten years, or fifty? They will no longer occupy the same space, they will see different things while looking in the same direction. When they are situated in different environments, they will lead different lives and eventually become different people. It's like copying your DF folder and building two completely different forts: Which one is the original? Does it matter? – they are no longer the same.
EDIT: We are both saying that the self is a unique pattern imprinted upon space-time, is that correct? I am saying that the pattern is magically irreproducible, while you are saying that the pattern can be magically reproduced without creating another unique instance of the pattern? (How is the latter possible without compromising the assumed uniqueness?)
In any case, we are both relying on such untenable concepts as "sameness" and "uniqueness," so the discussion has been irredeemably magical from the get-go.
Post by: Arx on April 08, 2015, 01:04:27 pm
But in a non-technical sense, the reloaded process would not be "me," but "Surquiamos II," because my life already ended, and the back-up copy would remember the moment of his death. The only way to "continue the saved game" would be to modify my memories or reload the entire universe, and that's clearly out of the question.
So would the memory of your death be what causes the exact copy of you exactly as you were to no longer be you? And I would say it's more comparable to building a fort, copying your DF folder, and then continuing to build the fort. Is the copy of the fort somehow no longer the same fort?
Post by: Descan on April 08, 2015, 01:15:35 pm
I've never understood that line of reasoning - when, for example, you sleep you still dream. When the conscious is out of it, the subconscious takes over. It's not you, precisely, but it is a part of you.Aye. For me, "me"-ness comes from two things: The physical substrate, and that substrate being connected temporally to previous substrates that still held "me" in them. Right now, that's neural cells of all types, and it's continuous by virtue of being more-or-less the same cells as since I was born, talking to each other continually over time. (The wording is a little wonky, I'm not a dualist, so the substrate IS me. However, I don't feel I need this specific substrate in order to continue being me.)
My goal is to replace that substrate over a period of time so as to maintain that continuity of substrate. One day those neurons will start talking to a hard-drive of sorts, or a robo-neuron, or a more durable biological neuron, or nano-bots/particles of some kind. Eventually, those neo-neurons will make up all the substrate, with no more neurons floating around, getting old and dying and alzheim'ing it up. But because there is a chain of connection to each previous substrate state (100% human-neuron, 90%, 80%, etc, etc) it would continue to BE me. I could feel confident that the person typing this right now, in-so-far as they were the same person who was born in '93 and is the same person who first started the whole neuron-replacement process, would be the same person who popped out in the end as a wholly-immortal being. (in-so-far as it's possible; even if we can't beat this entropic universe in the end, I'm not going to forego a few trillion more years of life even if I can't *be immortal* entirely. Maybe I have to die sometime, but I want to put it off for a few eons, and just because I can't put it off forever doesn't mean I'll say "fuck it!" and settle for only 80 years)
@Wierd: I take some issue with "There is nothing magically special about a human's conciousness, any more than the data on the raid array." There's not magic about it, but I can pretty much verify (from my POV at least) that there is SOMETHING about human consciousness that's different: The "I"-ness. For all I know, the data does have a self-reflecting portion. Not sure how, but sure, whatever. But I DO know that I do have that part, and it's that part I would like to retain, and that I feel is destroyed (and perhaps recreated, but with a different "I") if you just do the whole "scan the body and re-create the connections elsewhere" style upload.
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 08, 2015, 01:45:13 pm
Since you put it that way, I guess that's what I'm saying. (I'm not entirely sure myself, but this is interesting.But in a non-technical sense, the reloaded process would not be "me," but "Surquiamos II," because my life already ended, and the back-up copy would remember the moment of his death. The only way to "continue the saved game" would be to modify my memories or reload the entire universe, and that's clearly out of the question.
So would the memory of your death be what causes the exact copy of you exactly as you were to no longer be you? And I would say it's more comparable to building a fort, copying your DF folder, and then continuing to build the fort. Is the copy of the fort somehow no longer the same fort?
See, when my fort falls to the zombie apocalypse and my dwarves are strangled by animated donkey hair, I can always savescum and build better defences, but I will never again see that particular scene of precious, tragic Fun. So yeah, it's no longer the "same" fort.
Post by: Arx on April 08, 2015, 01:51:09 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 08, 2015, 01:55:17 pm
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 08, 2015, 02:09:57 pm
Ah. I suspect the critical difference here is that I see no need to savescum in order to resurrect the fort. Does that sound about right to you?I'm sure that's theologically correct, but it makes no sense to me. :D
...Anyway, I find it easier to understand Descan's scifi-fantasy, rather than the whole simulation-thing. My deepest conviction is that consciousness is a by-product of the substrate itself, but the pattern-simulation-approach sounds like an attempt to reproduce the by-product while discarding the thing itself – like hand-crafting a series of DF screenshots with Mspaint. Isn't the abstract, disembodied pattern rather similar to what Christians have traditionally called the "soul?" Something that magically persists after the thing is gone?
Post by: Frumple on April 08, 2015, 02:14:20 pm
It holds the same information, but it's just not the same.... well, the binding wouldn't be. The book itself would still be the same thing, unless your ratty old one had pages missing or somethin'.
It's not what I'd call a good comparison. Binding doesn't really have a substantiative effect on a book -- one's as good as another, generally, and incidental affectation for a particular binding is more human insanity than anything meaningful. Human body on the other hand has a very substantiative effect on how we store, process, and recall information. You take the information in one body and stick it in another and it's not going to be the same information, because the new container will literally cause the information to change.
Post by: wierd on April 08, 2015, 02:14:34 pm
Edit:
Actual quotation from KJV genesis 2:7
Quote
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
So, a spirit is the abstract "data" of the person, The body is the physical substrate, and the "soul" is the unity of the two, as best I have been able to determine. More populist interpretations make "spirit" and "soul" interchangeable however.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 08, 2015, 02:17:20 pm
I believe the actual biblical reference is "God breathed the breath of life into it (the clay form of man), and he became a living soul." Or something akin to that.That is correct.
So, a spirit is the abstract "data" of the person, The body is the physical substrate, and the "soul" is the unity of the two, as best I have been able to determine. More populist interpretations make "spirit" and "soul" interchangeable however.
But "spirit" and "soul" are not the same thing. Every human has a soul, but they receive the holy spirit once they believe. (ever since Pentecost)
Post by: Arx on April 08, 2015, 02:22:29 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 08, 2015, 02:22:47 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 08, 2015, 02:24:40 pm
'Spirit' and 'Holy Spirit' aren't the same thing either. There are unholy spirits, and possibly mundane ones. Whether people have spirits is an interesting but probably entirely academic question.I was referring to the spirit that is often confused with the soul. Should have clarified more.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 08, 2015, 02:25:34 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 08, 2015, 02:33:09 pm
I'm speaking less about the actual binding, more about sentimental value. Sure you could get a new book, but it wouldn't have the same feeling attached. You wouldn't acknowledge it as the same, though it holds the same information. Sure, you could get a new body, but....It holds the same information, but it's just not the same.... well, the binding wouldn't be. The book itself would still be the same thing, unless your ratty old one had pages missing or somethin'.
It's not what I'd call a good comparison. Binding doesn't really have a substantiative effect on a book -- one's as good as another, generally, and incidental affectation for a particular binding is more human insanity than anything meaningful. Human body on the other hand has a very substantiative effect on how we store, process, and recall information. You take the information in one body and stick it in another and it's not going to be the same information, because the new container will literally cause the information to change.
Post by: Descan on April 08, 2015, 02:34:33 pm
Descan's scifi-fantasy?
Post by: wierd on April 08, 2015, 02:36:37 pm
My neighbor lady has a below knee amputation. She is the same person as before, she just now has a prosthetic leg. A sufficiently high quality prosthetic (such as a cloned organ) would feel exactly the same as the original.
Post by: TD1 on April 08, 2015, 02:51:05 pm
The leg would not be seen as the same as the old one, IMO, but even if it were, a body is an entirely different thing. There is a sense of self associated with a whole body that is not associated with limbs.
Post by: Angle on April 11, 2015, 12:33:45 am
Post by: Arx on April 11, 2015, 01:48:22 am
It's a much more sane model of atheist spirituality than most I can remember.
Of course, I disagree with significant portions of his representation of 'science' and 'spirituality', but I've never seen a thing like that made by an atheist that I have agreed with. It doesn't help that since he's proud of not having studied the Torah, he's unlikely to have fact checked the various holy books before writing it up.
Post by: i2amroy on April 11, 2015, 01:57:46 am
That said I think his "religion" and a variety of other similar religions (like Buddhism) miss something. They seek to silence your mind, to quiet the "animals" that he speaks of and deny them any control over the body. But they miss that it's those same animals that allow for the creation of art or music. While the howling of the monkeys in our brains might be distracting, it's that same howling that occasionally takes two random sounds and puts them together to form a new word. We should know how to silence the monkeys, but the end goal shouldn't be to silence them totally, but should rather be to control them. Studies in people with brain damage have shown that without emotions, without those animals there to help guide you, people end up spending hours trying to decide what type of chips to buy at the grocery store. Like it or not we need those animals, and without them we look only at a world devoid of art, devoid of passion, and where even simple decisions paralyze us. They shouldn't control us nor cloud our perceptions, but it's important to recognize that the end goal is not to evict them.
(Just my two cents. To be honest when I started this post it looked nothing like this, but this is how it turned out so here it is. :P)
Post by: Angle on April 11, 2015, 02:01:23 am
Eh. I agree with him on most of it, except that I have a massively different impression of his 'step 3'. At that point, I tend more towards thinking things like 'why am I even out shopping?' 'It would make no difference in the long run if I were to stab this cashier.' and 'In the long run, there's no reason I can't just walk out of here with the stuff now.'
Make no difference in the long run to who? I'd feel bad if I stabbed the cashier, and I bet you would too. This is a common thing I see - people come to understand that the universe is vast and cold and doesn't care about them at all, and that in the end it will kill them and destroy everything they've ever loved, and they get all sad about it. But in my opinion, it doesn't really matter, or perhaps it even makes things more worth doing, more worth trying. To put it simply, life is like dwarf fortress - there's no win condition and lot's of ways to lose. But it's still worth playing. Losing is fun!
-snip-
Yeah, I definitely agree there - we should seek to integrate our various bits and get the best of both worlds.
Anyway, I'm super tired and kinda incoherent, so I'll try again in the morning. Good night everyone!
Post by: Arx on April 11, 2015, 02:08:27 am
Eh. I agree with him on most of it, except that I have a massively different impression of his 'step 3'. At that point, I tend more towards thinking things like 'why am I even out shopping?' 'It would make no difference in the long run if I were to stab this cashier.' and 'In the long run, there's no reason I can't just walk out of here with the stuff now.'
Make no difference in the long run to who? I'd feel bad if I stabbed the cashier, and I bet you would too.
In the long run? Nothing matters to anything (except possibly God). The universe doesn't care, and when I'm thinking in terms of the universe, neither do I. I'm sufficiently well-grounded in reality that I don't stab anyone, because I'm academically aware that I would regret it later (also, because of religion), but in the long run, in the absence of God (hypothetically), it would make no difference.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 11, 2015, 02:42:25 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 11, 2015, 02:59:26 am
To many atheists, myself included, it is a terrifying notion that many theists honestly hold that they would be killing, raping and stealing if it were not for their god, or that the only reason they do not is to please their god in some way in order to be rewarded or to avoid punishment. One could argue that if that is the only thing keeping you on the "good track", you are not actually a "good person", at east in comparison to someone who does the right thing as they know it is the right thing to do independent of any supernatural "influence".
Post by: Bohandas on April 11, 2015, 03:07:47 am
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 11, 2015, 07:17:43 am
BEHOLD, MORTALS! SPIRITUALITY! (http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/how-religion-got-in-the-way.html)
Quote
What I missed at the time is that “atheist” isn’t something. It’s just “not something.” By declaring myself an atheist and calling it a day, I was basing my whole spiritual identity on what I wasn’t.Duh.
The next article is a bit more problematic.
Quote
When the small-minded animal emotions are less in our face, the more advanced emotions of the Higher Being—love, compassion, humility, empathy, etc.—begin to light up.As far as we can tell, non-human mammals are perfectly capable of all those "higher" emotions, or at least their non-linguistic analogues. Furthermore, if you think that spirituality is all about sublime and eternal non-things like Truth, your belief system is not all that different from any traditional religion.
Post by: Angle on April 11, 2015, 12:46:01 pm
In the long run? Nothing matters to anything (except possibly God). The universe doesn't care, and when I'm thinking in terms of the universe, neither do I. I'm sufficiently well-grounded in reality that I don't stab anyone, because I'm academically aware that I would regret it later (also, because of religion), but in the long run, in the absence of God (hypothetically), it would make no difference.
But remember, "mattering" is subjective. I still care about things, even once I've thought in terms of the universe. In fact, I find it extremely helpful for clearing out all the small minded pettiness and stupidity. For example, when I'm worried about things like petty slights or disagreements and such, thinking "In all the vast immensity of space and time, does this really matter to me? Mmmmmm... Nope." Is a great way to metaphorically clear your head. But some things, like for example, the simple pleasure of going for a walk on a sunny, rainy day, DO still matter to me. The universe may be vast and timeless, and my existence may be short and unnoticeable, but that walk in the sun and rain was still beautiful, no matter how big the universe, no matter how endless the timescale!
Post by: Frumple on April 11, 2015, 01:01:11 pm
All of the major ones have that, some kind of way that action can have consequence or result indefinitely, either through heaven/hell, escape from the cycle of reincarnation, or whathaveyou. That we're more than just dust waiting to spread back out, that that sun isn't going to dim and go out, that the earth that rain falls on won't become barren, empty, or just outright gone, that there's going to be something after that walk in the sun, and that said walk is going to have some sort of influence on it.
And we're not, it is, there isn't, and it won't. Lot of people really don't like that, and find "it matters to me" insufficient for them. They've got (at least) two scales of what matters, and one of them mostly can't be fulfilled without the divine.
Post by: Angle on April 11, 2015, 01:10:50 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 11, 2015, 01:12:44 pm
E: Incidentally, if you start saying stuff about art being a bang, I'm going to throw rotten fruit at you. Just an fyi.
Post by: Angle on April 11, 2015, 01:13:36 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 11, 2015, 01:15:13 pm
Post by: Arx on April 11, 2015, 01:34:19 pm
Yeah, but it still seems silly to me. So what if everything turns to dust eventually? Life is still beautiful. If anything, it only gets more beautiful, knowing that it's so temporary.
See, that's the difference. I don't think life is beautiful. I partly don't like that guy's whole ~Higher Being~ thing because if I clear away the terrible, mind-clouding vestiges of my baser nature I can see nothing to take joy in. Life is no more special than anything else. If I don't think about it (regress deep into the fog, according to that guy) then yes, there is beauty. But objectively, nothing is worth anything. Dust we are, and to dust we inevitably return.
My personal life philosophy is not particularly cheerful with religion excluded.
Post by: TD1 on April 11, 2015, 02:59:46 pm
Post by: Arx on April 11, 2015, 03:15:57 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 11, 2015, 03:39:34 pm
Post by: Arx on April 11, 2015, 03:47:00 pm
The alternative interpretation of the mentally challenged person's lack of knowledge would be that it has no inherent worth, which is consistent with worth as only subjectively meaningful.
Also, everything having worth simply by being is equivalent to nothing having worth, since value is only meaninful as a comparison.
Post by: TD1 on April 11, 2015, 04:01:02 pm
Post by: Arx on April 11, 2015, 04:06:46 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 11, 2015, 04:11:50 pm
Post by: Arx on April 11, 2015, 04:21:17 pm
You know when I said we have a fairly basic clash?
Post by: TD1 on April 11, 2015, 04:25:32 pm
We are both right, and both wrong I guess. :P
Post by: Angle on April 11, 2015, 04:59:08 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 11, 2015, 05:04:45 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 11, 2015, 05:39:16 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 11, 2015, 05:46:02 pm
Post by: Angle on April 11, 2015, 06:09:54 pm
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 12, 2015, 04:16:59 pm
Post by: Ghills on April 15, 2015, 12:47:15 pm
It seems to me that the author is inappropriately conflating his mystical, absolute Truth with the provisional truths of scientific knowledge.
Yeah, that's an incredibly common mistake. I've seen a lot of variations on treating science as a religion that come from this basic problem. People hear 'scientific truth' or are told by teachers / parents that something is true, and never realize that the truth science can provide is very different from a religious truth. And that's without getting into the problems of bias and methodology that so many people gloss over.
Post by: TD1 on April 16, 2015, 02:03:09 pm
I dote on someone. They are my life and reason to live. I die, go to heaven. As he/she was all I wanted, I'm a bit bummed they're not there. Still I know they must die and join me. Until then, heaven isn't bliss.
When I die, they curse God or somesuch. For this impiety, they are cast into the fiery pits to forever reflect on how bad it was to say that thing that one time.
Given how my contentment is dependent on them, how is heaven heaven without them there?
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 16, 2015, 02:43:34 pm
Post by: Bohandas on April 16, 2015, 03:49:53 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 16, 2015, 04:27:39 pm
Don't forget, he knows what you're thinking, whether you've been bad or good. You'd better be good, for goodness' sake :P
Presumably someone in heaven would be amongst at least like minded people, and having God there to answer your questions might result in you sharing the sane ideology.
Though I do get your meaning about people you don't like I would guess the celestial plane would be big ebough to avoid them.
Unless you're waiting in Vardy's Jesus queue.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 16, 2015, 04:32:21 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 16, 2015, 04:39:59 pm
having God there to answer your questions might result in you sharing the sane ideologyBest typo.
Post by: TD1 on April 16, 2015, 04:45:04 pm
Heaven will be without sin, so you won't have any grudges or rivalries with anyone in there.Humans are one part virtue to ten parts sin. Take away the sin, you don't have humans. Ever read The Wheel of Time Series? If so, liken it to the example given were the Dark One to die.
Also, I am interested in your reply to this
To any heaven believers:
I dote on someone. They are my life and reason to live. I die, go to heaven. As he/she was all I wanted, I'm a bit bummed they're not there. Still I know they must die and join me. Until then, heaven isn't bliss.
When I die, they curse God or somesuch. For this impiety, they are cast into the fiery pits to forever reflect on how bad it was to say that thing that one time.
Given how my contentment is dependent on them, how is heaven heaven without them there?
Post by: Arx on April 16, 2015, 04:54:41 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 16, 2015, 04:56:20 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 16, 2015, 05:01:29 pm
Post by: Angle on April 16, 2015, 05:04:02 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 16, 2015, 05:04:59 pm
Post by: Arx on April 16, 2015, 05:06:10 pm
So basically you're so distracted by everything else that it's not that important to you anymore?
I understand having infinite sources of bliss or unending bliss, but I don't think he would give up on the free will as soon as you die and force you to be happy.
I don't recall that it actually says anywhere in the Bible that everyone will be super duper happy in heaven. Provided that I'm remembering correctly, you might in that case just not be as happy as the rest.
It also doesn't say anything about being unable to opt-out if you decide younve lived long enough.
Sure, but I assume that if you're positing god ad heaven, you're gonna throw free will in their too.
The illusion of, yes, but the existence of an OOO God automatically invalidates free will.
Post by: Frumple on April 16, 2015, 05:09:04 pm
That it's stripping free will is just... glossed over. That kind of, "Oh, but you won't want to be unhappy" sentiment, with little to no concern over why you won't. They care about free will in the denominations around here until they don't, more or less.
Or the whole line where if you're the kind of person that would be distressed by folks burning in hell or whatev', you don't get in.
How scripturally supported those positions are are... questionable. But that's (part of, anyway) how I hear it described by believers in this area.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 16, 2015, 05:09:53 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 16, 2015, 05:23:41 pm
Post by: Angle on April 16, 2015, 05:29:58 pm
The illusion of, yes, but the existence of an OOO God automatically invalidates free will.
Wait, aren't you chistian? I are confused.
Post by: i2amroy on April 16, 2015, 05:31:57 pm
Bay 12, the place where we can end up with nonreligious people arguing for religions and religious ones arguing against them. :PThe illusion of, yes, but the existence of an OOO God automatically invalidates free will.Wait, aren't you chistian? I are confused.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 16, 2015, 05:45:03 pm
Oh.... what?In this hypothetical we're clearly assuming Christianity is correct because it takes place with the Christian God in heaven. I'd assume various Christian ideas like free will are also true in this situation.
Free will isn't a Christian idea. Many churches hold to it, but there's little (depending on interpretation) Biblical basis for it, and as we've discussed to death, we can't reconcile an all-powerful God with free will in people.
It is impossible to explain to someone who has never experienced it. Heaven is the full presence of god. In heaven, everyone from every tongue and every nation will worship the lord. It sounds boring unless you realize how little that is compared to what God has done for you.For most people, it sounds like something out of 1984, but with fewer moustaches.
Post by: Angle on April 16, 2015, 05:47:58 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 16, 2015, 05:50:29 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 16, 2015, 06:09:04 pm
I knew that some Christians don't believe in free will, but I'm not sure how they solve the problem of evil. If God is all powerful, all knowing, *and* doesn't mind messing with our minds, then why doesn't he?
I talked to a Calvinist back in college who was upfront about God being wrathful and not particularly kind. Which (mostly) explains why he doesn't fix our problems, or do anything tangible to encourage belief. She didn't believe in free will either, some people are just destined to go to Hell. It was a rather creepy conversation because she seemed resigned to obey an unkind God on threat of Hell.
I mention this because her position seems like the most reasonable one if one believes in God, particularly if they don't believe in free will.
Post by: Magistrum on April 16, 2015, 06:12:23 pm
Now, I wouldn't like to make a big discussion, but god don't make everything bad go for reasons, guys.
Post by: TD1 on April 16, 2015, 06:20:15 pm
It is impossible to explain to someone who has never experienced it. Heaven is the full presence of god. In heaven, everyone from every tongue and every nation will worship the lord. It sounds boring unless you realize how little that is compared to what God has done for you.Does it say this in the Bible? I must admit to not having read the thing since sunday school. No horns have grown yet :P
Post by: i2amroy on April 16, 2015, 06:22:37 pm
If I recall my christian upbringing correctly then yeah, at least the every tongue and every nation part is. It's one of the more commonly appearing ideas and as a result it also shows up in a ton of christian music.It is impossible to explain to someone who has never experienced it. Heaven is the full presence of god. In heaven, everyone from every tongue and every nation will worship the lord. It sounds boring unless you realize how little that is compared to what God has done for you.Does it say this in the Bible? I must admit to not having read the thing since sunday school. No horns have grown yet :P
The heaven being the full presence of god thing, on the other hand, is one of those spots that tends to change depending on what exact denomination you are, etc. AFAIK.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 16, 2015, 06:56:18 pm
Interesting fact: Moses wanted to see God's face, but God only let him see the back of his head. Moses' face was still glowing hours later.
Post by: Bohandas on April 16, 2015, 06:58:19 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on April 16, 2015, 07:02:51 pm
God doesn't (usually) show his full presence to humans on the earth. If they saw his face, they would die. Once we are dead, though, we will go to heaven and be in all his glory forever.
Interesting fact: Moses wanted to see God's face, but God only let him see the back of his head. Moses' face was still glowing hours later.
What about Paul/Saul? He saw God (the Father) and Christ while alive.
Post by: Descan on April 16, 2015, 07:25:25 pm
And Jacob wrestled with the wriggler, too. If seeing supposed'ta kill you, what does piledriving the Lord do? :PGod doesn't (usually) show his full presence to humans on the earth. If they saw his face, they would die. Once we are dead, though, we will go to heaven and be in all his glory forever.
Interesting fact: Moses wanted to see God's face, but God only let him see the back of his head. Moses' face was still glowing hours later.
What about Paul/Saul? He saw God (the Father) and Christ while alive.
Also, here:
Quote from: Exodus 33:11
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
Quote from: Deuteronomy 34:10
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.
And there's a whole LIST of times everyone saw God face-to-face, here. Fair warning, it is a skeptics website, SAB. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html) But you either get a skeptics website or you get a christian website, there's no real third party these days.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 16, 2015, 07:46:26 pm
Alternatively, non-Christians can go with the old "it's nonsense" razor.
Post by: Bohandas on April 16, 2015, 07:57:21 pm
I suppose this is another instance of God being non-Euclidean geometry and beyond mortal ken.
Iä! Iä! Yah-Sabaoth!
Post by: Frumple on April 16, 2015, 08:03:51 pm
Alternately god's face violently extrudes some kind of paint. Some people drown in the paint, others come out with bioluminescent facepaint. Paint geyser face would be pretty incomprehensible to people back then.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 16, 2015, 08:17:22 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 16, 2015, 08:53:33 pm
God doesn't (usually) show his full presence to humans on the earth. If they saw his face, they would die. Once we are dead, though, we will go to heaven and be in all his glory forever.
Interesting fact: Moses wanted to see God's face, but God only let him see the back of his head. Moses' face was still glowing hours later.
What about Paul/Saul? He saw God (the Father) and Christ while alive.
This is the quote from the bible (Acts 9:3)
"As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”"
It doesn't sound like he saw God, just a light and a voice.
And Jacob wrestled with the wriggler, too. If seeing supposed'ta kill you, what does piledriving the Lord do? :PThis one is a bit strange, very hard to interperet it. After the struggle, Jacob says this: "So Jacob called the place Peniel,[g] saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”"
So perhaps God made an exception. I suppose the others could be exceptions too. Maybe with moses, the back of god's head counts as "face to face"
Post by: Arcvasti on April 16, 2015, 08:57:18 pm
Maybe with moses, the back of god's head counts as "face to face"
Maybe God has a face on the back of Their head?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 16, 2015, 09:04:57 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 16, 2015, 09:20:58 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 16, 2015, 09:41:10 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 16, 2015, 09:52:26 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 16, 2015, 10:02:21 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 16, 2015, 10:10:56 pm
Most of the angels are still monstrous though. Except when they're walking around in human form.
Post by: Frumple on April 16, 2015, 10:41:39 pm
It's fairly obvious the critter could take a monster form, though, I'd think. Or any form, really. Ascribing a set form to an omnipotent being is just kinda' silly.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 16, 2015, 10:43:33 pm
Post by: Bohandas on April 16, 2015, 10:46:29 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 16, 2015, 10:51:14 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 16, 2015, 10:52:56 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 16, 2015, 11:00:08 pm
The Father is not prescribed a physical form in that sense. With his interactions with the Jews, it was usually something along the lines of a pillar of fire, or a storm engulfing a mountain, or something similarly impressive.
Post by: wierd on April 16, 2015, 11:19:26 pm
For an analogy, let's say that we take the "stupid" way to make real, honest to goodness AI-- We slavishly emulate a humongous collection of neurons in software. This develops a "Mind", that is "In our image"-- but does the computer look ANYTHING at all like us? Hell no. It is simply patterned after our own mechanisms for achieving consciousness. (Further, the high-level emulation versions that would soon follow afterward that don't require slavish chemical interaction level simulations would STILL be patterned after our image, but would be EVEN FURTHER abstracted away from how we physically operate.)
The Hebrew god does not have a specifically ascribed physical form-- It is rather stated multitudinous times that the "Father" is a spiritual being, and that we humans were created out of flesh, while he himself is not. That's why the above "AI analogy" is apt. We are a completely different format from what this divine creator is composed from-- but SOMETHING about us is patterned after it. Given the rhetoric in the book or Revelation, and various other places in the bible about "Knowing him for you shall be like him" after achieving a spiritual form after the resurrection and judgment, it seems pretty obvious that the "ultimate" goal here is to turn humans into new "god lite" models, after beta-testing us in temporary organic shells, and running us through quality control. Basically.
The bible even goes so far as to outright say that the flesh is something that god does not desire, and is something that we wont be taking with us--- and that we actually need to willfully overcome the "temptations of the flesh" to pass said quality control testing.
The circumstantial evidence seems overwhelmingly against a literal "Hey! WE LOOK JUST LIKE GOD, LIKE, PHYSICALLY!!" type interpretation of that statement. However, some people just can't seem to let it go for some reason that I can't for the life of me fathom.
Post by: Arx on April 16, 2015, 11:35:08 pm
The illusion of, yes, but the existence of an OOO God automatically invalidates free will.
Wait, aren't you chistian? I are confused.
Yes, but that's not to say I have to deny the fairly obvious.
What is important is that our predetermined actions are chosen to match our choice in that situation exactly. It's impossible to differentiate from free will, but the existence of ahe omniscient God immediately casts te future in stone, so clearly it's not actually free will.
Post by: wierd on April 16, 2015, 11:43:31 pm
Maybe "God" is a Schroedinger's cat.
Exists in ALL possible states simultaneously, until observed. That's why nobody dares to observe him, and likewise, how he knows everything about everything, regardless of the chosen outcome.
(More amusing aside-- It was recently shown, in the past 3 years anyway-- that entangled particles somehow "know" they are going to be observed IN ADVANCE of being observed, even when that observation is genuinely done at random, using a physical source of randomness (http://www.livescience.com/19975-spooky-quantum-entanglement.html), implying some level of omniscience (or at least prescience) to such entangled particles.)
Post by: scrdest on April 17, 2015, 02:44:28 am
(hilariously amusing aside)Not quite that impossible - I recall in my catholic RS hearing that God is extratemporal, and musing just how eldritch such a being would seem to any human who actually thought about that for a while.
Maybe "God" is a Schroedinger's cat.
Exists in ALL possible states simultaneously, until observed. That's why nobody dares to observe him, and likewise, how he knows everything about everything, regardless of the chosen outcome.
(More amusing aside-- It was recently shown, in the past 3 years anyway-- that entangled particles somehow "know" they are going to be observed IN ADVANCE of being observed, even when that observation is genuinely done at random, using a physical source of randomness (http://www.livescience.com/19975-spooky-quantum-entanglement.html), implying some level of omniscience (or at least prescience) to such entangled particles.)
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 17, 2015, 05:47:30 am
Critter could have a thousand arms and legs and half-hundred heads and we'd still be "in its image". Could be florescent neon green, hair that extends miles, etc., etc., etc.
Maybe "God" is a Schroedinger's cat.
Not quite that impossible - I recall in my catholic RS hearing that God is extratemporal, and musing just how eldritch such a being would seem to any human who actually thought about that for a while.Obligatory. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSHOayOyi8)
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 17, 2015, 06:27:41 am
Obligatory. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSHOayOyi8)What did I just watch
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 19, 2015, 01:38:04 pm
Post by: Helgoland on April 19, 2015, 03:26:19 pm
Has this been mentioned yet? It's kind of a big deal...
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 19, 2015, 03:34:01 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 19, 2015, 03:39:59 pm
Pope Francis has declared an extraordinary Holy Year of Mercy. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11488971/Pope-Francis-calls-a-Holy-Year-just-in-the-nick-of-time.html).... That was all gibberish to me .-.
Has this been mentioned yet? It's kind of a big deal...
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 19, 2015, 03:45:46 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 19, 2015, 06:54:29 pm
Post by: Descan on April 19, 2015, 07:03:06 pm
Post by: Helgoland on April 19, 2015, 07:06:25 pm
Would that be equivilent to the Islamic requirment for a pilgrimage to Meca?Not at all - those pilgrimages are one of the five pillars of Islam, while the Holy Year is mostly fluff, to be honest.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 19, 2015, 07:14:47 pm
IIRC the reason for that pillar of Islam was because there were idols in the city and since Islam is against idols they needed some sort of compromise so people would still go to the city while still getting rid of the idols. Or something like that
Post by: Frumple on April 19, 2015, 07:16:19 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 19, 2015, 07:19:13 pm
Post by: Helgoland on April 19, 2015, 07:36:09 pm
Dude should declare a year of interpretive dance, such that all catholic politicians and religious figures can only communicate publicly through phat moves. That would be a good year.
Spoiler: And suddenly the Papal States rise again (click to show/hide)
Post by: Frumple on April 19, 2015, 07:43:32 pm
Post by: Bohandas on April 19, 2015, 07:58:22 pm
Obligatory. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSHOayOyi8)What did I just watch
It looks like a bad acid trip.
(I've also looked up a plot synopsis of the movie that this was from, and from the description it gives of the plot I get the impression that the film's writer may have indeed been on acid)
Post by: zchris13 on April 20, 2015, 12:27:06 am
This is what I believe.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 20, 2015, 12:44:24 am
One day Superman will descend from the skies and we will all join him in the sun, and a new age of superheroes will dawn.Just make sure you're not dizzy when that happens. :P
This is what I believe.
Post by: monkey on April 20, 2015, 09:36:20 am
Dude should declare a year of interpretive dance, such that all catholic politicians and religious figures can only communicate publicly through phat moves. That would be a good year.Spoiler: And suddenly the Papal States rise again (click to show/hide)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSHaVH9HhfI , these russian moves must be saying a lot then.
Post by: TD1 on April 20, 2015, 11:03:42 am
And a convenient tourism boost, let's not forget.Would that be equivilent to the Islamic requirment for a pilgrimage to Meca?Not at all - those pilgrimages are one of the five pillars of Islam, while the Holy Year is mostly fluff, to be honest.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 20, 2015, 01:38:52 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 21, 2015, 05:48:07 pm
To be fair, they kind of did blood rituals anyway.It's worse than that! Isaac wasn't the only human sacrifice God demanded, just the only one who was spared apparently.
((although I totally agree that the whole story is kinda scary))
Once again I'll be investigating a list compiled by skeptics, but I don't have time to go into as much detail as they did. Though as usual, they include questionable edge cases for completeness sake:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/human_sacrifice.html
Numbers 31:25-40 http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/31.html#25
Quote from: Numbers
31:25 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,Of note is that, as flipping usual, women are counted alongside cattle. Though that's hardly the worst part of what's happening here. God is explicitly commanding the Israelites to sacrifice human virgins to him, and there's no mention of this being out of the ordinary. It is simply done, alongside all the animal sacrifice. It really reads like captured women, like all the other property they get in all the many wars they wage, are perfectly normal sacrifices.
31:26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:
...
31:29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.
...
31:34 And threescore and one thousand asses,
31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
...
31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons.
31:41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was the LORD's heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses.
I don't know what to think of this one:
Quote from: Exodus 22
22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.I have trouble believing this means what it looks like it means. Even the livestock sacrifice seems like a ridiculously high tithe. I'm going to assume that it's being metaphorical regarding the Israelite sons. But it seems fairly explicit, weirdly.
22:30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.
Finally, here's one that's similar to Isaac's sacrifice except infinitely worse: Judges 11:29-40 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jg/11.html#29)
Too much to quote, so: God approaches Jephthah, who wants to conquer the Ammonites. In exchange for God's help, he promises to sacrifice the first thing that exits his doorway to greet him when he returns home (what the hell??). God finds this acceptable and helps Jephthah slaughter the Ammonites. 20 conquered cities later, the people of Ammon were subdued to Israel, so Jephthah goes home.
OH NO his daughter (and only child) rushes out to greet him!
Quote
11:35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back."Dammit girl this is all your fault"
"Oh, well, I guess you promised. But please let me... uh... go hang out in the mountains with my friends for a couple months. I promise I'll come back, I just need to bewail my virginity."
"Okay sounds reasonable"
*2 months later*
"Woah what, you actually came back? Uh okay... let's do this then."
"Alright. By the way, about my virginity - URK BLEH I AM DEAD"
"My daughter was definitely still a virgin if anybody asks!"
But yeah. Two months his daughter cries in the mountains, and God doesn't raise a single objection. Human sacrifice in exchange for victory in an offensive war: Bible approved.
Then of course there's Jesus himself, but we're all familiar with that sacrifice. It's obviously a special case, and removes the need for any further blood sacrifice. God is finally appeased permanently.
God does forbid human sacrifice a few times... but only to other Gods. In conclusion, the Bible supports blood sacrifice of humans and animals to appease God, and it is arguably the central theme of both testaments. In different ways.
Post by: UXLZ on April 21, 2015, 06:30:54 pm
Funny that with God being omniscient It knew exactly what that man's sacrifice would be... It knew it would be the daughter.
I still think the view of 'God' as being representative of the collective human consciousness (in this case, the barbarism of the olden times) is the most interesting interpretation.
Still though, taken literally it's internally consistent. In a universe where God as seemingly described exist there is literally nothing other than God that matters. If God thinks blood sacrifice is A-OK, then blood sacrifice is A-OK.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 21, 2015, 06:40:44 pm
It's consistent on the issue of blood sacrifice, yeah, but I think this sort of behavior does show inconsistency when compared to the New Testament. Since a lot of the NT claims that God is merciful, and loves us all, and isn't willing that any of us perish. Even if we accept that human sacrifice is "good", since God demands it, it still doesn't match the qualities he's given in the New Testament.
Post by: UXLZ on April 21, 2015, 07:03:50 pm
It just wants us to be sacrificed so we die and got to heaven and are closer to It. It's misunderstood and just wants to be loved, man... Or, something, I dunno.
Doesn't really matter, God can be as whimsical and as inconsistent as It wants and still be always right, always. (Because 'Utterly Perfect' and stuff. Of course, it's an Informed Attribute that conveniently let people hand wave any issues, but... *shrug*
Maybe, at the time, human sacrifices were needed for... Whatever reason, strengthening the gene pool or something. Of course, being Omniscient and Omnipotent there is never and argument as to why God doesn't just make everything awesome and happy forever if It actually cares for Humanity at all. (Of course, one can argue that something such as that is not really 'living', but... Well, Omnipotent, remember? God can make it 'really living'.)
There's a logical to conclusion to this, though. I wonder if others will reach it.
Post by: Bohandas on April 21, 2015, 08:12:19 pm
Of course, but we're talking about this event as something that actually happened at the time.
It just wants us to be sacrificed so we die and got to heaven and are closer to It. It's misunderstood and just wants to be loved, man... Or, something, I dunno.
Just like Papa Nurgle
Post by: Arx on April 22, 2015, 11:46:08 am
Once again I'll be investigating a list compiled by skeptics, but I don't have time to go into as much detail as they did. Though as usual, they include questionable edge cases for completeness sake:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/human_sacrifice.html
I've decided the main reason I deislike Skeptics' Annotated is the really low level of maturity. That, and the fact that basically every other thing is tagged as an absurdity.
The thing with the firstborns is, I think, dedication. Nowhere does it say they must be completely given over to Him, nor does it say they must be sacrificed. It would be nice if they used something other than the King James, too.
And indeed, the NIV*, CEV, and Good News all disagree with the King James that the plunder from Numbers 31 was to be sacrificed. It just says 'given to the Levites', who were basically at that time the Goddest of God's people, and the heave offering was the part given to the priests for sustenance. So, uh, rape but not human sacrifice. It's no worse than any other wartime activities of the Israelites.
The story of Jephthah is messed up, I agree. In terms of utilitarian morals, of course...
Josiah killing high priests is obviously acting in God's interests. Burning them is weird, though.
As regards the majority of the rest of the cases, they're human sacrifices in the same sense that killing the Canaanites and other inhabitants of the Promised Land was human sacrifice. Kill people in the name of the Lord -> the Lord gives you stuff.
*The NIV is, in my opinion, the translation with the best access to integrity ratio. It's pretty much all in modern, reasonably common English, but very tightly fitted to the original manuscripts, and worked from scratch not previous possibly flawed translations.
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 12:58:55 pm
Human sacrifices or no, I would not be able to stomach worshipping such a callous, evil god. Punch his celestial face? Yes. Praise him? For...what? Creating us? Well, my mother gave birth to me. She certainly deserves respect. Were she to treat me like Caroline's mum to "make me better" I would consider her contemptible, however. The act of creation is not enough to get my support.Once again I'll be investigating a list compiled by skeptics, but I don't have time to go into as much detail as they did. Though as usual, they include questionable edge cases for completeness sake:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/human_sacrifice.html
I've decided the main reason I deislike Skeptics' Annotated is the really low level of maturity. That, and the fact that basically every other thing is tagged as an absurdity.
The thing with the firstborns is, I think, dedication. Nowhere does it say they must be completely given over to Him, nor does it say they must be sacrificed. It would be nice if they used something other than the King James, too.
And indeed, the NIV*, CEV, and Good News all disagree with the King James that the plunder from Numbers 31 was to be sacrificed. It just says 'given to the Levites', who were basically at that time the Goddest of God's people, and the heave offering was the part given to the priests for sustenance. So, uh, rape but not human sacrifice. It's no worse than any other wartime activities of the Israelites.
The story of Jephthah is messed up, I agree. In terms of utilitarian morals, of course...
Josiah killing high priests is obviously acting in God's interests. Burning them is weird, though.
As regards the majority of the rest of the cases, they're human sacrifices in the same sense that killing the Canaanites and other inhabitants of the Promised Land was human sacrifice. Kill people in the name of the Lord -> the Lord gives you stuff.
*The NIV is, in my opinion, the translation with the best access to integrity ratio. It's pretty much all in modern, reasonably common English, but very tightly fitted to the original manuscripts, and worked from scratch not previous possibly flawed translations.
Also, all that heave stuff... give of your wine, etc, and your oxen...well, I just finished the Iliad. Seems it would fit right in there what with all the libations. Another instance of "Bible borrowing?"
Post by: Arx on April 22, 2015, 01:04:17 pm
Human sacrifices or no, I would not be able to stomach worshipping such a callous, evil god. Punch his celestial face? Yes. Praise him? For...what? Creating us? Well, my mother gave birth to me. She certainly deserves respect. Were she to treat me like Caroline's mum to "make me better" I would consider her contemptible, however. The act of creation is not enough to get my support.
Please refrain from randomly bashing on Christianity.
Also, all that heave stuff... give of your wine, etc, and your oxen...well, I just finished the Iliad. Seems it would fit right in there what with all the libations. Another instance of "Bible borrowing?"
More likely an instance of a really easy way to sacrifice a liquid. I expect pretty much every religion featuring sacrifice also features liquid sacrifices comparable to libations.
Post by: TempAcc on April 22, 2015, 01:15:56 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 01:18:14 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 22, 2015, 01:41:15 pm
And indeed, the NIV*, CEV, and Good News all disagree with the King James that the plunder from Numbers 31 was to be sacrificed. It just says 'given to the Levites', who were basically at that time the Goddest of God's people, and the heave offering was the part given to the priests for sustenance. So, uh, rape but not human sacrifice. It's no worse than any other wartime activities of the Israelites.I'm not even sure human sacrifice would be any worse, though that's a nasty discussion. But okay, that does seem like a reasonable interpretation (as far as I know. It's not like I know Hebrew :P). God's people were kinda amazingly into polygamy and concubines.
The story of Jephthah is messed up, I agree. In terms of utilitarian morals, of course...In terms of the morals of the New Testament. I'm not trying to argue that God is evil, except to say his nature changes drastically between the books. Which suggests that the books are fabrications.
So while I fixated on the "human sacrifice" aspect, it's really the overall cruelty of the OT God which supports my argument.
Though I do also still think that human sacrifice to God was a tenet of the religion. Based on this story, Isaac's story, their treatment of conquered towns, and the fact that God *specifically* forbids them from sacrifice humans to *other* gods.
Josiah killing high priests is obviously acting in God's interests. Burning them is weird, though.Seems like consistent behavior.
As regards the majority of the rest of the cases, they're human sacrifices in the same sense that killing the Canaanites and other inhabitants of the Promised Land was human sacrifice. Kill people in the name of the Lord -> the Lord gives you stuff.Considering how they slaughtered noncombatants, especially children and nonvirgin women, I think that this does count.
Wait, wait, crap. If humans aren't kosher then my whole theory falls apart, right? Can't offer God unclean things. And we don't have hooves so...
*I paused to do some Googling at this point*
http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/is-a-human-kosher/2013/04/04/
Short answer: Specifically our milk and blood are considered kosher, according to Jewish texts. What more can I possibly say?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 22, 2015, 01:53:09 pm
It was not my intent to insult, or bash, though in retrospect I could have chosen my words with more care. All I was doing was raising a point- God does not seem worthy of worship. Creation is not enough. A reward system is also not enough. I would need to be able to respect God abd acknowledge him as greater. God has commited far more atrocities than I could with an army of murderers at my back. Arguably, he has killed more than Lucifer, or whatever the enemy's real name is.I am sorry to hear that. I just want you to know that I am praying for you.
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 01:57:30 pm
However, your prayers will make no odds. If you are right and god exists, I am going to hell. If you are wrong and I am right, then god is not there/doesn't care enough to answer and so nothing will come of it.
Still, it's a nice sentiment. Though, if they can have effect I have a feeling when I die things will get....hot :P
Post by: Rolan7 on April 22, 2015, 01:58:12 pm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/14.html
Postedit: I know, but why would that stop me from interjecting :P
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 01:59:32 pm
Post by: TempAcc on April 22, 2015, 02:02:03 pm
This is why I tend to view christianity in the light of Allan Kardec's spiritism, which basically states, through multiple works, that our view of god was corrupted by the three stablished faiths and its derivates, IE catholicism, islam and judaism. Judaism depicts god everything related to him as things that are not pro humanity per se, just pro jewish people, to the point god is willing to slaughter anyone who threatens the people of Israel. Islam depicts god in a way that heavily favours muhammad and anyone who follows him, and makes god seem even more vengeful and cruel then the jews did. Catholicism took christianity and added a enourmous hierarchal orchestration of rituals and practices that gave it absolute power over Europe through hundreds of years, and made it flexible enough so they could turn anyone into a heretic.
Post by: Arx on April 22, 2015, 02:04:43 pm
It was not my intent to insult, or bash, though in retrospect I could have chosen my words with more care. All I was doing was raising a point- God does not seem worthy of worship. Creation is not enough. A reward system is also not enough. I would need to be able to respect God abd acknowledge him as greater. God has commited far more atrocities than I could with an army of murderers at my back. Arguably, he has killed more than Lucifer, or whatever the enemy's real name is.
I would be okay with it, except that it's a point that's been raised a million times before, you didn't add anything more compelling than previous versions, and it's not really that relevant to the current discussion. Especially the fact that it's come up a million times before.
Though I do also still think that human sacrifice to God was a tenet of the religion.
If it was, it was removed from the Bible literal millennia (nearly three) ago. If there was anything about actual human sacrifice according to the common definition in the Leningrad and Aleppo Codices, I'm sure there would have been plenty of uproar. It would also have to have been pretty comprehensively removed.
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 02:09:59 pm
Yes it has come up before, but never with an answer. At least as far as I recall... why worship God? He begat you, but what else? He gives eschatological reward? All well and good, but my parents gave me sweets for good behaviour and I didn't worship them. It God truly is omnibenevolent, why does he need his children to love him so very much. Isn't love unconditional?It was not my intent to insult, or bash, though in retrospect I could have chosen my words with more care. All I was doing was raising a point- God does not seem worthy of worship. Creation is not enough. A reward system is also not enough. I would need to be able to respect God abd acknowledge him as greater. God has commited far more atrocities than I could with an army of murderers at my back. Arguably, he has killed more than Lucifer, or whatever the enemy's real name is.
I would be okay with it, except that it's a point that's been raised a million times before, you didn't add anything more compelling than previous versions, and it's not really that relevant to the current discussion. Especially the fact that it's come up a million times before.
Post by: Arx on April 22, 2015, 02:11:28 pm
All well and good, but my parents gave me sweets for good behaviour and I didn't worship them.
Do you respect your parents?
Quote
It God truly is omnibenevolent, why does he need his children to love him so very much?
He doesn't.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 22, 2015, 02:14:57 pm
Though I do also still think that human sacrifice to God was a tenet of the religion.
If it was, it was removed from the Bible literal millennia (nearly three) ago. If there was anything about actual human sacrifice according to the common definition in the Leningrad and Aleppo Codices, I'm sure there would have been plenty of uproar. It would also have to have been pretty comprehensively removed.
Ignoring the questionable cases like slaughtering entire towns in God's name, we still have *at least* the story of Jephthah. This guy offers God a human sacrifice. No mention of anyone trying to stop him, even his daughter. Two months later he does it. No mention of anyone being surprised and upset.
And why would they be, when *human blood* is *specifically* kosher? The stretch would be to assume that this was the one and only case, making that ruling pointless.
Plus, I don't see how mass-slaughtering a captured town's helpless women and children, for the glory of God, isn't by definition a human sacrifice.
Edit: Sorry, maybe I misused the word "tenet"... I meant to say recurring practice central to their idea of salvation.
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 02:16:55 pm
Yes I respect my parents.All well and good, but my parents gave me sweets for good behaviour and I didn't worship them.
Do you respect your parents?QuoteIt God truly is omnibenevolent, why does he need his children to love him so very much?
He doesn't.
My parents don't advocate or have ever allowed rape/murder/torture.
And don't you need to love God to go to heaven? You can believe in God but prefer satan.
Post by: Arx on April 22, 2015, 02:26:53 pm
My parents don't advocate or have ever allowed rape/murder/torture.
So it's graduation of wrongs? Because you believe your parents don't advocate massively bad things, they're worthy of respect?
Quote
And don't you need to love God to go to heaven?
That's incredibly ambiguous but I would say that no, you don't.
And why would they be, when *human blood* is *specifically* kosher? The stretch would be to assume that this was the one and only case, making that ruling pointless.
Your citation on that point is based off the Gemara, written around 200AD. Biblically, blood is not apparently kosher as far as eating goes:
"Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood." - Leviticus 17:12
Whether it's kosher for sacrifice I find highly doubtful.
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 02:31:38 pm
No. My parents are worthy of respect on the strength of their attributes and actions. An absence of terrible of deeds is not a reason to respect someone. However, advocating/allowing such things to happen under your nose is enough to lose respect.My parents don't advocate or have ever allowed rape/murder/torture.
So it's graduation of wrongs? Because you believe your parents don't advocate massively bad things, they're worthy of respect?
Post by: Arx on April 22, 2015, 02:33:01 pm
No. My parents are worthy of respect on the strength of their attributes and actions. An absence of terrible of deeds is not a reason to respect someone. However, advocating/allowing such things to happen under your nose is enough to lose respect.My parents don't advocate or have ever allowed rape/murder/torture.
So it's graduation of wrongs? Because you believe your parents don't advocate massively bad things, they're worthy of respect?
Well, the thing is that as I see it you're aying that your parents are worthy of respect because whilst they're mediocre in terms of doing good on a cosmic scale, they're also mediocre in terms of doing evil on a cosmic scale. That's no different to God, yet you have no respect for God.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 22, 2015, 02:44:01 pm
Kosher means a substance is allowed for eating or sacrifice
Humans are forbidden to eat blood
Human blood is specifically declared kosher in 200AD
Since humans can't eat the blood, the only reason to declare it kosher was for sacrifice.
And the ruling may be from 200AD, but the practice was probably around previously. Especially since, without that or a similar practice, it would have been impossible for Jephthah to sacrifice his un-kosher daughter. Not to mention all the sacrifice of townspeople.
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 02:44:22 pm
Are they worthy of my respect?
My parents are actually reaonably flexible. If anyone were to hurt me, they would move the earth to stop it. They are worthy of my respect. My hypothetical parents don't. They reward and begat me, but they are abhorrent and counter any development I might undergo.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 22, 2015, 02:58:49 pm
God has given us the greatest love anyone can ask for.
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 03:11:04 pm
Post by: Angle on April 22, 2015, 03:18:32 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 22, 2015, 03:20:42 pm
I mean yeah, there are lots of people like that, but we need to give each other credit.
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 03:21:46 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 22, 2015, 03:23:10 pm
Well, the thing is that as I see it you're aying that your parents are worthy of respect because whilst they're mediocre in terms of doing good on a cosmic scale, they're also mediocre in terms of doing evil on a cosmic scale. That's no different to God, yet you have no respect for God.Hrn. The big problem with that is we kinda' have a minimum for evil after which there is no excuse. We don't really have a minimum for good after which all things are excused. The scale matters, intensely. I have no respect for my parent that abused my other parent, despite that being incredibly mediocre in terms of doing evil, and frankly, the person probably being on the net when it comes to doing good.
Something that has committed (or at least is attributed as such) atrocities on a scale and magnitude equal to any in human history isn't even conceivable of being worthy of respect, regardless of what goods they enact. The scale makes for a significant difference. A person can redeem small evils, make atonement, etc. Great evils have no recourse.
Post by: Arx on April 22, 2015, 03:43:52 pm
You do know you're wasting your time, right Dwarfy? The believe because they want to. They don't care about evidence or reasoning or the truth, they'll just make up any justification they need. As they say, they have faith, and that's all that matters to them. Hell, if you really want to change there minds, try getting them to want to change them. Because without that, nothing you say will have any effect.
I honestly find this offensive. If I wasn't open to change, do you think I'd have stuck around for over three hundred pages of debate?
Well, the thing is that as I see it you're aying that your parents are worthy of respect because whilst they're mediocre in terms of doing good on a cosmic scale, they're also mediocre in terms of doing evil on a cosmic scale. That's no different to God, yet you have no respect for God.Hrn. The big problem with that is we kinda' have a minimum for evil after which there is no excuse. We don't really have a minimum for good after which all things are excused. The scale matters, intensely. I have no respect for my parent that abused my other parent, despite that being incredibly mediocre in terms of doing evil, and frankly, the person probably being on the net when it comes to doing good.
Something that has committed (or at least is attributed as such) atrocities on a scale and magnitude equal to any in human history isn't even conceivable of being worthy of respect, regardless of what goods they enact. The scale makes for a significant difference. A person can redeem small evils, make atonement, etc. Great evils have no recourse.
I guess I'm not likely to change your mind on this, or Dwarfy's. I do find it interesting on a philosophical level that you think there are irredeemable crimes, though.
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 03:46:09 pm
Post by: Bohandas on April 22, 2015, 03:47:10 pm
Well, the thing is that as I see it you're aying that your parents are worthy of respect because whilst they're mediocre in terms of doing good on a cosmic scale, they're also mediocre in terms of doing evil on a cosmic scale. That's no different to God, yet you have no respect for God.Hrn. The big problem with that is we kinda' have a minimum for evil after which there is no excuse. We don't really have a minimum for good after which all things are excused. The scale matters, intensely. I have no respect for my parent that abused my other parent, despite that being incredibly mediocre in terms of doing evil, and frankly, the person probably being on the net when it comes to doing good.
Something that has committed (or at least is attributed as such) atrocities on a scale and magnitude equal to any in human history isn't even conceivable of being worthy of respect, regardless of what goods they enact. The scale makes for a significant difference. A person can redeem small evils, make atonement, etc. Great evils have no recourse.
There's also yhe fact that if he does any evil - any at all - it refutes the "omnibenevolent" claim
EDIT:
There is an infinite distinction between "benevolent" and "omnibenevolent" yet this is one which most theologians seem content to ignore (especially in discussions of theodicy)
Post by: Angle on April 22, 2015, 04:23:26 pm
You do know you're wasting your time, right Dwarfy? The believe because they want to. They don't care about evidence or reasoning or the truth, they'll just make up any justification they need. As they say, they have faith, and that's all that matters to them. Hell, if you really want to change there minds, try getting them to want to change them. Because without that, nothing you say will have any effect.
I honestly find this offensive. If I wasn't open to change, do you think I'd have stuck around for over three hundred pages of debate?
Then what would it take to change your mind? What evidence would suffice? What argument would satisfy?
For myself, I'd want a detailed and consistent theory of God that can be tested against reality, along with significant enough evidence to justify conducting such tests, and for the tests to come out positive. It's a lot to ask, but if there was a god, it could be managed.
Post by: Frumple on April 22, 2015, 04:31:34 pm
I do find it interesting on a philosophical level that you think there are irredeemable crimes, though.... you do realize that that's basically one of the primary tenants of christianity, right? That literally the only way to absolve oneself of sin is by god's forgiveness, which is given only by its will. There is no act you can actually perform, as a christian, that grants you redemption. It's all by god's largess, not your doing. It may be well inclined towards doing so towards people that perform certain acts and hold certain thoughts, but there's nothing behooving it from not just saying, "No."
S'the basic concept behind the many denominations that say good acts are insufficient for obtaining salvation. For them, it's not a matter of there being irredeemable crimes, it's a matter of all crimes being irredeemable, and redemption being entirely out of the hands of the sinner, who can ultimately only pray and have faith. That's something going substantially further than just saying "some" acts are unredeemable.
... but yeah, when it comes right down to it, I do hold there are certain acts for which redemption cannot be obtained. Forgiveness, perhaps, but not redemption. It should be sought, should you commit one of them, if you wish to be anything but a beast that should be put down, but there are things once done that cannot be undone, and for which even eternity is not sufficient to repay. There are scales, once tilted, that cannot be rebalanced. It's a bar considerably lower than what's attributed the OT divinities.
It'd be pretty easy to change my mind regarding the christian god, though. Just throw out the OT and excise the nastier parts of the NT, maybe chunk out or better define the omnimax related stuff, and I'd have a pretty glowing opinion of the critter's formulation. I'm already pretty down with Streaker J, as things go. Relatively few problems with the christ part of christianity, it's just the rest of it that sticks in the proverbial craw. Unsurprisingly, the atrocities would bother me far less if they weren't there :V
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 22, 2015, 04:37:12 pm
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Christianity differs from every religion that I know of in that being "good" is not required to get into the afterlife.
Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."
Post by: Bohandas on April 22, 2015, 04:43:22 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 22, 2015, 04:44:42 pm
Post by: scrdest on April 22, 2015, 04:47:04 pm
Christianity differs from every religion that I know of in that being "good" is not required to get into the afterlife.Funny that you should bring that up as a defence thereof.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 22, 2015, 04:50:28 pm
Post by: scrdest on April 22, 2015, 04:54:22 pm
why is it funny?Because it's a straight road to Hitler McStalin getting off free for converting on his deathbed while Boyscout Dogpettington is tortured for eternity for being brought up in a different culture.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 22, 2015, 04:55:26 pm
Quote from: Matthew 12:31-32
Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come
Seems like the common (modern, generous and accepting) way of interpreting this is that you can't be forgiven as long as you're *currently* blaspheming against the holy spirit. IE, you can't be saved if you're rejecting the holy spirit.
Nevermind that both passages insist that the sin, speaking against the holy spirit, can *never* be forgiven... Clearly he (Jesus, supposedly) meant something else.
Also, Jesus is saying this in regards to the Pharisees, basically explaining that they're going to Hell for opposing him. Fun fact.
why is it funny?To me, it's funny because political Christians try to legislate Biblical morality. Whereas Biblically, being moral doesn't save you. At best, morality is a side effect of being saved. And most of the morality it suggests is from backwards ancient cultures. Even Jesus condoned slavery.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 22, 2015, 04:59:51 pm
Post by: Bohandas on April 22, 2015, 05:05:33 pm
Forgiveness comes from the lord, so it would make sense if you can't be forgiven by someone who you you are blaspheming against.
Again, remember your tenses. As Rolan7 pointed out, it clearly extends beyond those who are blaspheming
Post by: Rolan7 on April 22, 2015, 05:11:10 pm
It's also not what the words say. Even in the NIV.
I could interpret the Bible as saying everyone goes to heaven. Because there's a part where God isn't willing that any of us should perish, and there's a part where Jesus died for all sinners. And that would make a lot more sense than all those lines about salvation being conditional.
Heck, there are a lot of Christians who do exactly that! And I can't really prove them wrong since they don't rely on the Bible or... anything. Just a personal interpretation of the Jesus story, and some reasonable ideas about how a loving God would behave. Good on them I suppose, because they tend to be quite nice, because they don't (necessarily) follow the intolerant or evangelical parts of the Bible.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 22, 2015, 05:12:25 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 22, 2015, 05:16:24 pm
In fact I should probably take a break. I'm not angry or anything, just a bit overeager right now...
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 22, 2015, 05:18:27 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 05:35:31 pm
Post by: Angle on April 22, 2015, 05:38:22 pm
Post by: Descan on April 22, 2015, 05:40:55 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 05:42:59 pm
(I joke :P)
Descan Ninja.
Being a ninja is soooooo immoral.
Post by: UXLZ on April 22, 2015, 05:47:36 pm
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, a truly Utterly Perfect Being contradicts its own existence. (Not to mention omnipotence is just flat out impossible. Something can be omnipotent 'by contrast' to, for instance, humans, but there are some boundaries which simply cannot be crossed.)
If we're deciding to take the Bible a bit more literally, can I please at least convince you that it is literally impossible for God to actually be omnipotent? (Vastly powerful, yes, but not all-powerful.)
Post by: mastahcheese on April 22, 2015, 05:52:35 pm
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, a truly Utterly Perfect Being contradicts its own existence.While I was at work, I had the strangest thought go through my head pertaining to this.
Satan: You're not all powerful and perfect! That contradicts itself!
God: Clearly you aren't thinking it through all the way.
Satan: If you're perfect and all powerful, than I bet you can't create an imperfect being!
God: Why would I create something imperfect? I can just make it perfect.
Satan: You're just saying that because you know you can't do it, which proves you're not all powerful!
God: ...
And thus, God created the world.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 22, 2015, 05:57:24 pm
Post by: mastahcheese on April 22, 2015, 05:59:20 pm
It is my personal opinion that we humans just are unable to understand God which is why we see several Paradoxes in God. Maybe once we die we'll learn. That would also explain the confusing mess of the trinity.I've never been a fan of the "We'll understand when we're dead" concept. Maybe because you also can't find out if you're wrong until, you know, you're dead.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 22, 2015, 06:04:19 pm
There have been a few people who claim to have gone to heaven when they died but I am not putting any evidence with that because they could all be fake like this (http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/01/13/the-boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-recants-story-rebukes-christian-retailers/) guy.
Post by: TD1 on April 22, 2015, 06:05:23 pm
It is my personal opinion that we humans just are unable to understand God which is why we see several Paradoxes in God. Maybe once we die we'll learn. That would also explain the confusing mess of the trinity.Yea... Hick's eschatological verification isn't the best. You know when you die, but that kind of implies you don't know now. If you don't know, then religion is all conjecture. No longer absolute. Your religion relies on knowing things not guessing.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 22, 2015, 09:35:00 pm
So when Jacob was wrestling God...
Quote
And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
Again, I can't confirm this at all, but I'm having a real mature laugh about it right now.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 22, 2015, 10:33:12 pm
Post by: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 03:01:00 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 23, 2015, 03:50:51 am
I'm not saying that God can't be extremely, absurdly powerful (pops galaxies at a whim sort of powerful,) but It is not omnipotent. It just isn't, It can't be. As I said, a Perfect Being's (and I mean 100%, truly and utterly perfect) own existence is a contradiction to itself.The issue with this is (I think) that you're using a nonstandard definition of perfect, which (Biblically) usually translates to "flawless" or "without error", rather than all-encompassing or whatever.
Also, you don't really validate how being perfect contradicts being perfect in the first place, but I digress.
Post by: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 04:07:36 am
Do note though, however, that this is 'utter perfection' rather than 'ordinary perfection' (and perfection is something people differ on the meaning of). Something 'ordinarily perfect' like a person who could live forever free of disease and pain, with no worries of death or sorrow, is something I consider possible. Of course, from then would the argument of 'is such an existence truly perfect' spring, but let's not go into that.
Omnipotence - at least the type the God of Christianity is seemingly represented as having (correct me if I'm wrong) - is something necessary for 'utter perfection' but is likewise also impossible, because of something so simple as... Well, doing anything, really. It cannot make it an object It cannot lift because It is omnipotent, but It cannot be omnipotent because It cannot make that object, the only remaining conclusion is that it was never such to begin with.
It's important to recognize that I am speaking in absolutes. Something with seemingly omnipotent power or 'the perfect being' from a human perspective could exist, but 'true' objective omnipotence, perfection, etc. are things that cannot possibly exist.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 23, 2015, 04:27:03 am
With regards to omnipotence, I think someone earlier in the thread made the point that all-powerful in the Bible actually better translates as all-controlling. I can't vouch for the validity of that, though.
Of course, I still have to poke at the awkward logic of "it's not omnipotent because it can't create a problem that it cannot solve".
Post by: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 04:49:29 am
Oh, and as to the 'nonstandard definition', those are all just slightly different ways of expressing 'perfect.' Also, 'flawlessness' and 'without error-ness' are things that are not objective and something I doubt cannot exist outside of subjective interpretation. The concept of perfection is similarly troublesome, but I am speaking of utter perfection to remove that issue.
Why do you think I keep using 'utter' and 'true'? ^^
An ordinarily perfect thing from a single person's perspective may be possible but an 'utterly perfect being' is not. It's like trying to have a number that is both positive, negative, and zero at the same time. I mean an actual number, by the way, not something like x^2. Even that analogy is barely able to capture just how impossible the notion really is.
By the strictest definition that automatically makes 'true' omnipotence impossible. It's a simple paradox, I'll admit, but it is there nonetheless.
If that's what it actually translates to, I'm fine with that. (If by all-controlling it doesn't just mean a different way of wording omnipotence.) Of course, It would only be subjectively all-controlling or hypothetically all-controlling, but that is something I find perfectly acceptable.
Post by: Bohandas on April 24, 2015, 02:02:19 am
Why do you think I keep using 'utter' and 'true'? ^^
An ordinarily perfect thing from a single person's perspective may be possible but an 'utterly perfect being' is not. It's like trying to have a number that is both positive, negative, and zero at the same time. I mean an actual number, by the way, not something like x^2. Even that analogy is barely able to capture just how impossible the notion really is.
By the strictest definition that automatically makes 'true' omnipotence impossible. It's a simple paradox, I'll admit, but it is there nonetheless.
If that's what it actually translates to, I'm fine with that. (If by all-controlling it doesn't just mean a different way of wording omnipotence.) Of course, It would only be subjectively all-controlling or hypothetically all-controlling, but that is something I find perfectly acceptable.
Omnipotence is a separate attribute entirely.
It's like trying to have a number that is both positive, negative, and zero at the same time. I mean an actual number, by the way, not something like x^2. Even that analogy is barely able to capture just how impossible the notion really is.
Also, I think you mean x^(1/2)
Post by: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 02:06:47 am
No, I meant x^2 as in x squared. Actually, x^3 would have been better since that actually goes negative. x^(1/2) can't be negative unless we're talking about complex, here.
And by 'actual number' I meant a thing that's value doesn't change, like e, Pi, Phi, c, etc. Constants.
Post by: Bohandas on April 24, 2015, 02:12:40 am
Something 'utterly perfect' needs to be omnipotent.One, you're denying the antecedent, and two, x^(1/2) is both positive and negative provided that x is positive
No, I meant x^2 as in x squared. Actually, x^3 would have been better since that actually goes negative. x^(1/2) can't be negative unless we're talking about complex, here.
(-n)^2=n^2
Post by: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 02:27:59 am
Regardless, that's beside the point. The analogy was meant to describe something more along the lines that '+1 cannot be -1 and 0 and none of the above at the same time.'
I mean, just x on its own is technically all numbers since it's an empty box, but it isn't constant.
Post by: Bohandas on April 24, 2015, 02:31:25 am
Is it 0?
Regardless, that's beside the point. The analogy was meant to describe something more along the lines that '+1 cannot be -1 and 0
But +1 and -1 are both the square-root of 1 (they're not 0 though, I'll give you that)
Post by: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 02:37:48 am
Sadly, yes, not 0.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 24, 2015, 02:58:22 am
Post by: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 03:24:46 am
It is not utterly perfect.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 24, 2015, 03:40:42 am
Post by: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 04:18:56 am
It gives Its existence substance. It can have regrets, make mistakes, or be wrong (even if the chance of those things happening is in the absurd minutiae.) It is no longer automatically right in all circumstances and relating back to earlier discussion means that the God of the OT and NT can be the same thing. Something 'utterly perfect' cannot change. Something that isn't can.
Also, it allows the acceptance of both God's existence and the concept of free will as things that can coexist, but that's a separate topic.
Though this is going by the Bible as being literal, which I personally do not think is correct. That's something open to a lot of different interpretations, though.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 24, 2015, 04:30:45 am
In terms of the exact nature of God... The Bible is kinda vague. Psalms is full of stuff like "infinite strength" and "boundless wisdom", but that's Psalms, so YMMV.
In terms of God changing and whatnot... I'm unconvinced. We don't see God the Father do anything (other than announce that he's pleased with Jesus during his baptism) in the NT. Jesus says (among other things) that he's there to save those the Father had given to him before the creation of the world, i.e., God's chosen people. Which is fully in line with the OT, wherein the Father is fond of smiting people he doesn't like.
Post by: Helgoland on April 24, 2015, 04:38:03 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 24, 2015, 04:44:04 am
Though most of the thread is atheist circlejerk anyway.
Post by: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 04:46:18 am
If we're agreed on God actually not being so, then I guess I can start to use He. As I've said before, if God is no longer omnipotent then He can start to actually be something we can understand (at least to a certain extent) rather than an incomprehensible amorphous blob of power or whatever. He can actually have a personality, desire, and motives.
This 'Psalms' thing sounds like ridiculous extended canon that was created by leaders to show how 'the best' their religion was during some olden time (our God is like totally infinitely powerful), but I honestly have no idea what they are. Are they actually considered a legitimate source (canonical)? Would you consider them canonical personally?
Oh? From the discussion earlier I was under the impression God the Father was significantly different in the NT as compared to the Old. Regardless, it allows for the possibility of change. Something utterly perfect can't change, ever, at all.
@Helgoland: I think it was me who started the 'God is impossible' route, but that's rather a means than an ends. I'm trying to explore the idea that God is fallible, changeable, capable of desires and motives. Also, what circle jerk? I believe it's only me doing that angle.
Also, the thread is for discussion of all religion and spirituality rather than Christianity in particular (though it is most common to my knowledge.)
I'm not Atheist, I'm something else. I'm totally open to the idea of God and religion, but not if that idea pertains that He is omnipotent since it doesn't actually... Work.
My honest opinion is that religion can be a great force for good in the world, but it has sadly often been used and perverted as an excuse to commit various atrocities under the banner of 'God'.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 24, 2015, 05:22:11 am
With regard to omnipotence/omniscience, I think a good analogy would be that of someone designing a game, or simulation. In this analogy, God is a designer/programmer/etc. with absolute knowledge and understanding of the software and hardware he's using, and unlimited time to develop the application. He knows precisely what is going on at any given point because the entire simulation is laid out before him, and can interfere with proceedings within the simulation because he designed the system.
In short, God can do (or know) anything pertaining to this universe, but he's not necessarily able to do everything (un? :P)imaginable.
Then there's the issue of Jesus coming into the
His personality is somewhat inferrable from the Bible. Angry, and vengeful, sometimes. Jesus was incredibly loving and tender (especially with children), although he was also pretty angry every now and then.
Motives are harder to determine, but it's clear all three persons of God take the Chosen People thing very seriously.
The Psalms are songs and poetry on various topics, and to this day are frequently used in worship. Because they're poetry, they're pretty heavy on the metaphors. My church takes the imagery as Mostly Canon, but some things don't gel with everything else so they're glossed over.
A point I'd like to make about change is that most Christians agree that time is a property of this universe, and that God exists outside it. Effectively, God does not change because he does not progress through time.
Lots of people (usually less knowledgeable about the Bible) think that God changes between the testaments, which is fair enough - genocide, blood sacrifice, and liberal application of holy fire are somewhat removed from "hey how about you be nice to one another for a change".
As I said before, the distinction is because we don't see the Father do anything in the NT and we don't see Jesus do anything in the OT. They're different persons of God with distinct personalities, and that is reflected in the books.
Post by: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 05:47:46 am
Indeed. God is not Utterly PerfectTM in the sense you've explained. He is not a chair, or nothing.
I'll admit I am a bit over-obsessed with explaining that, but I do feel like it's an important thing to understand/for me to explain, so you know what angle I'm working with.
Also, I'm taking that 'Utterly PerfectTM' OOC and sigging it. I would have done it as my under-the-avatar text but the sup tags don't work. A lot of people won't get the joke, but I find it pretty amusing. xD
With regard to omnipotence/omniscience, I think a good analogy would be that of someone designing a game, or simulation. In this analogy, God is a designer/programmer/etc. with absolute knowledge and understanding of the software and hardware he's using, and unlimited time to develop the application. He knows precisely what is going on at any given point because the entire simulation is laid out before him, and can interfere with proceedings within the simulation because he designed the system.
In short, God can do (or know) anything pertaining to this universe, but he's not necessarily able to do everything (un? :P)imaginable.
That's actually a fairly good way of describing it, and I'm totally fine with since God isn't truly omnipotent (just 'omnipotent' and constrained to our existence). Or rather, I would be fine with it if it didn't screw over free will again. Any way of reconciling them? To continue with the analogy, I believe that there needs to be a 'glitch' in the system, outside of God's control for free will to actually be more than just an illusion. It doesn't have to be anything that large, just something.
His personality is somewhat inferrable from the Bible. Angry, and vengeful, sometimes. Jesus was incredibly loving and tender (especially with children), although he was also pretty angry every now and then.
Motives are harder to determine, but it's clear all three persons of God take the Chosen People thing very seriously.
Eh, I've always personally hated the whole 'Chosen People' thing (in all religions and really all other things as well that contain it.) It reeks to me so badly of Human arrogance that I can barely stand it.
Also, things like that are why I stressed so hard the 'God is not Utterly PerfectTM' point. (Aside from just existence it also allows for emotions as well. And fallibility. And change, etc.)
The Psalms are songs and poetry on various topics, and to this day are frequently used in worship. Because they're poetry, they're pretty heavy on the metaphors. My church takes the imagery as Mostly Canon, but some things don't gel with everything else so they're glossed over.
Things being 'glossed over' in religion has always pissed me off to quite a large extent. Interpreting it in a different way is fine, but straight-up glossing over and ignoring some things while preaching others as the ultimate truths and 'that that must be done at all costs' is just so hypocritical. I mean, I can understand it from a more human point of view, and I don't want churches to suddenly start preaching that we should sacrifice cows and eat human hearts or whatever, but it's so... Insincere. (This is for those people that claim their religion as the ultimate rule book rather than a set of guidelines for doing good things.)
A point I'd like to make about change is that most Christians agree that time is a property of this universe, and that God exists outside it. Effectively, God does not change because he does not progress through time.
Lots of people (usually less knowledgeable about the Bible) think that God changes between the testaments, which is fair enough - genocide, blood sacrifice, and liberal application of holy fire are somewhat removed from "hey how about you be nice to one another for a change".
As I said before, the distinction is because we don't see the Father do anything in the NT and we don't see Jesus do anything in the OT. They're different persons of God with distinct personalities, and that is reflected in the books.
Mmh, understandable, though I'd rather it was more 'God exists at all points in our time simultaneously.'
In his own timeline he can change, but to us it appears he is standing still, since all points are actually one in the same. Something can't really properly exist outside of time, but it can exist outside of certain times, if that makes any sense. Though I'll admit, trying to imagine something 'outside of time' is pointless for us. We simply couldn't comprehend it, even if it was possible.
Hmm... Do you think it's possible they can't really coexist? To continue more so with the programmer metaphor, there's only one interface and God can't access it (at least not that much) while Jesus does.
Post by: Helgoland on April 24, 2015, 06:00:15 am
Things being 'glossed over' in religion has always pissed me off to quite a large extent. Interpreting it in a different way is fine, but straight-up glossing over and ignoring some things while preaching others as the ultimate truths and 'that that must be done at all costs' is just so hypocritical. I mean, I can understand it from a more human point of view, and I don't want churches to suddenly start preaching that we should sacrifice cows and eat human hearts or whatever, but it's so... Insincere. (This is for those people that claim their religion as the ultimate rule book rather than a set of guidelines for doing good things.)People who claim that the bible is the Ultimate Source Of Truth tend to also take everything in there literally. The Catholic Church for example is totally self-consistent in ignoring certain parts of the bible, because that's actually built into It's theology.
(Does one capitalize the pronouns referring to the Church with capital C?)
Post by: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 06:06:39 am
I wouldn't really consider the Church worthy of it.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 24, 2015, 06:40:44 am
Anyway, wall of text:
Or rather, I would be fine with it if it didn't screw over free will again. Any way of reconciling them? To continue with the analogy, I believe that there needs to be a 'glitch' in the system, outside of God's control for free will to actually be more than just an illusion. It doesn't have to be anything that large, just something.Free will isn't supported in this version of the game. Maybe it'll be included in some DLC later on. :P
In all seriousness, I've spent a fair bit of time in this thread arguing against free will. It's not supported Biblically, and it's definitely not supported scientifically. Our decisions are a product of out environment and mental state, not some arbitrary force.
Though to be fair, we still make choices. I am consciously choosing to write this reply instead of going to bed. The distinction between "choice" and "free will" is largely irrelevant in everyday terms, I suppose.
Eh, I've always personally hated the whole 'Chosen People' thing (in all religions and really all other things as well that contain it.) It reeks to me so badly of Human arrogance that I can barely stand it.I hate the arrogance of it as well. Jesus had a fair bit to say about it, too. I think his opinion can be summed up as "you might be chosen by God, but that doesn't make you any better than anyone else". And as well as that, the emphasis of his ministry was "go out and be kind to everyone", not "form an exclusive VIP club so you can get together on Sundays to be a dick to everyone else".
That said, the concept (and human nature) definitely lends itself to the Elite Dickbag VIP Club mentality, so I prefer not to make a big deal of it.
Things being 'glossed over' in religion has always pissed me off to quite a large extent. Interpreting it in a different way is fine, but straight-up glossing over and ignoring some things while preaching others as the ultimate truths and 'that that must be done at all costs' is just so hypocritical. I mean, I can understand it from a more human point of view, and I don't want churches to suddenly start preaching that we should sacrifice cows and eat human hearts or whatever, but it's so... Insincere. (This is for those people that claim their religion as the ultimate rule book rather than a set of guidelines for doing good things.)Conveniently, the bloodthirsty sacrifice bits of the Bible were made obsolete by Jesus' sacrifice. He also did away with the stringent food and cultural laws. At least, according to my interpretation. Some denominations believe that Christ did away with all of the OT laws, for example. The OT law thing is ridiculously complicated, and I don't blame anyone for wanting to avoid it. For now I go (mostly) with the interpretations I was brought up with, but that might change if I study it in more depth.
Anyway, what I was trying to say with the glossing over thing was in regard to the fact that the Bible is a very old book and some parts have been mistranslated or corrupted over the years. Personally, I believe that the core principles of the book have been preserved, even if some historical accuracy (especially in regard to OT stories) has been lost. The four Gospels have different accounts, and IIRC there's a couple of cases where they outright contradict one another. Jesus is recorded saying that one cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he hates his family.
The most egregious examples are obviously in Genesis, with stuff like Noah's Ark and the Flood completely circumventing logic and geological/archeological records.
It's stuff like this where I think it's best to just gloss over it and assume someone messed up somewhere along the line. A lot of churches (mine included, sadly) profess that the Bible is wholly accurate in every regard, which is problematic for many reasons, if not ultimately harmful (see Creationism taught in schools, or the Westboro Baptists, and so on.)
Mmh, understandable, though I'd rather it was more 'God exists at all points in our time simultaneously.'Fair enough. I don't agree, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
In his own timeline he can change, but to us it appears he is standing still, since all points are actually one in the same. Something can't really properly exist outside of time, but it can exist outside of certain times, if that makes any sense.
Hmm... Do you think it's possible they can't really coexist? To continue more so with the programmer metaphor, there's only one interface and God can't access it (at least not that much) while Jesus does.That's... interesting? I'm not really sure what to make of it. There's nothing to say either way from the Bible, though.
Something to note would be that when Jesus ascended into heaven, he told the disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit into the world to guide them and so on, meaning the Holy Spirit takes over the interface after Jesus has done his thing. Then we end up with the Father, Christ, and the Spirit all taking turns controlling the game through history.
It's pure speculation, but a very interesting idea.
Post by: Bohandas on April 25, 2015, 02:30:33 pm
Post by: TempAcc on April 25, 2015, 03:55:49 pm
The greatest problem of the old testament though, comes from the fact it made the jews overly proud and wary of every other peoples, even the ones that didn't threaten them. They expected the messiah to come as a literal great king which would give them mastery over the world and etc, so when people started calling Jesus the messiah, basically just a poor carpenter's son who was anointed by a guy who defied the jewish clergy's ways, they saw him as a false messiah as a threat to their ways and framed him as a rebel against the Roman Empire to get him killed without damaging the priests prestige and power over the jewish people.
Doctrines of racial and cultural purity are created when there's a general fear of your own people's culture/customs/beliefs/etc being completely destroyed or dissipated into another peoples culture/customs/beliefs/etc. The germans had a massive feeling of defeat after ww1, which turned into fear of subjugation and even destruction. The government then adopted measures of increasing german pride and valueing german customs and culture and prussian heritage and etc, which became a weapon in the hands of the more extremist currents in german politics at the time, causing the eventual birth of nazism and its takeover.
And no, I have no idea how this thread became a fedora tipping r/atheism clone.
Post by: TheDarkStar on April 25, 2015, 09:45:07 pm
(Does one capitalize the pronouns referring to the Church with capital C?)
I see Church used when people get tired of writing out the full name of a church over and over and the denomination is implied.
Question: What do most people see God as?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 25, 2015, 09:52:34 pm
(Does one capitalize the pronouns referring to the Church with capital C?)
I see Church used when people get tired of writing out the full name of a church over and over and the denomination is implied.
Question: What do most people see God as?
The creator, the father of all, a joint heir to the kingdom of heaven, and a personel guidance when in need, someone who can help you accomplish things you wouldn't normally be able to do easily for his glory. (The father, the son, and the Holy Spirit)
Post by: TheDarkStar on April 25, 2015, 10:06:51 pm
(Does one capitalize the pronouns referring to the Church with capital C?)
I see Church used when people get tired of writing out the full name of a church over and over and the denomination is implied.
Question: What do most people see God as?
The creator, the father of all, a joint heir to the kingdom of heaven, and a personel guidance when in need, someone who can help you accomplish things you wouldn't normally be able to do easily for his glory. (The father, the son, and the Holy Spirit)
Which traits refer to which people?
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2015, 10:11:21 pm
(http://www.exurbe.com/?p=2725)
Post by: Arx on April 27, 2015, 11:27:52 am
The point is that we've been considering and talking about the Christian 'God' wrong. It's like the difference between 10^10^100^100 vs. Infinity. Basically insignificant to us but incomprehensibly massive at the same time.
My main beef with this as an argument is that this rebuttal has a comparable amount of evidence behind it:
I think you're wrong. (source) (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=147792.msg6192915#msg6192915)
(Does one capitalize the pronouns referring to the Church with capital C?)
I see Church used when people get tired of writing out the full name of a church over and over and the denomination is implied.
Question: What do most people see God as?
I don't really see God as anything. The Holy Spirit I think of as kind of... elemental. The wind, the fire. Jesus is Jesus.
Post by: UXLZ on April 27, 2015, 05:22:01 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 27, 2015, 05:23:11 pm
Oh, and a small edit-question. Arx, given your description of the trinity (which seems to show rather big distinctions between their characters) why do you believe they are all one person, or is it just because the bible says it?
Not trying to insult - just curious.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 27, 2015, 09:50:24 pm
Quote from: Matthew 12:32 (NIV)
"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
I believe your question was regarding the implications of an unforgivable sin in the bible. First of all I must point out that the verse says, "...but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven..." speaking against the Holy Spirit is to deny its existence or its effect on the world and people. And since the Holy Spirit is God the Son, and the only way to be forgiven is to
Quote from: Acts 16:31 (NIV)
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."speaking against the Holy Spirit is denying yourself the only method of forgiveness. Therefore, it is not that God made this sin unforgivable, it is that the sin is preventing whoever is doing it from getting forgiveness in the first place. Now, if at any point, said person asks for forgiveness, he/she is recognizing God meaning that he/she is acknowledging God's existence and effect in the world, and is therefore not blaspheming against the holy spirit, which allows forgiveness.
Furthermore, if anyone is saying that this proves that God is not supreme, because he has made a sin he cannot forgive, one quick look at the wording of the verse disproves that. the verse says "will not" instead of "cannot"
Please ask me if anything is unclear.
Post by: Arx on April 27, 2015, 11:36:37 pm
UXLZ, your logic is pretty much all based off "I think this instead of this." Also, the assumption that a physical impossibility as we understand it has to make sense. Your current argument isn't really any stronger than "I don't think omnipotence makes sense."
And your perfection stuff all seems to have one major issue: in the Bible, God is the benchmark for perfection. And if we're adopting our own meanings of perfect, why isn't it true that God is perfectly God and therefore perfect?
Aand lastly, the trademark symbol is a unicode character, so you can put it in your personal text if you like.
Post by: UXLZ on April 28, 2015, 02:58:03 am
Quote from: Arx
UXLZ, your logic is pretty much all based off "I think this instead of this." Also, the assumption that a physical impossibility as we understand it has to make sense. Your current argument isn't really any stronger than "I don't think omnipotence makes sense."
My current arguments are simple enough that if you don't think they're correct, I doubt I'd be able to come up with something else that you would. I'll simply reiterate that for something to be 'omnipotent' by our definitions (Humans) it must meet several mutually exclusive conditions. An example of that being the aforementioned creating an object it cannot lift, or an object it has no power over. If it cannot create that object it is not omnipotent, if it can lift or have power over that object it is not omnipotent. It's not a case of 'understanding' omnipotence, by the words which we use it simply isn't possible.
Quote from: Arx
And your perfection stuff all seems to have one major issue: in the Bible, God is the benchmark for perfection. And if we're adopting our own meanings of perfect, why isn't it true that God is perfectly God and therefore perfect?
God is perfectly God, as I am perfectly me. If you wish to set God as the baseline for perfection that is understandable, but 'utter' perfection is simply not possible if only because it also has the requirement of omnipotence, which is also not possible. Regular perfection, albeit difficult to attain, is something I believe is technically possible. 'Utter' perfection, however, is not.
Quote from: Arx
Aand lastly, the trademark symbol is a unicode character, so you can put it in your personal text if you like.
Thanks, I'll give that a try.
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2015, 12:38:39 pm
Dwarfy, that's just how they're described. When I say elemental, I don't mean to imply anything more than the appearance.Ah. I see. But why have different appearance if nothing else is different? Is it just because? Also, it seems to me that appearance has a significant impact on personality. If you are a good looking blonde, you are more likely to be vapid than an ugly grey. This seems to be he case...or are Jesus and God just different in appearance? They seem to have different anger threshholds and even messages, comparable to a difference in message between, say, Zeus and Hercules.
Post by: Arx on April 28, 2015, 01:38:09 pm
I'm highly doubtful of your point about appearances. I've never observed it to be true in actual life.
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2015, 02:11:36 pm
Edit: a side note which just occured to me
If Hercules looks, talks and acts like a man, the natural conclusion is that, despite texts.saying otherwise, he was not actually the son of Zeus. Can you disagree? Replace Hercules with Jesus, and Zeus with God...
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 28, 2015, 02:18:36 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 28, 2015, 02:18:43 pm
Post by: Arx on April 28, 2015, 02:32:52 pm
Can you disagree? Replace Hercules with Jesus, and Zeus with God...
>implying Jesus acted exactly like a normal person.
He didn't, though. He demonstrated on multiple occasions that the normal rules didn't exactly apply.
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2015, 02:44:13 pm
You may well agree and say yes, you do agree because it is a personal belief... but when one chooses to apply logic to everyone/thing but then ignore the hard and fast rule because of faith, it seems to me a tad intellectually dishonest.
Again, I don't mean to insult. Just raising a question.
Post by: Angle on April 28, 2015, 02:49:06 pm
For myself, I'd want a detailed and consistent theory of God that can be tested against reality, along with significant enough evidence to justify conducting such tests, and for the tests to come out positive. It's a lot to ask, but if there was a god, it could be managed.
Post by: Arx on April 28, 2015, 02:56:32 pm
I have a question for everybody - what would it take to change your mind? What evidence would suffice? What argument would satisfy?
An actual reasonable disproof of all my personal experience, a very solid reason for God's total non-existance, and probably another reason to live.
So did Hercules. Your basis for believing in Jesus is equally applicable to belief in Hercules. But Hercules, if he existed, you would acknowledge to be just a man. Why is the same not applied to Jesus? Is he exempt from such logic simply because it is a personal belief?
No, he's exempt from such logic because you're unlikely to find Zeus on top of Mount Olympus. You won't ever find the Garden of the Hesperides (or at least, p < 0.05), and there is no Atlas holding up the world. There's nothing nearly as hard against Jesus.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 28, 2015, 03:03:58 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2015, 03:04:24 pm
Arx: Nor are you likely to find God in the heavens. Olympus was inaccessible, so they said gods lived there. So too were the heavens inaccessible. If Greek religion had survived, no doubt they would say that Olympus was just a metaphor/misinterpretation, and the gods are transcendent. Just as there is no Atlas holding up bthe sky, there is no God making the planets stay where they are. No doubt the Greek Priest could say that whilst Atlas hasn't been observed to hold things up, nor has he not been observed either. Or, perhaps, gravity which keeps the worlds apart is controlled by Atlas.
Post by: Descan on April 28, 2015, 03:05:38 pm
So did Hercules. Your basis for believing in Jesus is equally applicable to belief in Hercules. But Hercules, if he existed, you would acknowledge to be just a man. Why is the same not applied to Jesus? Is he exempt from such logic simply because it is a personal belief?I think what Dwarfy is trying to say is that you know of the mythological feats of Hercules, written about and told in stories, correct? That's the same as Jesus, we know of him through stories and by the written account. What makes the Jesus story more believable than the Hercules story, when they're both the same generalized idea, Son of (a) God, feats beyond mortal man, told to us through story and by the written word, no real archaeological evidence for their existence? (The Bible doesn't count as archaeological evidence, any more than the Qur'an or Bhagavad Gita do.) (I acknowledge that one of the main answers is "The Bible is the word of God." However, I do not agree with that, and that's an article of faith (which I also don't put much stock in) so if you have an alternative answer, I'd prefer that, personally.)
You may well agree and say yes, you do agree because it is a personal belief... but when one chooses to apply logic to everyone/thing but then ignore the hard and fast rule because of faith, it seems to me a tad intellectually dishonest.
Again, I don't mean to insult. Just raising a question.
As for the existence of the supernatural, I'd say I'd need as much proof as I need for anything else to believe in, like believing in the evolution and differentiation of species, or in the fact and theoretical framework of gravity. For the WORSHIP of a god, I'd need to personally agree with the sentiments espoused by that god or goddess, plural if needed. Even then, I'd likely be more "Hey, you're a pretty chill dude, bro/sis," as opposed to getting on my knees to praise him/her/them. I don't personally believe that a being worthy of worship wants to be worshipped, and worship just feels too vulgar for me to engage in. I'd much prefer to have a discussion with them as (probably not actually, it is a divine being we're talking about here, who may or may not have created us/the universe) intellectual equals/curious beings.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 28, 2015, 03:13:05 pm
I have a question for everybody - what would it take to change your mind? What evidence would suffice? What argument would satisfy?I don't think that any evidence will suffice. Creationism and Atheism have the same evidence: The earth, the universe, the bible, etc. The only difference is interpretation.
For myself, I'd want a detailed and consistent theory of God that can be tested against reality, along with significant enough evidence to justify conducting such tests, and for the tests to come out positive. It's a lot to ask, but if there was a god, it could be managed.
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2015, 03:18:59 pm
What about the fact that atheists use what is true, or what is on its way to being true, whereas Christianity is just one of many religions, each with different interpretations, deities, stories, characters, motives, laws, customs, rituals, etc.I have a question for everybody - what would it take to change your mind? What evidence would suffice? What argument would satisfy?I don't think that any evidence will suffice. Creationism and Atheism have the same evidence: The earth, the universe, the bible, etc. The only difference is interpretation.
For myself, I'd want a detailed and consistent theory of God that can be tested against reality, along with significant enough evidence to justify conducting such tests, and for the tests to come out positive. It's a lot to ask, but if there was a god, it could be managed.
Atheism is one unified front of what is seen as correct scientifically.
Religious truth says a hundred contradictory things from religion to religion. And no, Christianity in anybody but a Christian's eyes is no more believable than, giving the current example, Greek mythology.
Post by: Descan on April 28, 2015, 03:21:50 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 28, 2015, 03:24:04 pm
Post by: Descan on April 28, 2015, 03:26:18 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2015, 03:31:10 pm
Dwarfy, you're mixing terms. Atheist just means "without theism," without god/s. You know, like Buddhism? Or Confucianism if I understand anything about it. Hell, even animism could count depending on if the animist in question thinks there are any "higher spirits" than the spirits within everything. What you're talking would be better described as rationalism, or empiricism, or skepticism, or humanism... Or, you know, science (ism). :PTechnicalities! :P
Most people see atheism as a lack of belief in religion(s), so that's the way in which I use the word. Unless people here tell me I've been getting the wrong end of the stick?
That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describes. We have no way of knowing for sure if the earth was made in 6 days or 6 billion. All we have is evidence on the earth to put theories together. Some people claim that the old rocks means the earth is old, while some claim that God made the rocks old, and some claim that Noah's flood caused the dating measurements to be inaccurate. I'm saying that evidence will never be enough. And unless we invent a time machine, we will never have proof.Of course there are similarities, human nature is such that we have some needs which are easy enough to present in scripture, and to write on recurring themes of disaster/things that are entertaining is common enough in religion. Floods happen everywhere- seas rise. Flood stories rise with them. Also, it helps that religions poach from one another, e.g. Greek religion being subsumed by Roman religion. Christianity as it is now is hardly comparable to...Ancient Mayan, or more animistic religions.
Quote
That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describesConversely, this also means your theory fits with theirs. Yet you seem to assume yours is the superior- back to the question I asked to Arx, why? There is nothing particularly unique or special about Christianity.
Post by: Bohandas on April 28, 2015, 03:40:25 pm
I have a question for everybody - what would it take to change your mind? What evidence would suffice? What argument would satisfy?I don't think that any evidence will suffice. Creationism and Atheism have the same evidence: The earth, the universe, the bible, etc. The only difference is interpretation.
For myself, I'd want a detailed and consistent theory of God that can be tested against reality, along with significant enough evidence to justify conducting such tests, and for the tests to come out positive. It's a lot to ask, but if there was a god, it could be managed.
Where do the earth or the universe provide evidence in favor of creationism?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 28, 2015, 03:42:20 pm
The theory that one person chooses varies from person to person. Each person usually has a reason why they pick one theory over another. I'll take origins of the Earth as an example. I choose to believe that the earth was made in 6 days because that is what the Bible says, while the big bang theory does not fit that description.QuoteThat is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describesConversely, this also means your theory fits with theirs. Yet you seem to assume yours is the superior- back to the question I asked to Arx, why? There is nothing particularly unique or special about Christianity.
The unique thing about Christianity as supposed to every other religion I've heard of (please tell me if there are any others) is that God does not require any goodwill to get to heaven, and God is extremely loving.
Post by: Angle on April 28, 2015, 03:43:11 pm
Post by: Bohandas on April 28, 2015, 03:43:45 pm
That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describe.
...But contradict what can be observed about the earth.
Post by: Bohandas on April 28, 2015, 03:48:52 pm
So did Hercules. Your basis for believing in Jesus is equally applicable to belief in Hercules. But Hercules, if he existed, you would acknowledge to be just a man. Why is the same not applied to Jesus? Is he exempt from such logic simply because it is a personal belief?
No, he's exempt from such logic because you're unlikely to find Zeus on top of Mount Olympus. You won't ever find the Garden of the Hesperides (or at least, p < 0.05), and there is no Atlas holding up the world. There's nothing nearly as hard against Jesus.
That doesn't preclude the possibility of a historical Hercules much more than the absence of an alien spaceship following the Hale-Bopp comet precludes the existence of a historical Marshall Applewhite.
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2015, 03:49:58 pm
MAccording to a quick wikipedia search:The theory that one person chooses varies from person to person. Each person usually has a reason why they pick one theory over another. I'll take origins of the Earth as an example. I choose to believe that the earth was made in 6 days because that is what the Bible says, while the big bang theory does not fit that description.QuoteThat is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describesConversely, this also means your theory fits with theirs. Yet you seem to assume yours is the superior- back to the question I asked to Arx, why? There is nothing particularly unique or special about Christianity.
The unique thing about Christianity as supposed to every other religion I've heard of (please tell me if there are any others) is that God does not require any goodwill to get to heaven, and God is extremely loving.
Quote
Bahá'u'lláh, founder of the Bahá'í Faith, taught that God created humans due to his love for them, and thus humans should in turn love God. `Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'u'lláh's son, wrote that love is the greatest power in the world of existence and the true source of eternal happiness. The Bahá'í teachings state that all genuine love is divine, and that love proceeds from God and from humans. God's love is taught to be part of his own essence, and his love for his creatures gives them their material existence, divine grace and eternal life.[2]
The Bahá'í teachings state that human love is directed towards both God and other humans; that the love of God attracts the individual toward God, by purifying the human heart and preparing it for the revelation of divine grace. Thus through the love of God, humans become transformed and become self-sacrificing. It is also stated that true love for other humans occurs when people see the beauty of God in other people's souls. The Bahá'í teachings state that Bahá'ís should love all humans regardless of religion, race or community, and also should love their enemies.[2]
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 28, 2015, 03:50:56 pm
In what way?That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describe.
...But contradict what can be observed about the earth.
I know this will be annoying for you, but "Because God made it that way." Will probably be the answer to most of these.
Post by: Helgoland on April 28, 2015, 03:55:28 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2015, 03:56:12 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 28, 2015, 03:57:56 pm
Well, for example the sun couldn't have stood still over Gideon because it's the earth that's moving :DAre you joking? ;D
Post by: Helgoland on April 28, 2015, 04:02:00 pm
Post by: Bohandas on April 28, 2015, 04:03:32 pm
In what way?That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describe.
...But contradict what can be observed about the earth.
I know this will be annoying for you, but "Because God made it that way." Will probably be the answer to most of these.
He fossil record and geological strata for one thing; they contradict young-earth creationism and/or notions of mankind being a special creation at any rate (though I suppose it doesn't contradict the deist conception of a god who initiates the big bang and then leaves)
Young Earth and miraculous human origins cannot, at any rate, be simultaneously squared with the fossil/geological evidence AND the idea that God isn't dishonest (even if you do assume that "God made it that way")
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 28, 2015, 04:05:37 pm
PS. It was Joshua, not Gideon
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2015, 04:07:52 pm
The bible was written from the perspective of humans, who at the time thought that the sun went up and down in the sky. We now understand that the earth must have stopped moving but the people back then would have perceived it as the sun stopping.Such a changeful nature only supports the elusive God of the Gaps....
PS. It was Joshua, not Gideon
Post by: Helgoland on April 28, 2015, 04:09:07 pm
But now you've acknowledged that not everything in the bible is true literally... So why should the creation story not be told as perceived/understandable by people back then? It's not like they could imagine the big bang if they didn't even have the heliocentric model...
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2015, 04:10:36 pm
Post by: Helgoland on April 28, 2015, 04:56:28 pm
E: And technically it also stood still over Joshua, I guess, but that's beside the point.
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2015, 05:10:35 pm
How many times must I repeat that? :/
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 28, 2015, 07:32:08 pm
Young Earth Creationists have made theories regarding the fossil records. I do not know much about it, but it has to do with Noah's flood depositing lots of sediments which quickly hardened into layers after the earth dried, burying the bones deeply. Regardless, The creation museum certainly isn't afraid of fossils (http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/exhibits/allosaur/)In what way?That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describe.
...But contradict what can be observed about the earth.
I know this will be annoying for you, but "Because God made it that way." Will probably be the answer to most of these.
He fossil record and geological strata for one thing; they contradict young-earth creationism and/or notions of mankind being a special creation at any rate (though I suppose it doesn't contradict the deist conception of a god who initiates the big bang and then leaves)
Young Earth and miraculous human origins cannot, at any rate, be simultaneously squared with the fossil/geological evidence AND the idea that God isn't dishonest (even if you do assume that "God made it that way")
I don't want to argue creation vs. evolution here because it never leads anywhere. I am just showing that with the same evidence, different theories are possible. Some with God in them, and some without.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 28, 2015, 08:26:20 pm
Quote
Dr. Snelling added that the intact skeleton of this allosaur is a testimony to an extremely rapid burial, which is confirmation of the global catastrophe of a Flood a few thousand years ago.
Quote
Michael Peroutka, one of the board members of the Foundation, says that this fossil is a testimony to the creative power of God and also lends evidence to the truth of a worldwide catastrophic flooding of the earth about 4,500 years ago as described in the Bible.
Quote
Ken Ham stated, “While evolutionists use dinosaurs more than anything to promote their worldview, especially to young students, our museum uses dinosaurs to help tell the account of history according to the Bible.”
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 29, 2015, 08:59:19 am
They're not afraid of fossils, but they're also not afraid to lather it in dogma:True. I am not saying that this is not the only explanation for fossils being so close together. It could be that the earth was very calm as the bones became fossilized, or God just made it that way. Interpretation will change the theory for different people.QuoteDr. Snelling added that the intact skeleton of this allosaur is a testimony to an extremely rapid burial, which is confirmation of the global catastrophe of a Flood a few thousand years ago.QuoteMichael Peroutka, one of the board members of the Foundation, says that this fossil is a testimony to the creative power of God and also lends evidence to the truth of a worldwide catastrophic flooding of the earth about 4,500 years ago as described in the Bible.QuoteKen Ham stated, “While evolutionists use dinosaurs more than anything to promote their worldview, especially to young students, our museum uses dinosaurs to help tell the account of history according to the Bible.”
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 29, 2015, 09:02:44 am
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on April 29, 2015, 09:43:52 am
What I'm trying to say is that different interpetations of evidence are fine, but if those interpetations don't match the evidence or can't be tested then they aren't following the scientific method and thus aren't acceptable as scientific theories. And if they aren't proper scientific theories then you can't use them to make predictions to learn more about thexworld around you, and instead just admire them from afar as pleasing but unapplyable theories.
...
Or something. That probably turned out more condensing then I meant it to be. Sorry about that.
EDIT: I guess that a better way of saying all of that would be, that just because different interpetations of data exist does not mean that all of the interpetations are valid. Instead they must be weeded out using the scientific method, until you have the one that fits the data the best.
Post by: TD1 on April 29, 2015, 11:43:58 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 29, 2015, 02:07:10 pm
Plus there's the whole Scientific Method, where you make hypothesises and test them against observable evidence to see whether they work or not. 'God made it that way' is not testable, since there's no way to determine whether it's true or not (or people will move the goal posts and say that God made things that way too) and thus you can't use it as a theory/hypothesis since you can't predict or use it in any constructive way. 'There was a giant flood that made all of the fossils' is a better hypothesis since it is actually testable and provides a prediction about how the world works. The only problem is that that hypothesis doesn't fit in with established evidence. If a global flood did exist, then we should see a single band of fossils with all different types of animals mixed in it. Instead we have seperate bands of fossils enclosed in different types of rocks, and fossils are clearly seperated from each other by which band they appear in. Which means that either the global flood didn't happen, or the hypothesis needs to be changed to fit with what we observe.True, that is why I am usually hesitant to say "because God made it that way" even though an untestable theory is still a theory. Of course, there are testable hypotheses about why different animals appearing in different layers and the prevailing theory is that bigger animals kept other parts of their bodies longer, making them less dense and appearing higher up in the massive sediments, while the smaller animals generally were buried deeper. It also would explain why blood vessels and intact DNA were found in dinosaur bones (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist) Although I am certain that a widely accepted old-earth hypothesis will come soon to explain this, if it hasn't already. I just want to show that there are always multiple hypothesis about things we can't prove. With some being more widely accepted than others.
What I'm trying to say is that different interpetations of evidence are fine, but if those interpetations don't match the evidence or can't be tested then they aren't following the scientific method and thus aren't acceptable as scientific theories. And if they aren't proper scientific theories then you can't use them to make predictions to learn more about thexworld around you, and instead just admire them from afar as pleasing but unapplyable theories.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 29, 2015, 02:25:05 pm
Post by: scrdest on April 29, 2015, 02:27:18 pm
True, that is why I am usually hesitant to say "because God made it that way" even though an untestable theory is still a theory. Of course, there are testable hypotheses about why different animals appearing in different layers and the prevailing theory is that bigger animals kept other parts of their bodies longer, making them less dense and appearing higher up in the massive sediments, while the smaller animals generally were buried deeper. It also would explain why blood vessels and intact DNA were found in dinosaur bones (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist) Although I am certain that a widely accepted old-earth hypothesis will come soon to explain this, if it hasn't already. I just want to show that there are always multiple hypothesis about things we can't prove. With some being more widely accepted than others.That's not how density works. Especially organ density. And no, untestable claims are pretty much by definition neither a theory nor a hypothesis. It's Not Even Wrong.
Your source does not mention intact DNA being found in the bones, and as for soft tissue, the impossibility of it surviving is a YEC claim.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 29, 2015, 02:31:51 pm
I'm not the expert. I just heard that from somewhere and I probably messed it up.True, that is why I am usually hesitant to say "because God made it that way" even though an untestable theory is still a theory. Of course, there are testable hypotheses about why different animals appearing in different layers and the prevailing theory is that bigger animals kept other parts of their bodies longer, making them less dense and appearing higher up in the massive sediments, while the smaller animals generally were buried deeper. It also would explain why blood vessels and intact DNA were found in dinosaur bones (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist) Although I am certain that a widely accepted old-earth hypothesis will come soon to explain this, if it hasn't already. I just want to show that there are always multiple hypothesis about things we can't prove. With some being more widely accepted than others.That's not how density works. Especially organ density. And no, untestable claims are pretty much by definition neither a theory nor a hypothesis. It's Not Even Wrong.
Your source does not mention intact DNA being found in the bones, and as for soft tissue, the impossibility of it surviving is a YEC claim.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 29, 2015, 02:46:05 pm
Post by: TempAcc on April 29, 2015, 02:48:11 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 29, 2015, 02:57:43 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 29, 2015, 05:50:25 pm
Can I rent one?
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 29, 2015, 06:09:33 pm
Post by: Teneb on April 29, 2015, 06:18:26 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 29, 2015, 07:19:16 pm
To perhaps, change the topic a bit away from fedoras as well sating my curiosity: while being raised as a catholic means I consider it pretty normal, I was wondering what do followers of other denominations of Christianity (as well as, I guess, any other religion) think of the various saints and related practices of Catholicism?I don't know much about those practices, but from what I know, I think that they are unnecessary. I believe that all you need to do to get to heaven is:
-admit your sin
-believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins
-accept the gift of forgiveness
I don't think anywhere in the bible speaks against saints and such, but to me, those practices are not required.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 29, 2015, 09:29:05 pm
-you have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and he was raised to life three days after his death.
Kinda important.
Post by: Teneb on April 29, 2015, 09:31:14 pm
Oops, I forgot the most important part.Still doesn't require actual worship, though. Which is pretty interesting.
-you have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and he was raised to life three days after his death.
Kinda important.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 29, 2015, 09:40:45 pm
It is not a requirement so much as it is a side-effect. After you realize just how much God loves you and what he did for you, it just kind of happens.Oops, I forgot the most important part.Still doesn't require actual worship, though. Which is pretty interesting.
-you have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and he was raised to life three days after his death.
Kinda important.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 29, 2015, 09:42:16 pm
Another point is that admitting you've done wrong isn't enough. You have to try to change things, or "make up for it", to use the vernacular. This most certainly is not intended to allow for a mindless "I murdered thirty guys, but I told God I was sorry so it's all good".
In short, forgiveness is not a justification for wrongdoing.
Post by: TheDarkStar on April 29, 2015, 09:48:11 pm
To perhaps, change the topic a bit away from fedoras as well sating my curiosity: while being raised as a catholic means I consider it pretty normal, I was wondering what do followers of other denominations of Christianity (as well as, I guess, any other religion) think of the various saints and related practices of Catholicism?I don't know much about those practices, but from what I know, I think that they are unnecessary. I believe that all you need to do to get to heaven is:
-admit your sin
-believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins
-accept the gift of forgiveness
I don't think anywhere in the bible speaks against saints and such, but to me, those practices are not required.
I believe similarly. My list is this:
-have faith in Christ
-admit and repent of sin (including not doing it again)
-Do the positive things - go to church, help others, etc.
-baptism/similar - done by the person if they're alive; if not, someone does it in place of them.
:/ 4 posts while I wrote this.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 29, 2015, 09:51:15 pm
That's a bit of an oversimplification. In the Reformed church (and most other churches will have a similar doctrine, maybe with words moved around a little) the idea is that a true belief - that is, a belief that will result in being saved from Hell - will result in worship, church attendance, etcetera.I think I just ninja'd you :P
The other side of it is that admitting you've done wrong isn't enough. You have to try to change things, or "make up for it", to use the vernacular. This most certainly is not intended to allow for a mindless "I murdered thirty guys, but I told God I was sorry so it's all good".While it's great to try to do good, the bible says that man cannot do good by sheer will alone. Even after believing.
In short, forgiveness is not a justification for wrongdoing.
Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
James 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
(I can reference several more if you want
Instead, the only way is to believe in Jesus to have him take away your sins.
Roamns 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Acts 16: 29-31, "29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
(I can reference several more if you want.)
Post by: Rolan7 on April 29, 2015, 10:03:28 pm
To perhaps, change the topic a bit away from fedoras as well sating my curiosity: while being raised as a catholic means I consider it pretty normal, I was wondering what do followers of other denominations of Christianity (as well as, I guess, any other religion) think of the various saints and related practices of Catholicism?
As an atheist and animist, I'm actually fairly jealous. The concept (as I understand it) of recognizing exceptional people (with supernatural, divine powers) and naming them as patrons of mundane activities speaks to me. I find comfort in thanking Gaia, the hypothetical spirit of the living planet, for things like rain, wind, or clear night skies. I'm sure there are saints I could thank in a similar manner. I feel like such practices help people appreciate things they may otherwise take for granted. And by giving thanks to exemplary humans, their memories are preserved and they serve as role models long after their deaths.
As for the rituals... I really don't know enough to comment, but there is something about the majesty and grandeur. Intimidating, humbling and appealing. I love cathedrals and certain churches from an aesthetic standpoint.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 29, 2015, 10:05:08 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 29, 2015, 10:10:25 pm
Post by: Bohandas on April 29, 2015, 10:14:46 pm
To perhaps, change the topic a bit away from fedoras as well sating my curiosity: while being raised as a catholic means I consider it pretty normal, I was wondering what do followers of other denominations of Christianity (as well as, I guess, any other religion) think of the various saints and related practices of Catholicism?I don't know much about those practices, but from what I know, I think that they are unnecessary. I believe that all you need to do to get to heaven is:
-admit your sin
-believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins
-accept the gift of forgiveness
I don't think anywhere in the bible speaks against saints and such, but to me, those practices are not required.
They're not required in Catholicism either, they're just thought to help.
Post by: Arx on April 30, 2015, 12:14:09 am
Oops, I forgot the most important part.Still doesn't require actual worship, though. Which is pretty interesting.
-you have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and he was raised to life three days after his death.
Kinda important.
Yup. You don't necessarily have to think God is nice, and you don't have to like everything about Him, just accept what He's done. If you can't find it in yourself to love God, it's actually forgivable, as long as you believe.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 30, 2015, 07:13:03 am
To perhaps, change the topic a bit away from fedoras as well sating my curiosity: while being raised as a catholic means I consider it pretty normal, I was wondering what do followers of other denominations of Christianity (as well as, I guess, any other religion) think of the various saints and related practices of Catholicism?Some of it is a bit wierd to me.
I don't fully understand saints, are they heros or something or are they just dedicated people who helped spread the religion?
Transubutation? Is that how it's spelled? That's different than communion at my church, we believe it's a symbolic ceremony and not that the wine turns to blood or bread to flesh.
We ((sorry I keep using we, I mean to say my church)) also believe in once saved and always saved and that good works are not needed but they are encouraged. (Look at sig for explanation to that)
We also baptize when members are able to understand what they are doing (or seem like they grasp it) rather than baptizing people when they are babies.
Post by: TempAcc on April 30, 2015, 07:53:16 am
The church, however, honours people other then saints, as "blessed ones", "servants of god" and "venerables", but those aren't actual saints.
Many people outside the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have misplaced ideas about how saints and their worship work. When a person prays to a saint, they aren't actualy worshipping the saint as God, but rather asking for the saint to intercede on their behalf or on behalf of their cause, like an intermediary between them and God.
TL;DR a saint is kind of a hero that went through ordeals in his/her life in the name of God and has performed miracles and as such has been officialy recognized as a saint by the church, and is considered a paragon of the faith.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 30, 2015, 08:13:06 am
I think that is exactly what my church believes, except with a small change. Our baptism is a choice by the person who thinks they are ready to publicly declare their religion.To perhaps, change the topic a bit away from fedoras as well sating my curiosity: while being raised as a catholic means I consider it pretty normal, I was wondering what do followers of other denominations of Christianity (as well as, I guess, any other religion) think of the various saints and related practices of Catholicism?Some of it is a bit wierd to me.
I don't fully understand saints, are they heros or something or are they just dedicated people who helped spread the religion?
Transubutation? Is that how it's spelled? That's different than communion at my church, we believe it's a symbolic ceremony and not that the wine turns to blood or bread to flesh.
We ((sorry I keep using we, I mean to say my church)) also believe in once saved and always saved and that good works are not needed but they are encouraged. (Look at sig for explanation to that)
We also baptize when members are able to understand what they are doing (or seem like they grasp it) rather than baptizing people when they are babies.
Post by: Helgoland on April 30, 2015, 08:54:53 am
-snip-Yeah, there's a fair amount of misconceptions. As far as I know, a saint is just someone of whom we know for certain that he or she has gone to heaven, usually because they have performed miracles and led a godly life.
@Infant baptism: I think it's still current doctrine that you need to be baptized to go to heaven - so if you don't baptize an infant and it dies, you've deprived them of eternal salvation, which is pretty much the most awful thing you could do. Add to that that historically infant mortality was ridiculously high, and you've got yourself a reason to call a priest pretty much as soon as contractions start.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 30, 2015, 09:03:29 am
My church believes that the water doesn't save you, but belief in Jesus Christ does. My church believes in an "age of accountability" which is the age when the child is capable of making the decision to follow Christ. If they die before that age, the belief is that they automatically go to heaven.-snip-@Infant baptism: I think it's still current doctrine that you need to be baptized to go to heaven - so if you don't baptize an infant and it dies, you've deprived them of eternal salvation, which is pretty much the most awful thing you could do. Add to that that historically infant mortality was ridiculously high, and you've got yourself a reason to call a priest pretty much as soon as contractions start.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 30, 2015, 11:05:00 am
I think that is exactly what my church believes, except with a small change. Our baptism is a choice by the person who thinks they are ready to publicly declare their religion.To perhaps, change the topic a bit away from fedoras as well sating my curiosity: while being raised as a catholic means I consider it pretty normal, I was wondering what do followers of other denominations of Christianity (as well as, I guess, any other religion) think of the various saints and related practices of Catholicism?Some of it is a bit wierd to me.
I don't fully understand saints, are they heros or something or are they just dedicated people who helped spread the religion?
Transubutation? Is that how it's spelled? That's different than communion at my church, we believe it's a symbolic ceremony and not that the wine turns to blood or bread to flesh.
We ((sorry I keep using we, I mean to say my church)) also believe in once saved and always saved and that good works are not needed but they are encouraged. (Look at sig for explanation to that)
We also baptize when members are able to understand what they are doing (or seem like they grasp it) rather than baptizing people when they are babies.
Ya sorry meant to add that as well, my church believes baptisms are for public declaration of faith and not needed for salvation. Though my church requires baptism to be a member of the church, not to say they require it in their belief to go to heaven.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 30, 2015, 03:29:35 pm
Later in life, if you choose to follow through with the covenant, a Profession of Faith is made before the congregation. Which is basically just saying you believe in God and (mostly) agree with the doctrines of the church. Then you get to sit at the table for communion or have people vote for you as an elder or deacon.
While it's great to try to do good, the bible says that man cannot do good by sheer will alone. Even after believing.Au contraire. According to the Canons of Dort, believers are capable of doing good in the eyes of God by the grace of the Holy Spirit. I'll be able to throw many references at you momentarily, but I will need to dig out my copy of the Canons.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 30, 2015, 03:46:20 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 30, 2015, 04:01:39 pm
And the Canons (along with other creeds and confessions) are intended to be a summary of the Church's interpretation of the Bible. They're not binding, if you will, but useful tools. Otherwise one has to know the entire Bible back to front to know where to find everything relevant, when checking another document provides all the relevant information in a much more accessible format.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 30, 2015, 04:21:37 pm
Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."
Post by: Descan on April 30, 2015, 04:52:22 pm
Oh, I'm not saying it's enough to grant entry into heaven, not by any stretch.Seems rude to just ignore that, Origami.
Post by: TheDarkStar on April 30, 2015, 04:52:45 pm
The Bible is pretty clear that works will not be enough:
Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."
On the other hand, there's (James chapter 1 or 2 somewhere) "Faith without works is dead". I believe that people should do all they can to be a good person and repent of what they've done then Christ does the rest.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 30, 2015, 05:04:08 pm
The Bible is pretty clear that works will not be enough:
Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."
On the other hand, there's (James chapter 1 or 2 somewhere) "Faith without works is dead". I believe that people should do all they can to be a good person and repent of what they've done then Christ does the rest.
Like I said earlier, good works are highly encouraged but not required to gain entry. Though if you are able to do terrible things with no remorse then they may not have real faith but that's something on a personal level that others can't tell
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 30, 2015, 05:04:32 pm
Sorry, Mr. Wizard. I read that wrong.Oh, I'm not saying it's enough to grant entry into heaven, not by any stretch.Seems rude to just ignore that, Origami.
@TheDarkStar: Yes, I agree that you should try to do good. It doesn't save you though. However, there is a judgement in heavan (not sure what it's called) where you get crowns for what you've done on earth.
Post by: TheDarkStar on April 30, 2015, 05:20:31 pm
Sorry, Mr. Wizard. I read that wrong.Oh, I'm not saying it's enough to grant entry into heaven, not by any stretch.Seems rude to just ignore that, Origami.
@TheDarkStar: Yes, I agree that you should try to do good. It doesn't save you though. However, there is a judgement in heavan (not sure what it's called) where you get crowns for what you've done on earth.
I agree with this, actually. I meant that while Christ saves you, it's also important to do good to get the full rewards after death. Simply living and then dying has some basic things it get you (resurrection), but what happens to you then (good or bad) depends on how you lived.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 30, 2015, 06:12:55 pm
(This whole rest of the post is IIRC, I don't remember what verses this is from. If anyone knows please help)
The parable about the workers in the (vineyard?) where a man goes out to hire men to harvest his grapes and he tells them he'll pay them for their work. A few men go when he first asks and more flow in as the day goes by. At the end of the day everyone who came to work for the man, no matter how long they worked, was given the same pay for their work. When one of the workers who came first asked the man why he payed them the same and not less for those who came later he replied saying that he payed him as he said he would and that he shouldn't worry about the others.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 30, 2015, 06:21:58 pm
Quote from: Matthew 20:1-16 (NIV)
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
“About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
“‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
“The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 30, 2015, 08:25:24 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 30, 2015, 10:38:09 pm
While it is mentioned that each will recurve their crowns for how well they lived for the glory of god it is also said that all shall remove their crowns and give them back to god IIRC, so if I'm not wrong it implies that heaven is equal for everyone and there is no bonuses just for living a better life.
Well, It seems that everyone would want to give their crowns back to God as an honor. So the ones without any won't get to do that.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 30, 2015, 11:00:36 pm
My youth pastor compared it as, someone who gets saved on their death bed that hated religion till that point gets a copper wire circlet while someone that is extremely devout and brings glory to gods name would get something like a golden crown covered in many gems and people better than that get crowns stacked upon crowns
Though that may not be right
The pint is everyone would have a crown to give back just not everyone gets an extravagant crown
Post by: Frumple on April 30, 2015, 11:05:57 pm
How the zog do you reward more someone that has heaven, anyway? Isn't that supposed to be the infinite reward, right there?
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 30, 2015, 11:09:23 pm
By which I mean almost entirely speculative.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 30, 2015, 11:10:02 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 30, 2015, 11:17:42 pm
It's mostly speculative.Ah, one of those bits. Fair enough.
By which I mean almost entirely speculative.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 30, 2015, 11:18:11 pm
It seems that there are the crowns of: righteousness (2 Timothy 4:8), life (James 1:12 and Revelation 2:10), and glory (1 Peter 5:4)
Post by: Descan on May 01, 2015, 12:12:59 am
The crowns are symbols of achievement towards the glory of god IIRC. It's not so much social stratification but more god showing his great fullness for what you did in his name, not that they matter since they are given back right afterHumans would not be humans if we didn't manage to stratify and ostracize based on things that don't matter :P Even in the here-after.
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 01, 2015, 12:28:51 am
Post by: TD1 on May 24, 2015, 04:30:09 pm
Sorry in advance. :P
Post by: scrdest on May 24, 2015, 05:17:42 pm
That's what heaven is all about. If stratification wasn't important, people in heaven wouldn't behold people being tortured in Hell to remind themselves how much better they have it than other people.Maybe that's a clever secret sorting thing. Upon entry, you get told that the Hell-Window's over there. Whoever actually goes to take a gander at tortured humans gets a divine trapdoor straight to Purgatory or whatevs. :P
Post by: Helgoland on May 25, 2015, 07:22:46 am
-snüp-IIRC the point is that a denarius was about the amount of money a man needed to feed his family for a day. Giving the later workers less would've meant letting their families go hungry.
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 25, 2015, 07:34:10 am
Post by: Helgoland on May 25, 2015, 07:43:41 am
Post by: TempAcc on May 25, 2015, 07:56:35 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on May 25, 2015, 09:03:12 am
Here ya go: Revelation 20:2
"He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years."
Doesn't connect satan as being the enemy though I might be able to find a verse for that, this does connect all those thee ones as the same being since it mentions them all as being one thing.
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 25, 2015, 09:25:52 am
Post by: Arcvasti on May 25, 2015, 11:44:11 pm
Here ya go: Revelation 20:2
"He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years."
Revelation is... sketchy. Compared to other parts of the Bible[Which is sort of saying something], its dubiously canon. It focuses on this one guy who said that they had visions of the future and past that were sent by God/Jesus/HolySpirit/Alloftheabove. Whether or not they were right or not is debatable. I'm not ruling out the possibility Revelation is a genuine... well, revelation, but there is also a possibility that it is not.
Post by: Rolan7 on May 26, 2015, 12:47:19 am
What I am sure about is that *Lucifer* is depicted as a human man, and can't be Satan. See Isaiah 14 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/14.html for convenience sake, starting about line 12)
Just line 14:20, for example, doesn't make any sense if Lucifer's an immortal. The section reads as a condemnation of a mortal king, who won't get a proper burial.
I also chimed in on whether Satan is supposed to be a cherubim or a seraphim, but I don't have anything to add about that... I don't know enough, honestly. Interested, though.
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 26, 2015, 08:18:16 am
Quote from: Isaiah 14:11-12 (NIV)
All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.
How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
Post by: Frumple on May 26, 2015, 08:34:57 am
Just like Satan isn't actually a name that's in the original translation. It's all adversary and opposer and whatnot. Non-human bad guys aren't actually named very often in the canon texts, so far as I can recall.
Post by: TempAcc on May 26, 2015, 08:45:45 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on May 26, 2015, 04:59:11 pm
Post by: TD1 on June 03, 2015, 04:25:30 pm
There is a field, blooming in places, mediocre in some, and yet more parts barren. There is a river, and a mist conceals the other side. There is one bridge, and it is tall and dark, with brooding turrets and rough stonework. The river below hurls itself against its supports before it seeths on past.
Some people claim that on the other side of the unappealing bridge, there is a field wherein the grass is always green and blooming, and all the folk are friendly and good. Birds sing, flowers grow, and all the days are sunny. Those who live in the most barren parts of the field seem to be the ones who hold this belief most closely, and have are eager to cross the foreboding bridge across which noone had ever returned.
Why would anyone continue in such a belief? (Not condescension, genuinely bemused.)
Post by: Frumple on June 03, 2015, 05:08:39 pm
I mean, it can, but it feels better to think otherwise. Add on a component where you (think you) actually have a means of influencing that and you can get a nice bit of fervor going. Especially after the sunk cost fallacy gets rolling.
Post by: andrea on June 03, 2015, 05:13:42 pm
If you have to cross it, might as well hope for something good on the other side.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 03, 2015, 05:28:10 pm
Why would anyone continue in such a belief? (Not condescension, genuinely bemused.)
I don't think this is what you meant, but... It almost sounds like you're asking why someone wouldn't cross the bridge as soon as possible, if they believed.
Of course, Christianity (and probably most other religions?) expressly forbid that. It feels like one of the more artificial laws, but I have an uncommon opinion on suicide. Thanks to all the religions which made it taboo, so their adherents wouldn't off themselves (except for the cause).
Post by: TD1 on June 03, 2015, 06:05:41 pm
What I meant was, why would they believe in a grass is greener approach when absolutely every thing suggests otherwise.
Post by: Frumple on June 03, 2015, 06:32:12 pm
Beyond that, why not? If you have no way of confirming, and it in no way has demonstrable effect on you on this side of the river, why not believe the other side is booze rainbows and unicorn orgies? It makes for a happier bridgebed, probably. Measure of comfort for the unpassed, too. Uncle's with uncomfortable equine frolicking now, and too drunk to care.
Post by: TempAcc on June 03, 2015, 07:08:06 pm
Why would anyone continue in such a belief? (Not condescension, genuinely bemused.)
I don't think this is what you meant, but... It almost sounds like you're asking why someone wouldn't cross the bridge as soon as possible, if they believed.
Of course, Christianity (and probably most other religions?) expressly forbid that. It feels like one of the more artificial laws, but I have an uncommon opinion on suicide. Thanks to all the religions which made it taboo, so their adherents wouldn't off themselves (except for the cause).
There's an actual reason for it tho. When adam and eve ate of the tree of knowledge, God condemned them to suffer the pains of mortal life and to suffer from diseases and grow old and die and etc. But even though they became mortal through their own actions, their life was still given by God, so its unlawful that they would willingly deprive themselves of it.
Other religions have better reasons for it, but thats what the abrahamic religions use.
And on topic: just as Frumple said, nothing in that depiction actualy suggests anything special in regards to what may be on the other side of the bridge, other then no one has ever returned. This might be because there's manbearpigs on the other side, or because theres heaven on the other side. Nothing specifically sugests a necessarily negative outcome for crossing it.
Post by: Helgoland on June 03, 2015, 07:27:39 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on June 03, 2015, 08:34:16 pm
Post by: Helgoland on June 03, 2015, 08:43:26 pm
Consider this: Killing babies before they have a chance to sin is the ultimate good deed, since you accept eternal torment to allow them to go to heaven...
E: And now I've been reminded of these things... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chankiri_Tree)
Post by: Orange Wizard on June 04, 2015, 01:59:33 am
Consider this: Killing babies before they have a chance to sin is the ultimate good deed, since you accept eternal torment to allow them to go to heaven...That's horrifying.
E: And now I've been reminded of these things... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chankiri_Tree)
The trees are pretty bad, too.
Post by: TempAcc on June 04, 2015, 08:46:12 am
In hermeticism, everything in the material world is evil, because it is corruptible, passible, movable and finite, even children, and only the realm of God is good, since only God is truly immortal, unmovable, imutable, incorruptible, etc; While Man is partially mortal (due to having physical existence) and immortal (due to having a mind/soul/spirit). Man is basically a minor god trapped in the physical reality, and the only way to free himself from it is by forgoing the vices of material life, the senses and generally being a good, charitable person, focusing on a spiritual lifestyle through the "strife of piety" and giving thanks to God, so that when you die, your mind lets go of the physical reality and ascend to the heavens.
But to do all that, you need to actualy live and pursue these things, so suicide/getting killed as a child basically screws up with your chances and forces you to start over by reincarnating.
Spiritism has a similar take on this. In spiritism your soul is in a constant process of evolution, and by pursuing a life of virtue and charity, you speed up your evolutionary process so that you may ascend to the next level of existence which is higher then human, but the process takes up several lifetimes so you're bound to keep reincarnating untill you've evolved enough. If you die as a child, you basically get stuck for a while, needing to heal for a bit before reincarnating again and continue the process.
Post by: bahihs on June 05, 2015, 10:01:40 am
"Wish not for death any of you; neither the doer of good works, for peradventure he may increase them by an increase of life; nor the offender, for perhaps he may obtain the forgiveness of God by repentance." -Mohammed (PBUH)
So if you're a bad guy, you can still turn it around and do good. And if you're a good guy, then you can keep doing good. So there is no excuse for suicide so long as you think selflessly. And in a way, suicide can be quite selfish, in the sense that it only arises as an attractive option when thinking purely of the self (I speak from my own experiences, can't speak for others). That's the difference between martyrdom and suicide I suppose.
Post by: fraxert on June 06, 2015, 10:02:29 am
EDIT:For those of you who need oxford commas.
Post by: Helgoland on June 06, 2015, 10:10:02 am
Post by: Descan on June 06, 2015, 10:56:25 am
Post by: Frumple on June 06, 2015, 11:01:17 am
Post by: TempAcc on June 06, 2015, 11:08:41 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: wierd on June 06, 2015, 11:10:12 am
Personally, I'd have suggested hiring Lenin, since he was so pickled by his preservation process that he at least wont have much of an odor aside from all the chemicals- but hey, to each their own.
Post by: TempAcc on June 08, 2015, 01:44:55 pm
I love you, bay12.
Post by: TD1 on June 08, 2015, 01:56:05 pm
Post by: bahihs on June 08, 2015, 02:11:02 pm
Only in bay12 a discussion on religion and spirituality sometimes becomes a discussion on the implications of homosexual necrophilia.
I love you, bay12.
Well I mean...
It was inevitable
Post by: Frumple on June 08, 2015, 02:46:01 pm
Post by: TD1 on June 08, 2015, 03:22:00 pm
Post by: Frumple on June 08, 2015, 03:26:27 pm
Also, rigor mortis. You'd think it wouldn't work that way, but if all the zombie smut I've seen my lifetime (more than I ever wanted to see) tells anything, it's a different story.
Post by: TD1 on June 08, 2015, 03:42:26 pm
Okay.
You are oddly knowledeable in this area.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 08, 2015, 04:34:51 pm
Um, not that I'm more of an expert on this subject.
Post by: Orange Wizard on June 08, 2015, 05:37:22 pm
Post by: TempAcc on June 08, 2015, 05:52:57 pm
...Indeed.
Post by: TD1 on June 08, 2015, 06:03:56 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on June 08, 2015, 06:50:34 pm
Mostly because it's horrifying. And kinda bends the forum guidelines.
Post by: fraxert on June 09, 2015, 12:09:47 am
The term belief is (linguistically speaking) used correctly, you believe there is no god ergo your belief is that there is no god, hence, barring a confusion in terminology, the distaste doesn't appear to be linguistic in nature. Atheists identify with each other, hence calling themselves atheists to the public, but have philosophical divisions on the inside of that loose confederation, of which I'm afraid I'm too poorly acquainted with to properly categorize. A parallel that come readily to mind is Christianity, which is a diverse set of people groups sharing a name but not always an opinion, thus it seems to be poorly thought through as a clarification of organization, due to the existence of highly decentralized and personal religions (Eg. Wicca).
Finally coming to the question, is the aversion a matter of wanting to avoid a confusion of terminology (belief with faith), or is it a means of differentiating between spiritually and materialistically (I don't mean here the negative connotations, merely the relation to matter and natural laws) founded beliefs, or is it a third option I neglected to consider? Also, please point out any logical fallacies I may have made, politely of course.
Secondly, Atheists and Agnostics, have you studied theologies and the philosophies that go with them? Were you educated by its proponents-- not its opponents-- in them? What about other atheists and agnostics you know? As regards my own faith, who and/or what did you learn about Christianity from, if you have studied it? This is one area where I know I fall down sometimes, not carrying a well working understanding of the topic at hand.
Post by: Biowraith on June 09, 2015, 01:09:07 am
A pair of questions for atheists regarding the aversion to calling atheism a belief.
I guess I'd call myself an agnostic atheist - I don't think there's any way to know (even if I somehow 'met' God I'd have no way to determine that's who I'd just met) but I think it's unlikely there is one, especially as described in any of the religions I've encountered. To answer your two questions:
Personally, I don't really have an aversion to calling atheism a belief, because as you say that's what it is. I would have an aversion to comparing it with religious belief for the most part though, as I don't think it has the same level of devotion or significance, and certainly not the same level of organisation - Christianity may have a diverse set of people groups, but even so there's still a far greater level of organisation, hierarchy, official texts, rules, etc involved there. I'd also dispute the idea that I identify with other atheists - I don't particularly. I mean we obviously share that one belief, but that's not enough common ground for me to feel a connection or shared identity with someone. But then, I don't particularly identify with anyone, although that's a more personal issue that goes beyond the scope of this thread.
As for my level of study, I was raised a Protestant Christian until around the age of 10 and went to church each week (and I was a believer for the duration - I don't recall the point where I stopped believing, but I do remember as a kid arguing with other kids about the existence of God, on the proponent side). I'd not go so far as to say I've studied theologies and philosophies, beyond the normal exposure a kid gets going to sunday school etc and an adult gets paying attention when people discuss it online or browsing wikipedia - I try to pay as much attention to what the proponents say as the opponents; I'd like to say even more so, since their beliefs on the subject are more relevant when determining whether I could/should share those beliefs, although there's always the possibility that my own belief is unconsciously biasing me in that regard. But actual study, no; without wanting to sound overly dismissive I'd rather spend my time on other things.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 09, 2015, 01:58:18 am
The meaning of "Atheism" gets confused a lot, and understandably so (because it was historically dangerous to discuss openly, and still is in some places or circles). Here's my understanding of the "tiers":
Anti-theist: Believes or claims there are no gods. "I know that X is false"
Atheist: Doesn't believe in gods. "I don't know that X is true"
Agnostic: Doesn't know whether there are gods "I don't know for sure"
An atheist can also be an anti-theist or an agnostic, but not both.
So, atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief in gods.
Anti-theism can be based on belief, or it can be based on reasoning. Logically impossible things don't exist (like a God based on a full literal interpretation of the King James Bible). If something's technically possible but seems unlikely, that involves some belief. Like believing that gravity won't suddenly reverse tomorrow. We don't know 100% that it won't, but it's convenient to say it won't.
As for the second question... I'd say I've learned a more about Christianity from its proponents, and more about the Bible from its opponents. Despite going to youth group and Bible studies (off and on) up through college. The churches preached a few nice stories, and left the tricky bits for freethinkers to explore.
I'm sure that's not true of all pastors, particularly if I were to go ask now. Even as a college kid I couldn't get a straight answer, but maybe now I could. But it's hard to justify putting concentrated effort into that, and not the multitude of other faiths... Particularly after the giant lie of omission which was my experience with the Baptist church.
I'm an agnostic atheist and a dubious animist. I believe in 0 gods instead of 1, but I have some faith in the idea of spirits for living and unliving things. And there could be a god, so I'm not anti-theist, but I doubt it would match the Abrahamic one. At least the classical portrayal of Him.
Post by: Vattic on June 09, 2015, 02:42:17 am
I studied philosophy in college with a fair chunk dedicated to the philosophy of religion. My teacher was a Roman Catholic convert originally from the Church of England (Protestant). Any studies since then have been self guided. Before that I have my parents who were kind of Christian (Dad more than Mum), but they had a wider appreciation for religion and spirituality in general. Most of the extended family are devout Christians (only since early adulthood have I known my Granddad was non-believer) and clearly wanted me to be Christian (in retrospect the main reason I was religious). As is common in the UK most of my schools were affiliated with the Church of England which meant a fair bit of theology in both special lessons and assemblies with church visits for Christmas, Easter, and similar.
TL/DR: Most of my teachers and parental figures have been proponents.
I thought an anti-theist is someone who believes belief in gods is bad for humanity.
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 09, 2015, 07:08:31 am
Post by: Helgoland on June 09, 2015, 07:13:26 am
Post by: Telgin on June 09, 2015, 07:40:46 am
As for the second question... I'd say I've learned a more about Christianity from its proponents, and more about the Bible from its opponents. Despite going to youth group and Bible studies (off and on) up through college. The churches preached a few nice stories, and left the tricky bits for freethinkers to explore.
I'm sure that's not true of all pastors, particularly if I were to go ask now. Even as a college kid I couldn't get a straight answer, but maybe now I could. But it's hard to justify putting concentrated effort into that, and not the multitude of other faiths... Particularly after the giant lie of omission which was my experience with the Baptist church.
That was my general experience as well as a kid, but the church I attend now has a pastor who merrily preaches the worst bits and freely admits that God kills babies sometimes if He thinks He should. Naturally, he says that God only does this because babies always go to heaven and it can be used as a tool to get others to turn to Christianity. Something like that. I think this is more common with Pentecostal Holiness Protestant churches, who are definitely on the hardline side of any philosophical question in the Bible. Better safe than sorry is the rule for them, no matter the inconvenience or how painful what they say sounds. It's hard to argue when their rationale is that the alternative is to burn in Hell forever.
Anyway, I was raised as Pentecostal Holiness but after I started attending college I slowly lost any belief in any of it. I don't consider myself an anti-theist because it's dangerous to think there can't be any god and know that, but there's enough lack of evidence and inconsistencies in my understanding of any organized religion to prevent me from accepting the existence of a god.
Post by: TempAcc on June 09, 2015, 07:48:02 am
I can relate to what penguin said. I attribute the growing disdain for spirituality and religion in general in North America and some parts of Europe due to the spread of increasingly fundamentalist and exclusory views, which were empowered in the advent of protestantism, in response to the catholic fundamentalism of old. If my spirituality was formed under the influence of most pastors, I'm pretty sure I'd either have become a fundamentalist myself or an atheist. This is why I have distanced myself from the church of england and protestant beliefs in general, and started studying religions through my own interest, in my own pace.
I've read stuff on Gnosticism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and most recently Spiritism and Hermeticism, but its hard to really understand a religion without taking into account the historical, social and cultural context of each.
It still helped me to greatly develop my spirituality, though, and if anything it helped me come to terms with existence a lot better. If anything, I'm a happier person now then before, and more hopeful. This is why I'm all for religion teaching in schools, but not the kind that is partial to one religion or another, just some sort of teaching that shows kids that there are multiple beliefs out there, so that they can pursue knowledge of them, if they want, later in their lives.
Post by: TD1 on June 09, 2015, 08:23:24 am
Other learning came in the form of books by all religious types. All ny friends are proponents. One even threw a Dawkins book of mine down the hall, telling me it was rubbish and I was an idiot for reading it. (We didn't stay friends long after.) so I suppose another form of learning came from general immersion. I only know one other atheist.
Post by: Frumple on June 09, 2015, 08:56:06 am
Finally coming to the question, is the aversion a matter of wanting to avoid a confusion of terminology (belief with faith)This is usually the biggest reason for the aversion I've personally noticed. Atheism/agnosticism/etc. may be a belief, but it's not a belief in the same way a religion is, and most of the people that call atheism a belief seem to be the sorts that are trying to say it's explicitly the same as a religion, complete with tenants and rituals and all that rigmarole. And it's not. There's not even a secret handshake or somethin'. It's not a belief in the religious sense, it's a belief in the epistemological sense.
Atheism isn't even a loose confederation, really. There are some atheist groups of thought that do collaborate to degrees (this is why you do at times have atheists acknowledging each other as the same sort of critter in public), but that has little to do with the general belief itself. Calling atheism a confederation is about the same as calling people who like milk a confederation, y'know?
Quote
or is it a means of differentiating between spiritually and materialistically (I don't mean here the negative connotations, merely the relation to matter and natural laws) founded beliefsMetaphysical and non-metaphysical would probably be better terms to use, heh. That's part of it, but as usual not the whole.
Quote
Secondly, Atheists and Agnostics, have you studied theologies and the philosophies that go with them? Were you educated by its proponents-- not its opponents-- in them? What about other atheists and agnostics you know? As regards my own faith, who and/or what did you learn about Christianity from, if you have studied it?Irreligious apatheist here, which is more or less a specific sort of agnostic. I've actually sunk a few years into theology, via philosophy education (I've said it before, I think, but I find theology to be very pretty.). Medieval christianity, general philosophy of religion, bit on eastern religions... most of it taught by a couple of christian priests, though I've since forgotten their denominations (and it wouldn't really matter for one of them, because that one was significantly radical). Beyond that, I grew up in an almost blanket christian area, and did go to church/sunday school for the earlier years of my life, though my parent was never particularly religious and regular churchgoing stopped probably around 5 or 6. I've never really been explicitly educated by opponents to any faith, much less christianity -- even the folks that weren't religious or some variant of theist were pretty okay with faith or religion as a general thing.
Unfortunately, beyond never experiencing the precise sorts of hallucinations that convince people their belief in a particular religion is true (I had different "religious experiences" that were unfortunately entirely too identifiable as hallucinations to convince myself otherwise), I, as mentioned, grew up in an area that is pretty much blanket christian and very, very vocal about it. Three churches in a two caution light town, that sort of thing. I've pretty much never actually, in person, seen the church or the faith produce something that wasn't toxic to some degree. I've met wonderful people whose love and light turned their faith into something that was positive -- some of the best folks I've ever met were religious of some sort -- but generally religion just seems to produce nastiness after nastiness. Comfort for the folks that are immediately involved (which, to be fair, is a certain sort of virtue), but gods help you if you're not.
That's where the irreligious comes from -- I've reached the point I'm fairly convinced that organized religion is a net negative. Individual faith of whatever sort I'm pretty okay with, but the organized sort just seems to consistently cause problems. Worst bit to me is that some of the worst problems always seem to be regarding following the religion itself -- few things seem as capable of leading a person to violate the tenants of their religion as a priest and congregation. For living in an area that preaches love as one of the highest tenants of their belief, I have seen a lot of hate in my lifetime :-\
Combined with the lack of any explicitly identifiable effect on the world, I got turned off pretty hard, and it eventually reached the point where consideration of the question of divinity has pretty much no meaning to me beyond idle amusement (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, per se. Idle amusement is good.). That's the apatheism -- I don't think the question of whether there's a god or not actually matters. The answer is irrelevant; the world changes naught one bit whether there is or isn't one, insofar as I've been able to tell. If you want to get me to care enough to really fall into a theist/atheist camp, you'd have to convince me it matters, that the existence or non-existence of a god actually has an effect on the world I observe. As it is, it's fun to talk about, but that's about it.
Doesn't help that the natures ascribed to the divine are generally pretty nasty themselves. I'm arguably happier with it not mattering than I would be if it did, heh.
Post by: TD1 on June 09, 2015, 09:04:07 am
Post by: Sheb on June 09, 2015, 09:33:30 am
So yeah, form a definition point of view it's a belief, but I don't like that word's implication.
As for my schooling, I've learned what I know about theology mostly through self-reading, although I did learn a fair bit about religion itself from being in catholic school for all my education.
Post by: Arx on June 09, 2015, 09:48:42 am
I've usually heard it use by religious people implying that atheism is no more rational than religious belief.
Implying atheism is more rational than religious belief.
Don't mind me. It's probably better to carry on with the discussion that it's actually possible to resolve peacefully.
Post by: Helgoland on June 09, 2015, 09:51:27 am
We could also call them chaotolatric, but that would lead to many misunderstandings. Similarly materialism would be a fitting description as well, but only for a certain meaning of 'materialism'.
Post by: wierd on June 09, 2015, 10:16:29 am
Not any more than you can "know" that the many worlds hypothesis is either true or false. There simply is not a valid empirical test to derive that knowledge.
At best, the hard atheist makes an inference that he/she believes to be very sound based on indirect information, but that leads ultimately to the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" logical fallacy. It is quite possible for a deity to exist outside of our testable universe, and simply not give a flying fuck about anything we pitiful humans do in our universe sandbox, and thus it does not interact with our universe at all. Please dont go spouting off about orbiting teapots-- That's loaded, intended to point out that conjecture can lead to absurd conclusions. I prefer allegory here, so more like, we are ants on a sandy hill discussing the existence of fish in the sea. The aicthio ants say that the sea isnt real, so there is no evidence of fish existing, so as a consequence, the fish are also not real. The icthio-agnostic ants say they have no knowledge of either the sea or of said hypothetical fish, and the icthio-theist ants say, with intense force of will, that the sea is not only real, but that the great fish will devour them all.
The ants are hundreds of kilometers from any ocean, lake, or stream. They will never encounter the sea. They will never encounter a fish. The absence of evidence for a sea does not mean that a sea does not exist.
The real takeaway here is not weather or not some hypothetical agency exists, but if the actual question itself is even worth trying to answer. For the ants, they will never encounter the sea, they will never encounter the fish, so even though in this example the existence of the fish is taken as a granted, the ants do not profit in any way by wastefully trying to understand the fish. They are better off just ignoring the question all together. The a-icthiast ants BELIEVE that this is what they are doing, but that is not actually true. They "ignore" the question by rigidly taking a side on the question. The most correct solution is to admit that they dont know a damn thing about hypothetical fish, hypothetical seas they may live in, and assert that since the chances of ever encountering either of those are slim to none, weather or not those hypothetical concepts are real or not are moot. There is no use for the conjecture; it will only ever be conjecture, because the ants dont live next to the sea, and cannot test for the presence of fish.
We humans are ants. we live on a tiny ball of mud, on a distant part of one spiral arm of a pretty unremarkable spiral galaxy, which is one of uncountable billions of other unremarkable galaxies that look just like ours. We will likely never find an "edge" to our universe. We have determined that "god" is like the hypothetical fish to the ants-- We have explored our ant hill, and know that a being of unlimited energy could never manifest in our universe (because they would immediately collapse into the biggest black hole ever. Literally an infinite event horizon.) So, we can conclude that we will likely never encounter god, and as such, any conjecture about the existence of god is just as pointless as the conjectures about fish that the ants are making. The question is not worth trying to answer, and certainly not worth the egoist hubris of asserting an answer without sufficient data. Dont be afraid to say "I dont know, and I dont care." ;)
Unless the atheists out there have some radical tech for disproving the many worlds hypothesis, and systematically eliminating all possible modalities of existence other than our own, they make the mistake that the aicthian ants make-- "There is no such thing as a fish." As humans who eat fish all the time, we know with certainty that fish are indeed real. The ants dont know that, and cannot know that. Rather than accept that they really dont actually KNOW the fish arent real, they blandly assert this conjecture, because it fits their beliefs. (yes, beliefs.)
We are the ants. we do not know and cannot know about a hypothetical god. The existence or non-existence of a god is apparently moot to us. There is no reason to ask the question.
It is not worth the energy needed to answer. we dont really profit from such an answer.
Post by: TD1 on June 09, 2015, 10:25:44 am
Post by: wierd on June 09, 2015, 10:29:21 am
Ultimately you can't know anything. But when something is as probable as Santa, I tend to say that I know it to be false.
and THAT, is a BELIEF. ;)
Post by: TD1 on June 09, 2015, 10:34:40 am
Post by: Arx on June 09, 2015, 10:35:09 am
Arx and wierd: We're right and you're wrong because these reasons!
Th4DwArfY1: I'm right and you're wrong because these reasons!
And neither side will ever believe the other side's reasons are better. I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm right because Dwarfy seems to have forgotten that Santa is less likely than God, but that wouldn't hold up in a court of law (or a note to a teacher).
Post by: Rolan7 on June 09, 2015, 10:37:16 am
Ultimately you can't know anything. But when something is as probable as Santa, I tend to say that I know it to be false.
That, and you can say something doesn't exist if its definition contains logical contradictions. To keep it simple and abstract, if the Bible said "God loves everybody" and "God doesn't love everybody", and there wasn't any sort of translation or context issue, one could point at that and say: "God doesn't exist as described by these passages. It's literally impossible."
But yes Weird, we "believe" that gravity will continue working :P We aren't 100% sure.
Post by: wierd on June 09, 2015, 10:41:56 am
Unlike a question about a supernatural agency, we interact with gravity daily. We stand to profit immeasurably through a better understanding of it.
It is therefor worth the expense to try to find out.
That is not true of supernatural agencies, which by definition, are supernatural, and thus outside the scope of what natural science can investigate.
Post by: bahihs on June 09, 2015, 10:43:37 am
Now, my premise might be wrong, but assuming an Atheist does not believe in an afterlife or even more basic, some sort of cosmic balance (a la Hinduism or Buddhism, among others), how do they reconcile (or even rationalize) the vast difference in standards of living between people in the world (especially in the western world, whose standard of living is vastly superior to rest)?
In part, most religions try to alleviate the inevitable cognitive dissonance that arises from such disparity, either by encouraging charity (in Islam, for example, Charity (Zakat) is one of the 5 pillars) or even more fundamentally promoting "ego-death" so that the self is obliterated and with it, any disparity from perception of "I" and "You". Most religions often operate by a progression, starting from charity but having the ultimate goal as ego-death (one-with-god, enlightened, moksha, etc.). Most religions also have an idea of justice or at least balance, an afterlife where everyone is judged, or a cyclical existence, where the current situation arose from the consequences of past actions.
This works both ways of course, the lucky few who live in luxury (and by luxury, I mean compared to those who live in severe poverty in other countries) are freed from guilt (though not responsibility, as the charity part is pretty universal) and the unlucky get to at least look forward to an afterlife (or a different life) if they behave according to the rules of their religion.
But atheists don't have this, so how do they manage the dissonance? Or do they not just think about it?
This is not to say there aren't charitable atheists (obviously there are) or uncharitable theists (unfortunately), but in the latter case it would be considered a sin and some sort of guilt associated with it, whereas in uncharitable atheists, my question is whether a similar guilt is felt, and if so how is it resolved?
Post by: TempAcc on June 09, 2015, 10:45:16 am
Hell, to this day, we haven't even found conclusive answers as to how several parts of our body work, we just have ideas of how it may work based on observation and testing, but there are still many unanswered questions that our current science has yet to explain.
EDIT: I can, however, affirm that forum ninjas exist :v
Post by: TD1 on June 09, 2015, 10:47:51 am
Besides this, most theists do the same with the occassional "I did this because the bible says..." added in to back their action.
Post by: bahihs on June 09, 2015, 10:51:59 am
Correct! we KNOW very little about gravity. That's why we are running tests at the LHC. ;)
Unlike a question about a supernatural agency, we interact with gravity daily. We stand to profit immeasurably through a better understanding of it.
It is therefor worth the expense to try to find out.
That is not true of supernatural agencies, which by definition, are supernatural, and thus outside the scope of what natural science can investigate.
Is this to suggest that efforts should only be made toward those things in which "we stand to profit immeasurably" or is "worth the expense"? If so I agree with you on the last statement (outside the scope of natural science) but not the former.
Not only because it is impossible to determine whether a particular discovery will be profitable (in the sense of useful) in the future, but also because it seems to denounce doing activities for their own sake (art for instance). Although I get the feeling that's not what you meant and you were only speaking about gravity vs God ( and not everything)
Post by: bahihs on June 09, 2015, 10:56:29 am
Religion gives moral guidelines. Atheists form their own and feel guilty if they transgress.
Besides this, most theists do the same with the occassional "I did this because the bible says..." added in to back their action.
Sorry for the double post. This answers the second question (Do you feel guilty?), but not the first : How do you deal with the apparent disparity in standard of living between peoples around the world?
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 11:00:41 am
But atheists don't have this, so how do they manage the dissonance? Or do they not just think about it?
You have to admit it's very easy not to think about due to there being absolutely nothing one can do about their initial conditions in life, and lives tend to be very sensitive to initial conditions.
However, consider that for an atheist the afterlife (to address that part of the worldview) might be found in some way in what they leave behind. An atheist may admit that their own mind will cease to exist, but this hardly matters if one can identify with something broader than themselves - their family, their work, their community, civilization as a whole or something similar. A grounded afterlife of sorts. You can still feel like you are a part of a greater functioning whole even if you do not believe in the supernatural, and you can also believe this greater whole will endure past your death. So if an atheist is on the shitty side of observing disparity among the people of the world, they can make themselves part of something greater that alleviates this.
Post by: TD1 on June 09, 2015, 11:03:04 am
Post by: TempAcc on June 09, 2015, 11:06:03 am
Religion gives moral guidelines. Atheists form their own and feel guilty if they transgress.
Besides this, most theists do the same with the occassional "I did this because the bible says..." added in to back their action.
This is also true for religious people, though, with the questionable exception of fundamentalist religious people, which I actively avoid. Religion is ultimately a choice, even if people attempt to force theirs on you, since nobody is capable of mind control. Religion is just one of the sources of moral guidelines, along with society, culture and family. These often overlap, but never actualy completely absorb one another.
In this sense, one could even argue that an atheist person might be actualy more limited in their choices, since they choose to actively ignore any guidelines related to religion, similar to a fundamentalist religious person, that ignores guidelines outside of religion :v
Edit: Alas, I confirm the existence of ninjas yet again. I will go on to start ninjanity.
Post by: wierd on June 09, 2015, 11:06:10 am
Correct! we KNOW very little about gravity. That's why we are running tests at the LHC. ;)
Unlike a question about a supernatural agency, we interact with gravity daily. We stand to profit immeasurably through a better understanding of it.
It is therefor worth the expense to try to find out.
That is not true of supernatural agencies, which by definition, are supernatural, and thus outside the scope of what natural science can investigate.
Is this to suggest that efforts should only be made toward those things in which "we stand to profit immeasurably" or is "worth the expense"? If so I agree with you on the last statement (outside the scope of natural science) but not the former.
Not only because it is impossible to determine whether a particular discovery will be profitable (in the sense of useful) in the future, but also because it seems to denounce doing activities for their own sake (art for instance). Although I get the feeling that's not what you meant and you were only speaking about gravity vs God ( and not everything)
"Useful" in that there actually IS an application for the knowledge.
again, a supernatural agency presupposes a condition of being outside physical reality, through its definition. This means that while we might conjecturally come to "know" about supernatural events, if they are relayed to us by a supernatural actor, there is no actual utility to that "knowledge."
I used quote above for a very important reason-- that (above) is basically what is claimed by every book on witchcraft, magic, and religious tome out there. That isn't true knowledge, because you cannot test it yourself to verify it. It has to be taken on "good faith", and is thus wholly in the realm of belief.
supernatural things are supernatural, and we cannot test them. Physical things are physical and we CAN test them.
debating about knowledge of a supernatural thing is a pointless exercise.
Post by: Sheb on June 09, 2015, 11:12:34 am
Part of the issue there is that we do not have words to distinguish between stuff we know with absolute certainty, and stuff which we just know with a really, really high degree of certainty. Anyway, I don't think we should really be discussing atheism again, I was just answering a semantic question.
Bahihs, for your other question, I'm not sure what you mean. What do you mean by "deal"? Maybe it would help me if you told us how you see religious folks "dealing" with inequality.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 09, 2015, 11:20:45 am
This is a straight question, please don't take it in a sarcastic sense.
Now, my premise might be wrong, but assuming an Atheist does not believe in an afterlife or even more basic, some sort of cosmic balance (a la Hinduism or Buddhism, among others), how do they reconcile (or even rationalize) the vast difference in standards of living between people in the world (especially in the western world, whose standard of living is vastly superior to rest)?
It really sucks. And as you point out, we don't believe that it's going to be rectified after death. If the problems are going to be fixed, we have to do it ourselves, here and now. Fortunately, almost all humans have compassion, so we feel the urge to help to some extent.
It's actually stranger that religions encourage charity, while at the same time saying that the downtrodden will be rewarded in the next life. It's a bit inconsistent, but it makes sense in the context of seeking converts. Religious charity almost always involves evangelism, a very effective combination. The unfortunate person is offered food now, and a palace in heaven later. The missionary feels like a good person because they're being charitable. Everybody wins, especially the religion's population number.
The thing is, charity isn't a religious thing. Everybody has an impulse for charity, that's the reason charitable missionaries feel good. The reason religious groups are able to spend so much money on charity, besides being massive, ancient organizations, is that it's also their recruitment budget.
But atheists don't have this, so how do they manage the dissonance? Or do they not just think about it?
This is not to say there aren't charitable atheists (obviously there are) or uncharitable theists (unfortunately), but in the latter case it would be considered a sin and some sort of guilt associated with it, whereas in uncharitable atheists, my question is whether a similar guilt is felt, and if so how is it resolved?
Definitely. And my opinion is that that "guilt" is behind all charity, but religions piggyback on it to gain converts.
And to be fair, all sorts of other groups attach their agendas to charity also. Particularly governments or political groups. But my point is that compassion is human, and certain groups just take credit for it. Resulting in people wondering why nonbelievers would ever be compassionate... As if we're all sociopaths. Which is silly because we're not the ones being coerced to do good by religious doctrines.
The sad thing is that a lot of religious people seem to think they would be evil, if religion wasn't forcing them to do good :( I don't believe that. It's a false teaching which keeps people in line.
Post by: TD1 on June 09, 2015, 11:21:25 am
As has been expressed before, it is a question of probability. We all presumably agree that the probability of Zeus existing is very far down there. Why, then, isn't God. As far as I can see, the only reason is because a lot of people currently hold that belief. Zeus doesn't exist if enough people think he does. Likewise, nor does God.
Post by: wierd on June 09, 2015, 11:35:12 am
I fail to see how it is pointless. You can compare it with beliefs which are the same barring the fact only a few believe them -Zeus, Santa, Thor, etc.- and then apply this evidence to the supernatural force being evaluated. If it is different in some drastic way, then it deserves a closer look. So far, I've yet to see a deity that doesn't seem man made.
As has been expressed before, it is a question of probability. We all presumably agree that the probability of Zeus existing is very far down there. Why, then, isn't God. As far as I can see, the only reason is because a lot of people currently hold that belief. Zeus doesn't exist if enough people think he does. Likewise, nor does God.
You are conflating "belief in judaeo christian god" with "Belief in A god".
an atheist says more than just "I dont believe in 'that' god." he says "I dont believe gods arent all fiction."
This gets complicated by "hard" and "soft" atheism.
the hard atheist flatly says "There are NO gods."
the soft atheist says "I do not believe in any of the gods presented to me so far." --or there abouts.
Likewise, there are hard and soft agnostics.
The hard agnostic, like me, says "I have no knowledge that any god is real or unreal, and state from the basis of pure logic, that no such knowledge can ever be attained."
the soft agnostic says simply "I do not know if any god exists or not."
If you note, my argument was against hard atheism, not soft atheism-- I directly stated such in the opening paragraph.
You sound like a soft atheist. Sheb sounds like a hard atheist.
Post by: Angle on June 09, 2015, 11:41:39 am
This is a straight question, please don't take it in a sarcastic sense.
Now, my premise might be wrong, but assuming an Atheist does not believe in an afterlife or even more basic, some sort of cosmic balance (a la Hinduism or Buddhism, among others), how do they reconcile (or even rationalize) the vast difference in standards of living between people in the world (especially in the western world, whose standard of living is vastly superior to rest)?
Well, it depends on the atheist - Some forms of Buddhism are atheistic, for example. But for myself at least, I reconcile this by actively working to make the world a better place. You can check the Agora link in my sig for details.
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 11:53:04 am
Let's say you are religious, and that this religion is the type that has an afterlife with qualifications, and a less preferable afterlife for those who don't qualify. You are judged by a divine entity of some sort to gauge whether you are going to get in.
Do non-batshit-insane religious people genuinely believe that someone does go to some form of hell after they die?
If so, do they ever really consider that they themselves may go to hell after they die? That a divine entity beyond their comprehension will look upon their souls and find them wanting for sins they have rationalized away or perhaps for sins that nobody has managed to commit in any form of document?
Or does every person assume by default that they will experience the better afterlife if they continue their chosen course in life working from the information available to them, or perhaps not consider the afterlife at all (it being their chosen gods that have the only right to decide, after all)?
Post by: TempAcc on June 09, 2015, 11:54:54 am
@Harry Baldman: That question only applies to religions that include a hell :v
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 11:59:42 am
@Harry Baldman: That question only applies to religions that include a hell :v
Well, I specified as much at the start (if only because working in the hell bit in every question would have been awkward). Fortunately, I know of a few very popular ones that do, at least in their supplemental material.
See, I know all the fundamentalist perspectives on these questions, but never somebody more moderate.
Post by: Arx on June 09, 2015, 12:02:54 pm
There are also atheistic interpretations of judaism, I think, but none that are too established, or that I know too well.
That doesn't make much sense, since literally all of Judaism that I'm aware of is based off serving God in order to reap benefits. There isn't even an afterlife clause.
Do non-batshit-insane religious people genuinely believe that someone does go to some form of hell after they die?
Well, I like to think I'm not insane, and, well, yes. I tend to favour the annihilation theory rather than the loleternalpain theory, but it's rather vague and doesn't make much difference anyway. There's a reason I still hang around in this thread other than self-hatred.
And I'm probably a moderate fundamentalist or something. I believe that if it's in the Bible, it's a thing, but I use the whole Bible, not whatever's convenient and supports my pre-existing agenda, which seems to be what the loudest American fundamentalists do. Edit: The short way to say that is "I'm a Methodist" but most people don't actually know what that means. :v
Post by: TempAcc on June 09, 2015, 12:07:03 pm
This is a pretty personal interpretation, though, so dont take it as representative of some major belief. I'm likely not even fully christian by now :v
There are also atheistic interpretations of judaism, I think, but none that are too established, or that I know too well.
That doesn't make much sense, since literally all of Judaism that I'm aware of is based off serving God in order to reap benefits. There isn't even an afterlife clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism#Jewish_theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism#Jewish_theology)
Again, not a very stablished thing, or something I know very well by any means.
Post by: wierd on June 09, 2015, 12:07:58 pm
I have told them that if when I die, I see the big man himself, and he judges me unworthy, I understand the premise behind that determination well enough to not argue, and to accept decomissioning with dignity and grace.
(The concept of a burning hell that lasts forever as a source of eternal torment is a fairly modern interpretation. The phrase "forever and ever" relates to the smoke and fire of the place, not the act of being decomissioned. That part, as well as the name, "hell", comes from old norse mythology which was christianized when christianity converted europe (by force.) Looking at the greek texts, in conjunction with the old hebrew texts, the interpretation I get is that god decomissions the unworthy souls (including the fallen angels) using the lake of fire, and are completely and totally destroyed by this process. The lake itself burns forever, not the souls put into it.)
Post by: Frumple on June 09, 2015, 12:11:00 pm
Now, my premise might be wrong, but assuming an Atheist does not believe in an afterlife or even more basic, some sort of cosmic balance (a la Hinduism or Buddhism, among others), how do they reconcile (or even rationalize) the vast difference in standards of living between people in the world (especially in the western world, whose standard of living is vastly superior to rest)?You do have a few wrong premises in there... atheism has nothing in particular to do with an afterlife, or belief in the just world hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis). It fairly specifically has to do with belief in gods. Buddhism, for example, is an atheist religion at its core (though it's compatible with theistic metaphysics), and there's a fair few examples of belief systems that believe in an afterlife or whatnot, but not gods. There's a greater breadth to metaphysics than the theistic, heh.
Beyond that, atheism isn't nearly cohesive enough to have a single answer to how atheists consider the issue of wealth disparity and whatnot. How any particular atheist thinks of that subject is going to vary entirely by individual. Some feel guilt at the disparity of situation, some don't. Some hold to a variation of the just world fallacy you were referencing, other don't. The list just kinda' goes on. Probably an unsatisfying answer, but it's about the only one that can accurately be given.
Me, I don't really hold to the guilt thing. There's a problem, and it's a problem that needs to be solved, but it's not a problem such that I personally caused it and should feel guilt because of it. Feel other things, yes, and it saddens me when my fellow human does not have the advantages I've chanced in to, but guilt, specifically... not so much. There's not really a dissonance there for me. The world's fundamentally unfair, and I got lucky. At that point, the only thing to really do is do what you can to make sure more people get lucky later on, yeah? Not because of any cosmic balance or anything, just because it's the nice thing to do, and I can largely afford to be nice.
On the subject of uncharitable theists, though, do note that a lot of religions are squirrelly as hell about that particular subject. Can't speak well of other countries, but it's an actual legitimate problem here in the US, churches abusing charitable status (and, among other things, funneling a lot of their charity resources into things of significantly questionable charitableness) and desultory donations to the church (instead of actual charitable works or whathaveyou) to half-heartedly fulfill tenets of charity being misappropriated, misused, etc., etc. And that's not even getting into nasty stuff like prosperity gospel, ugh. On the face of things, religious individuals are more charitable by the numbers, iirc, but it's a more questionable statement that it seems. Among other things, a lot of that charity just goes right back in to the religion, or is more about ministry than physical aid. Is a subject with a lot more nuance than people want to give, oft times.
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 12:13:52 pm
That doesn't make much sense, since literally all of Judaism that I'm aware of is based off serving God in order to reap benefits. There isn't even an afterlife clause.
It's Judaism in the sense that it takes after the traditions, but for the sake of community and preserving one's roots, and has no religious element in it. It's like celebrating Christmas (rather than just the solstice) if you're an atheist.
Well, I like to think I'm not insane, and, well, yes. I tend to favour the annihilation theory rather than the loleternalpain theory, but it's rather vague and doesn't make much difference anyway. There's a reason I still hang around in this thread other than self-hatred.
The annihilation hypothesis, I find, is very convenient in that all parties get what they expected in the end. Well, except people from different religions with afterlives or reincarnation. They don't get what they expected, I surmise, whatever that might be.
Post by: wierd on June 09, 2015, 12:18:38 pm
I just have a finite window of existence, as defined by a range of temporal coordinates.
EG, by existing now, my past MUST happen-- law of causality. Time is a dimension of our spacetime reality. It exists fundamentally in a timeless state if viewed from the outiside. So, to that observer, I exist, and always will exist, exactly as I am right now.
So, my "existence" does not end with my death.
Post by: TempAcc on June 09, 2015, 12:22:34 pm
Hermeticism says that humans are immortal due to their minds, which is only limited by the senses and perception of time due to the physical body it inhabits.
Post by: bahihs on June 09, 2015, 12:23:58 pm
But atheists don't have this, so how do they manage the dissonance? Or do they not just think about it?
Quote
You have to admit it's very easy not to think about due to there being absolutely nothing one can do about their initial conditions in life, and lives tend to be very sensitive to initial conditions.
However, consider that for an atheist the afterlife (to address that part of the worldview) might be found in some way in what they leave behind. An atheist may admit that their own mind will cease to exist, but this hardly matters if one can identify with something broader than themselves - their family, their work, their community, civilization as a whole or something similar. A grounded afterlife of sorts. You can still feel like you are a part of a greater functioning whole even if you do not believe in the supernatural, and you can also believe this greater whole will endure past your death.
I agree that it's easy not to think about it (god knows modern life has plenty of distractions to make even it easier) but for your latter statement, if atheists do not believe in an afterlife but in a "grounded after-life" (i.e a material one, instead of an immaterial one) they must still cope with the inevitable fact that the universe will come to an end at some point and their actions (far as they may ripple) will eventually be dissipated by time. In other words, it won't endure.
This is why (in my humble opinion) religions seem to turn away from the material. Buddhism and Hinduism would argue that the material is subject to transience and therefore is not something one should ground themselves on, Abrahamic religions would probably say something similar, adding that the only ground is God. In any case, the point is religions tend to ground on what they perceive as the absolute (change, God, whatever it may be), are you then saying that Atheists perceive the Earth, familial connections etc. to be absolute?
Well, this thread of discussion starting with a question of semantics, about why I didn't like to call my atheism a belief. I readily admit that I do not KNOW that God doesn't exist, just as I do not KNOW that my garden is still there or that a teapot doesn't orbit Mars (An example, which I find much less loaded than your ant one). But I wouldn't walk to my sister and say "I belief the garden hasn't been replaced by a void".
Part of the issue there is that we do not have words to distinguish between stuff we know with absolute certainty, and stuff which we just know with a really, really high degree of certainty. Anyway, I don't think we should really be discussing atheism again, I was just answering a semantic question.
Bahihs, for your other question, I'm not sure what you mean. What do you mean by "deal"? Maybe it would help me if you told us how you see religious folks "dealing" with inequality.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Correct! we KNOW very little about gravity. That's why we are running tests at the LHC. ;)"Useful" in that there actually IS an application for the knowledge.
Unlike a question about a supernatural agency, we interact with gravity daily. We stand to profit immeasurably through a better understanding of it.
It is therefor worth the expense to try to find out.
That is not true of supernatural agencies, which by definition, are supernatural, and thus outside the scope of what natural science can investigate.
again, a supernatural agency presupposes a condition of being outside physical reality, through its definition. This means that while we might conjecturally come to "know" about supernatural events, if they are relayed to us by a supernatural actor, there is no actual utility to that "knowledge."
I used quote above for a very important reason-- that (above) is basically what is claimed by every book on witchcraft, magic, and religious tome out there. That isn't true knowledge, because you cannot test it yourself to verify it. It has to be taken on "good faith", and is thus wholly in the realm of belief.
supernatural things are supernatural, and we cannot test them. Physical things are physical and we CAN test them.
debating about knowledge of a supernatural thing is a pointless exercise.
I...agree with you (about the pointlessness of arguing about the knowledge of a supernatural thing which cannot by, definition, be known). I'm just saying dismissing all "non-useful" things also dismisses things like discoveries which have no practical use, or activities for the sake of the activity (like art, or sports). Although I still think that's not what you meant, just trying to make sure.
This is a straight question, please don't take it in a sarcastic sense.
Now, my premise might be wrong, but assuming an Atheist does not believe in an afterlife or even more basic, some sort of cosmic balance (a la Hinduism or Buddhism, among others), how do they reconcile (or even rationalize) the vast difference in standards of living between people in the world (especially in the western world, whose standard of living is vastly superior to rest)?
Well, it depends on the atheist - Some forms of Buddhism are atheistic, for example. But for myself at least, I reconcile this by actively working to make the world a better place. You can check the Agora link in my sig for details.
This is a straight question, please don't take it in a sarcastic sense.
Now, my premise might be wrong, but assuming an Atheist does not believe in an afterlife or even more basic, some sort of cosmic balance (a la Hinduism or Buddhism, among others), how do they reconcile (or even rationalize) the vast difference in standards of living between people in the world (especially in the western world, whose standard of living is vastly superior to rest)?
It really sucks. And as you point out, we don't believe that it's going to be rectified after death. If the problems are going to be fixed, we have to do it ourselves, here and now. Fortunately, almost all humans have compassion, so we feel the urge to help to some extent.
It's actually stranger that religions encourage charity, while at the same time saying that the downtrodden will be rewarded in the next life. It's a bit inconsistent, but it makes sense in the context of seeking converts. Religious charity almost always involves evangelism, a very effective combination. The unfortunate person is offered food now, and a palace in heaven later. The missionary feels like a good person because they're being charitable. Everybody wins, especially the religion's population number.
The thing is, charity isn't a religious thing. Everybody has an impulse for charity, that's the reason charitable missionaries feel good. The reason religious groups are able to spend so much money on charity, besides being massive, ancient organizations, is that it's also their recruitment budget.But atheists don't have this, so how do they manage the dissonance? Or do they not just think about it?
This is not to say there aren't charitable atheists (obviously there are) or uncharitable theists (unfortunately), but in the latter case it would be considered a sin and some sort of guilt associated with it, whereas in uncharitable atheists, my question is whether a similar guilt is felt, and if so how is it resolved?
Definitely. And my opinion is that that "guilt" is behind all charity, but religions piggyback on it to gain converts.
And to be fair, all sorts of other groups attach their agendas to charity also. Particularly governments or political groups. But my point is that compassion is human, and certain groups just take credit for it. Resulting in people wondering why nonbelievers would ever be compassionate... As if we're all sociopaths. Which is silly because we're not the ones being coerced to do good by religious doctrines.
The sad thing is that a lot of religious people seem to think they would be evil, if religion wasn't forcing them to do good :( I don't believe that. It's a false teaching which keeps people in line.
Well I actually don't believe the charity conflicts with ultimate salvation (well maybe how it's preached in the Abrahamic religions it seems contradictory at the surface), I think the point is a "progression". You start with "charity" which is this obligatory thing you do to get into heaven, but eventually "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." In other words, after ego-death, it becomes a "natural" thing, no longer delineated by "charity" (which intrinsically implies separation, a giver and receiver), so that it becomes like breathing.
EDIT: One of my favorite lines from The Simpsons, is from that episode where Homer becomes Flanders friend and through a series of events, the town turns against Flander's. And at the end Homer says (to the townspeople) "Don't you see? If everyone were like this man [Flanders], we wouldn't need heaven, we'd already be there" or something like that.
I agree that compassion is human, regardless of religion (though boy, do we sometimes go wrong). The consensus seems to be that atheists resolve the dissonance by doing as much they personally can toward closing the disparity. And to that I ask (as I did above), how do you deal with the fact that your actions are not absolute and will be eroded away by time?
I've got a question similar to bahihs' one, but from the other side.
Let's say you are religious, and that this religion is the type that has an afterlife with qualifications, and a less preferable afterlife for those who don't qualify. You are judged by a divine entity of some sort to gauge whether you are going to get in.
Do non-batshit-insane religious people genuinely believe that someone does go to some form of hell after they die?
If so, do they ever really consider that they themselves may go to hell after they die? That a divine entity beyond their comprehension will look upon their souls and find them wanting for sins they have rationalized away or perhaps for sins that nobody has managed to commit in any form of document?
Or does every person assume by default that they will experience the better afterlife if they continue their chosen course in life working from the information available to them, or perhaps not consider the afterlife at all (it being their chosen gods that have the only right to decide, after all)?
Well I can only speak for myself, here is my reasoning: If I know I'm going to hell and there is nothing I can do about it, I should probably switch religions (I'm not even joking here). However Islam does allow for repentance even in hell (I can't speak for other religions, though having read most of the Bible, there really isn't that much mention of a Hell, and religions like Hinduism and Buddhism consider heaven and hell to be earthly rather than otherworldly, liberation is beyond those conceptions) and the punishment is not eternal, it last as long as it needs to. In the Quran it is written "My [God's] mercy is greater than my anger".
So there's that. Also, Islam puts a great deal of emphasis on repentance, it accepts the idea that man will inevitably sin, but regards repentance as the path to salvation. So the point is not to rationalize away sins, but to repent them. And divine justice is...divine, so if you genuinely didn't know you were sinning then it wasn't a sin. You have to know what you're doing is wrong and do it anyway to be blamed.
Post by: Bohandas on June 09, 2015, 12:25:22 pm
There are also atheistic interpretations of judaism, I think, but none that are too established, or that I know too well.
That doesn't make much sense, since literally all of Judaism that I'm aware of is based off serving God in order to reap benefits.
I think it's more that here are a lot of people who are still nominally Jewish but who don't believe in God anymore yet who still go throuh the motions on momentum
Post by: TempAcc on June 09, 2015, 12:30:56 pm
(...) and religions like Hinduism and Buddhism consider heaven and hell to be earthly rather than otherworldly, liberation is beyond those conceptions) and the punishment is not eternal.
Depends on what you consider earthly. Both Hinduism and Buddhist cosmology have several worlds in them, in which you are assigned according to the state of your soul. Naraka, for example, is an otherworldly realm of pure suffering, IE literal hell. It is temporary, however, but it lasts so long that it might as well be considered eternal :P
Post by: wierd on June 09, 2015, 12:46:22 pm
Are you supposing that there is such a thing as useless knowledge? I do not ascribe to that idea at all! While the knowledge may lack immediate application, that does not mean the knowledge has no quantitative value!!
EG, knowing about the pauli exclusion principle for subatomic particles with spin probably wouldnt be useful to a cromagnon from 20,000 years ago. It is however, very useful to us today. Same knowledge.
as I pointed out, anectdotal "knowledge" of a supernatural thing is not true knowledge, because it cannot be verified. it cannot be verified, because it deals with a subject completely outside the scope of our universe. Even if what we were told is 100% correct, there is nothing we could do with it at all.
All inquiries into things inside our universe reveal genuine knowledge, and and are thus useful, if for no other purpose, but to better understand the universe we live in.
Post by: bahihs on June 09, 2015, 12:49:23 pm
bahis:
Are you supposing that there is such a thing as useless knowledge? I do not ascribe to that idea at all! While the knowledge may lack immediate application, that does not mean the knowledge has no quantitative value!!
EG, knowing about the pauli exclusion principle for subatomic particles with spin probably wouldnt be useful to a cromagnon from 20,000 years ago. It is however, very useful to us today. Same knowledge.
Right, that's exactly my argument (no such thing as useless knowledge). Good to know we are on the same page :)
Post by: TD1 on June 09, 2015, 01:08:18 pm
The Christian God is the example I'm most familiar with, and use most. I am not waiting for some form of religious epiphany. I am completely convinced there is no form of after life or metaphtsical being. I would like there to be, and as such I understand why they exist. Where there is a desire, someone eill make something to satisfy it.I fail to see how it is pointless. You can compare it with beliefs which are the same barring the fact only a few believe them -Zeus, Santa, Thor, etc.- and then apply this evidence to the supernatural force being evaluated. If it is different in some drastic way, then it deserves a closer look. So far, I've yet to see a deity that doesn't seem man made.
As has been expressed before, it is a question of probability. We all presumably agree that the probability of Zeus existing is very far down there. Why, then, isn't God. As far as I can see, the only reason is because a lot of people currently hold that belief. Zeus doesn't exist if enough people think he does. Likewise, nor does God.
You are conflating "belief in judaeo christian god" with "Belief in A god".
an atheist says more than just "I dont believe in 'that' god." he says "I dont believe gods arent all fiction."
This gets complicated by "hard" and "soft" atheism.
the hard atheist flatly says "There are NO gods."
the soft atheist says "I do not believe in any of the gods presented to me so far." --or there abouts.
Likewise, there are hard and soft agnostics.
The hard agnostic, like me, says "I have no knowledge that any god is real or unreal, and state from the basis of pure logic, that no such knowledge can ever be attained."
the soft agnostic says simply "I do not know if any god exists or not."
If you note, my argument was against hard atheism, not soft atheism-- I directly stated such in the opening paragraph.
You sound like a soft atheist. Sheb sounds like a hard atheist.
Post by: Bohandas on June 09, 2015, 01:13:51 pm
It depends on how and what you define as supernatural. You're defining it as being unknowable and then arguing that it must be unknowable because it it defi ed as such.
If you merely defined it as "magic and ghosts and stuff like that" well... if those things were real we'd eventually be able to study and manipulate them. Like Ghostbusters-type technology would eventually be developed and more.
Post by: Sheb on June 09, 2015, 01:14:40 pm
Anyway, bahihs, I don't think you're using "cognitive dissonance" well. The fact that I'm better off than 95% of the world's population can be explained by chance of birth etc, etc. There is no cognitive dissonance here, it's just a fact. Now, I do try to make things better, but that's just because I believe one should do so, not out of some kind of desire to resolve an hypothetical "cognitive resonnance".
Post by: Bohandas on June 09, 2015, 01:23:23 pm
This actually brings up another issue, which is that a lot of ancient religions had really low standards. The argument could be put forth that any jackass with a tesla coil might qualify as a demigod.I fail to see how it is pointless. You can compare it with beliefs which are the same barring the fact only a few believe them -Zeus, Santa, Thor, etc.- and then apply this evidence to the supernatural force being evaluated. If it is different in some drastic way, then it deserves a closer look. So far, I've yet to see a deity that doesn't seem man made.
As has been expressed before, it is a question of probability. We all presumably agree that the probability of Zeus existing is very far down there. Why, then, isn't God. As far as I can see, the only reason is because a lot of people currently hold that belief. Zeus doesn't exist if enough people think he does. Likewise, nor does God.
You are conflating "belief in judaeo christian god" with "Belief in A god".
an atheist says more than just "I dont believe in 'that' god." he says "I dont believe gods arent all fiction."
ALSO:
Watch the double-negatives. I don't mind them used idiomatically, but I do mind them used in the way you have; it's confusing and unclear.
Post by: TempAcc on June 09, 2015, 01:29:11 pm
This actually brings up another issue, which is that a lot of ancient religions had really low standards. The argument could be put forth that any jackass with a tesla coil might qualify as a demigod.I fail to see how it is pointless. You can compare it with beliefs which are the same barring the fact only a few believe them -Zeus, Santa, Thor, etc.- and then apply this evidence to the supernatural force being evaluated. If it is different in some drastic way, then it deserves a closer look. So far, I've yet to see a deity that doesn't seem man made.
As has been expressed before, it is a question of probability. We all presumably agree that the probability of Zeus existing is very far down there. Why, then, isn't God. As far as I can see, the only reason is because a lot of people currently hold that belief. Zeus doesn't exist if enough people think he does. Likewise, nor does God.
You are conflating "belief in judaeo christian god" with "Belief in A god".
an atheist says more than just "I dont believe in 'that' god." he says "I dont believe gods arent all fiction."
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TD1 on June 09, 2015, 01:30:57 pm
The point being, people give their deities extraordinary powers. For example, Jesus curing leprosy is an unbelievable power which we now have.
Post by: Bohandas on June 09, 2015, 01:32:52 pm
On the subject of uncharitable theists, though, do note that a lot of religions are squrrelly as hell about that particular subject. Can't speak well of other countries, but it's an actual legitimate problem here in the US, churches abusing charitable status (and, among other things, funneling a lot of their charity resources into things of significantly questionable charitableness) and desultory donations to the church (instead of actual charitable works or whathaveyou) to half-heartedly fulfill tenets of charity being misappropriated, misused, etc., etc. And that's not even getting into nasty stuff like prosperity gospel, ugh. On the face of things, religious individuals are more charitable by the numbers, iirc, but it's a more questionable statement that it seems. Among other things, a lot of that charity just goes right back in to the religion, or is more about ministry than physical aid.
George Carlin had a great comedy bit on this subject:
"He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!"
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 01:34:12 pm
I agree that it's easy not to think about it (god knows modern life has plenty of distractions to make even it easier) but for your latter statement, if atheists do not believe in an afterlife but in a "grounded after-life" (i.e a material one, instead of an immaterial one) they must still cope with the inevitable fact that the universe will come to an end at some point and their actions (far as they may ripple) will eventually be dissipated by time. In other words, it won't endure.
This is why (in my humble opinion) religions seem to turn away from the material. Buddhism and Hinduism would argue that the material is subject to transience and therefore is not something one should ground themselves on, Abrahamic religions would probably say something similar, adding that the only ground is God. In any case, the point is religions tend to ground on what they perceive as the absolute (change, God, whatever it may be), are you then saying that Atheists perceive the Earth, familial connections etc. to be absolute?
It doesn't matter if it won't endure. What matters is that it endures a bit longer than you do, or that it endures for a long time on a human-relatable timescale, which I'd gauge at about the length of your specific lifespan. If we go into evolutionary (10E4 to 10E5 years) scales, the human race is about 100 000 to 200 000 years old (note, hominids as a whole are older), which just about corresponds to the average lifespan for a species before it goes extinct, so more likely than not we're living past when we could be expected to already. On geological scales (10E6-10E8), the world itself will experience vast climate change and no longer resemble what we know in any respect. Organic life as a whole might not live past a billion more years from now. And on cosmological scales (10E9-10E11) the universe itself will become chaos. These are of minimal concern to me, because in the next 30 years after my death the world will already be vastly different from what I once knew. My time will be a fun little novelty amongst that day's youth, and they will appear in hilariously inaccurate period dress to parties. So even if my works and other remnants are destined to all be ruined by the inexorable march of time, even if they (whatever they were) last a mere 20 years after I am dead, I will be satisfied, because they will have already seen a world I will never be able to know.
With all that in mind, it helps that after a sufficiently long period of time all the people I don't like will also be dead like me or at the very least horribly decrepit, and that as my legacy will be erased, so will everyone else's in due time, and there's nothing I can do about it.
Post by: bahihs on June 09, 2015, 01:59:44 pm
I agree that it's easy not to think about it (god knows modern life has plenty of distractions to make even it easier) but for your latter statement, if atheists do not believe in an afterlife but in a "grounded after-life" (i.e a material one, instead of an immaterial one) they must still cope with the inevitable fact that the universe will come to an end at some point and their actions (far as they may ripple) will eventually be dissipated by time. In other words, it won't endure.
This is why (in my humble opinion) religions seem to turn away from the material. Buddhism and Hinduism would argue that the material is subject to transience and therefore is not something one should ground themselves on, Abrahamic religions would probably say something similar, adding that the only ground is God. In any case, the point is religions tend to ground on what they perceive as the absolute (change, God, whatever it may be), are you then saying that Atheists perceive the Earth, familial connections etc. to be absolute?
It doesn't matter if it won't endure. What matters is that it endures a bit longer than you do, or that it endures for a long time on a human-relatable timescale, which I'd gauge at about the length of your specific lifespan. If we go into evolutionary (10E4 to 10E5 years) scales, the human race is about 100 000 to 200 000 years old (note, hominids as a whole are older), which just about corresponds to the average lifespan for a species before it goes extinct, so more likely than not we're living past when we could be expected to already. On geological scales (10E6-10E8), the world itself will experience vast climate change and no longer resemble what we know in any respect. Organic life as a whole might not live past a billion more years from now. And on cosmological scales (10E9-10E11) the universe itself will become chaos. These are of minimal concern to me, because in the next 30 years after my death the world will already be vastly different from what I once knew. My time will be a fun little novelty amongst that day's youth, and they will appear in hilariously inaccurate period dress to parties. So even if my works and other remnants are destined to all be ruined by the inexorable march of time, even if they (whatever they were) last a mere 20 years after I am dead, I will be satisfied, because they will have already seen a world I will never be able to know.
With all that in mind, it helps that after a sufficiently long period of time all the people I don't like will also be dead like me or at the very least horribly decrepit, and that as my legacy will be erased, so will everyone else's in due time, and there's nothing I can do about it.
Interesting...it reminds of Ozymandias: "Look upon my works ye mighty and despair! Nothing beside, remains."
Post by: TD1 on June 09, 2015, 02:01:49 pm
Post by: Biowraith on June 09, 2015, 02:23:35 pm
Now, my premise might be wrong, but assuming an Atheist does not believe in an afterlife or even more basic, some sort of cosmic balance (a la Hinduism or Buddhism, among others), how do they reconcile (or even rationalize) the vast difference in standards of living between people in the world (especially in the western world, whose standard of living is vastly superior to rest)?I'm not sure if I fully understand your question and I've only skimmed the answers since (so I may be repeating things, or stating things that have been rebutted), but I'll still try to answer it from my own perspective.
Basically I don't think I do reconcile the difference and I don't really see a need to reconcile it. It's just the way things are, and based on the characteristics of the world, life, and human nature, it's pretty much inevitable. I, relatively speaking, lucked out. A lot of other people got shafted. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Now, I didn't cause the situation so I don't feel guilty about it per se, but I don't think it's right and it does bother me when I think about it. I don't think anything is going to correct this situation besides the efforts of good people, and I don't think that will ever be enough to actually eliminate the inequity, merely mitigate it for fraction of those unfortunate people (though we should still put that effort in - improving the situation for some is still better than for none). I should probably note that in practice I tend towards laziness and apathy so don't do nearly as much as I believe I should in that regard, but that's true of most of my life (I'm a chronic underachiever) not just when dealing with the awful unfairness of human existence on Earth.
Ultimately it's a big, cold, unfair and uncaring universe, and (outside of our minds and beliefs) it doesn't matter if things are fair or not. And ultimately each of us will die and (I believe) cease to exist and while our suffering and/or enjoyment matters in the here and now, once we're dead none of it will matter at all because there will no longer be a 'we' for it to matter to. To paraphrase one of our departed: there is no justice, just death.
It's not a terribly satisfying or comforting belief, but I believe based on what I think is most likely, not on what makes me feel better about things.
Post by: scrdest on June 09, 2015, 04:06:57 pm
I'm definitely a hard atheist, yeah.He IS using it correctly, the problem is he has an unstated assumption. Of equality/justice, specifically.
Anyway, bahihs, I don't think you're using "cognitive dissonance" well. The fact that I'm better off than 95% of the world's population can be explained by chance of birth etc, etc. There is no cognitive dissonance here, it's just a fact. Now, I do try to make things better, but that's just because I believe one should do so, not out of some kind of desire to resolve an hypothetical "cognitive resonnance".
And you do, actually (also, consonance if anything - heil terminology!). You even said so yourself - you believe you should do so, therefore you do so. If you believed you should, but didn't, you'd have a cognitive dissonance - you could resolve it by, say, saying you were busy with more important things or whatever; or the other way round, believing that you shouldn't, but you did - same situation, again you either need to find an excuse or otherwise alter your beliefs in a way that resolves that dilemma.
Post by: Sheb on June 09, 2015, 04:21:07 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on June 09, 2015, 09:36:49 pm
I've never understood the concept of supernatural events which defy science, but affect our world. If we can observe it, we can test it. Even if it's hiding, even if it's beyond our current understanding of the world.
This is from a guy who believes in weather spirits and wants to believe in fairies. They're only "supernatural" because we don't understand them *yet*. If they effect our existence at all. And if they don't, they practically don't exist.
Post by: Bohandas on June 09, 2015, 09:58:41 pm
Post by: wierd on June 10, 2015, 03:21:43 am
If you can just wiggle your nose and shit happens, why wrack your brain trying to design a technological solution?
THAT is why worlds with magic need to have magic be something that only SOME people have, otherwise the world produced does not resemble anything we are familiar with, and is too alien for the player/reader to relate to. It is also why technology does not advance very quickly-- people can go see Mr Magician, and "Get shit fixed literally with magic", even if they themselves are incapable of magic. You see that sorta today with people pawning broken tech onto their tech savvy brother in law to get it fixed on the cheap. They are tech-tarded themselves, but know somebody that isnt, and can fix their blunders.
Same basic thing--- Different setting.
---back on topic:
In the case of "supernatural", simply look up the definition of the word.
Quote
supernatural
adj. adjective
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
Science deals with nature. It has no traction with things outside of nature. (Even things we consider "unnatural", like say assisted fertility--if you are right wing wacko enough-- still deal with natural forces and natural consequences. They are not "supernatural".)
Thus, by definition-- supernatural things are not verifiable using empirical methodologies. I did not misuse the word. The very concept of having true knowledge of the supernatural would necessitate that the individual in question themselves be supernatural. For anyone else, who would be shackled to the natural world, and natural processes as the only available tools to establish veracity of a claim, the very idea of having genuine true knowledge of a supernatural thing is a non-sequitur.
Post by: Sheb on June 10, 2015, 03:31:51 am
There is actually a funny Russian book, which present the whole Lord of the Ring war as a war created by the Council of Mages to prevent the fledging state of Mordor from developing modern science.
Post by: UXLZ on June 10, 2015, 03:50:43 am
Post by: wierd on June 10, 2015, 03:54:28 am
Give me a few minutes to get references.
Post by: Arx on June 10, 2015, 03:55:29 am
It's not like He's even the one who punishes sinners when they die, it's technically Satan/Hell who does that.
"It's not my mom that spanks me, it's the spoon she uses that does that."
Question: Does anyone know where the phrase/expression "Fear of God" comes from (at least the one in relation to the Christian God)?
It's fear as in respect. I'm God-fearing because I 'fear' Him enough to keep His commands, but it's a lot more like I respect Him enough.
Post by: wierd on June 10, 2015, 03:59:47 am
In context, starting from Luke 12:1
Quote
1In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. 3Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
4And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? 7But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.
8Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: 9But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. 10And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. 11And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: 12For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.
Here's a short list of others, without context.
Quote
Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 8:13 - The fear of the LORD [is] to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 - Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.
Proverbs 14:26 - In the fear of the LORD [is] strong confidence: and his children shall have a place of refuge.
Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that [is] wisdom; and to depart from evil [is] understanding.
Psalms 33:8 - Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
Deuteronomy 10:12 - And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
Proverbs 14:27 - The fear of the LORD [is] a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.
Proverbs 3:7 - Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Psalms 25:14 - The secret of the LORD [is] with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.
Luke 1:50 - And his mercy [is] on them that fear him from generation to generation.
Psalms 111:10 - The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do [his commandments]: his praise endureth for ever.
Psalms 86:11 - Teach me thy way, O LORD; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear thy name.
Isaiah 41:10 - Fear thou not; for I [am] with thee: be not dismayed; for I [am] thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.
Philippians 2:12-13 - Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Read More...)
Proverbs 16:6 - By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD [men] depart from evil.
Psalms 34:9 - O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for [there is] no want to them that fear him.
Post by: UXLZ on June 10, 2015, 04:09:57 am
Spoiler: Arx (click to show/hide)
A spoon doesn't have agency. Unless you want to try and talk about free-will, and how meaningless all of existence is if God-as-written actually were to be real (also, if God is in charge of Satan's actions a la the spoon, how is Satan evil?).
Still, thanks for the explanation. I thought it might have been something similar-ish to respect, but it's still an odd way of saying it.
@Weird: Also thanks, for the references. The Luke one explains it how I sort of envisioned it, but proverb 8:13 makes literally no sense to me.
Post by: wierd on June 10, 2015, 04:15:44 am
Quote
Proverbs 8
1Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
2She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
3She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.
4Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.
5O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
6Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.
7For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.
11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
12I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
13The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
14Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
15By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
16By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
17I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.
18Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.
19My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.
20I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:
21That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.
22The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
32Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
33Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
34Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
35For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
36But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
It is basically asserting that fear of god is essential to being upright and proper in one's dealing with the allmighty one.
The creator of this this text would despise me greatly, as I denounce his words as being true knowledge, as pointed out previously. ;) His statement in proverbs 8:9 are quantitatively false, as I personally seek true knowledge, and his words ring not with truth or understanding, but with delusion and deception to me. He tries so very hard to play the confidence man. ;)
Post by: Rose on June 10, 2015, 04:15:59 am
Like, I look at our scriptures, and they're pretty obviously full of contradictions and logical loops, and any historical events described are clearly embellished, and yet, a large number of people look at them, and go "Whelp, I guess this must be the truth."
Post by: wierd on June 10, 2015, 04:23:19 am
"The bible is the TRUTH, because the bible SAYS it is!"
Post by: Rose on June 10, 2015, 04:24:44 am
We know it's the direct word of God because the Gita says it is.
Post by: wierd on June 10, 2015, 04:35:17 am
I dont have do deal with many hindu individuals trying to tell me how evil my life is and how I will spend eternity in some eternal torment for some perceived transgressions though. That particular.. erhm... honor?.. usually falls to the judeo-christian fundamentalists who despise me on many levels. (1, I am an evil agnostic, and 2, I am asexual and thus do not adhere to their heteronormative divine narrative structure, amongst others.)
As such, I have to work with what I usually deal with, and that is the self-referential axiom of the christian bible. I want to liberate minds from dogmatic beliefs. I dont want to steal people's faith. They are not the same thing. The dogmatist does not think, and simply just believes without any understanding or consideration. A person with more genuine faith has such understanding, and chooses to retain their belief.
The former despises logic, reason, and rationality. The latter accepts it, and rather than reacting negatively, they respond with answers that are as well-reasoned as they are personally capable of producing. I am very much against the former, and will accept the latter without reservation-- It is enough for me that they have actually chosen, rather than simply been told.
In order to get the dogmatists that blithely hurl insults and blatant falsehoods around to stop what they are doing and enter into being this more desirable second kind of theist, I have to make use of the self-referential axiom stated above. I dislike doing so, but that is the logical framework that they are operating under.
Post by: Rose on June 10, 2015, 04:40:43 am
Post by: wierd on June 10, 2015, 04:50:28 am
Be that as it may, I am the way I am. I cannot change that.
My usual weapon of choice in this matter comes from the new testament:
Quote
Matthew 19 New International Version (NIV)
Divorce
19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
That usually is enough to get them to stop being all mad at me for not rushing out and clinging to a wife like "God intended".
While I have all the parts, and thus am not a physiological eunuch, I was born without any real sexual impulse, and am thus STILL a "born eunuch." For all intents and purposes, I might as well not even have a gender.
It is much harder for the bisexual or homosexual to get them off their backs though, sadly.
Post by: Arx on June 10, 2015, 04:54:32 am
Post by: UXLZ on June 10, 2015, 04:56:59 am
Post by: Bohandas on June 10, 2015, 11:20:29 am
It is why most fantasy worlds with magic bore me. If you have magic, how have you not reached science fiction technologies yet? Ever-burning fire? Indefinite electricity. Et cetera.necessity is the mother of invention.
If you can just wiggle your nose and shit happens, why wrack your brain trying to design a technological solution?
THAT is why worlds with magic need to have magic be something that only SOME people have, otherwise the world produced does not resemble anything we are familiar with, and is too alien for the player/reader to relate to. It is also why technology does not advance very quickly-- people can go see Mr Magician, and "Get shit fixed literally with magic", even if they themselves are incapable of magic. You see that sorta today with people pawning broken tech onto their tech savvy brother in law to get it fixed on the cheap. They are tech-tarded themselves, but know somebody that isnt, and can fix their blunders.
Same basic thing--- Different setting.
I seem to recall hearing about a short story (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Not_Taken_(short_story)) based on this idea.
---back on topic:
In the case of "supernatural", simply look up the definition of the word.Quotesupernatural
adj. adjective
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
Science deals with nature. It has no traction with things outside of nature. (Even things we consider "unnatural", like say assisted fertility--if you are right wing wacko enough-- still deal with natural forces and natural consequences. They are not "supernatural".)
Thus, by definition-- supernatural things are not verifiable using empirical methodologies.
Well if you're using the borad definition of "natural" as simply "something which exists" then there's also by definition nothing outside of nature.
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 10, 2015, 11:23:18 am
Humanity+ and the Upcoming Battle between Good and Evil (http://hplusmagazine.com/2015/02/10/humanity-upcoming-battle-good-evil/)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Why Christians Should Embrace Transhumanism (http://hplusmagazine.com/2015/06/03/why-christians-should-embrace-transhumanism/)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
They've somehow managed to reconcile Nietzsche with Christianity by turning both of them on their heads and wrapping them in waterproof fustian. Pretty impressive. :o
Let me make a Singularitarian prediction: Within the next 25 years, Transhumanism will surpass Buddhism as the 4th-largest World religion. It is inevitable.
Post by: Arx on June 10, 2015, 11:28:27 am
But generally I don't think Christianity rejects transhumanism. Heck, my mother's response to the magnetic field implants a while ago was to say she wished she could get them, and she's a minister. Christians might reject it, though.
Post by: Bohandas on June 10, 2015, 11:31:01 am
"In the End Times it shall come to pass that they are NOT the End Times;
and neither shall they cast out the false prophets;
But the same old shit, yea, and rumors of the same old shit;
shall continue, even unto Eternity."
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 10, 2015, 11:32:39 am
Post by: Angle on June 10, 2015, 11:34:31 am
Post by: Adragis on June 10, 2015, 11:36:58 am
Post by: Bohandas on June 10, 2015, 11:46:05 am
In related news, transhumanists are becoming increasingly upfront about the religious nature of their ideology:
Humanity+ and the Upcoming Battle between Good and Evil (http://hplusmagazine.com/2015/02/10/humanity-upcoming-battle-good-evil/)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Why Christians Should Embrace Transhumanism (http://hplusmagazine.com/2015/06/03/why-christians-should-embrace-transhumanism/)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
They've somehow managed to reconcile Nietzsche with Christianity by turning both of them on their heads and wrapping them in waterproof fustian. Pretty impressive. :o
Let me make a Singularitarian prediction: Within the next 25 years, Transhumanism will surpass Buddhism as the 4th-largest World religion. It is inevitable.
That is some sci-fi stuff, man. Seeing that, I feel like typical post-religion futuristic settings are unrealistic. We need more tech cults.
Well I've taken to worshipping the Hydrogen Bomb like in Planet of the Apes
EDIT:
Also the internet
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 10, 2015, 11:47:21 am
The entire concept of transhumanism is fascinating to me, anyhow. Mainly because reverse-fear-of-the-unknown.Their fear of death is pretty traditional, though. Nothing particularly "reverse" about that.
Post by: Bohandas on June 10, 2015, 11:52:32 am
Post by: Descan on June 10, 2015, 11:56:05 am
:v It's not fun to be lumped in with all the baggage associated with the transhumanism word when all I care about is people not dying. The upgrades would be nice too.
Post by: bahihs on June 10, 2015, 12:02:49 pm
Timor mortis conturbat me
To beasts of chase the lie is proffered
Post by: Arx on June 10, 2015, 12:03:33 pm
Post by: Frumple on June 10, 2015, 12:30:03 pm
Post by: wierd on June 10, 2015, 12:36:34 pm
I dont ascribe to the idea that supernatural things CANNOT exist-- That means I have knowledge of them- specifically, knowledge that they do not exist.
Rather, I say that if they do exist, we cannot know about them, because they exist outside the physical reality in which we find ourselves. Take for instance, the hypothetical situation where true AI is created, but is nurtured in a purely computer simulated environment. That AI has no physical sensors, manipulators, or other means of sensing or knowing anything at all about OUR physical reality. To it, our physical reality is "Supernatural". To us, it's virtual reality is an extension of our own physical reality, in that its foundation is tied to the physical laws of our reality.
Try as the AI might, short of gaining access to a physical world avatar of some kind (even if it is just some real-world sensors feeding it data) it will never properly grasp our reality's nature. It has no way to verify if what we tell it through the virtual world it finds itself in is actually true or not.
Now extend this further-- What if the AI is being grown in a fully blind experiment manner- The researchers ARE indeed there, watching everything that happens in the "Self-consistent" virtual world, but they dont directly act on the AI or the AI's environment in any measurable way. The AI might come to think that there are "gods" "outside", but it cant prove it-- there is no evidence. Other AIs in the system may assert that the very notion of the existence of these 'gods' is nonsense. But the researchers are still quite real; the nature of their existence is radically different from that of the AIs.
Likewise, there could well be "gods" outside of our universe, watching us. The one thing we have, is the lack of evidence that they are manipulating things here in our universe--- so they seem to be at most passive observers. So- while such beings MIGHT exist, they dont seem willing or able to do anything TO us, or FOR us-- so worshiping them is just wasted energy. We might try to conjecture about their natures, but without data to guide those conjectures, we might as well be conjecturing about invisible pink unicorns-- Wild speculation is all you will get from that exercise, and those speculations are wholly untestable-- no knowledge is obtained, only opinions.
This leads me to my thesis:
The supernatural MAY be real; We have no way of determining this.
Since we have no way of determining this, it makes no sense to conjecture about this "maybe real" thing, since we can never interact with it.
Since we have no way of determining this, we can never verify any claims made about it.
Basically, religion is "Not even wrong" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong). Conversely, so is hard atheism, because it presupposes having knowledge to state "there are no gods" as being an empirical fact; On what empirical basis is this 'fact' founded? So far, I have never encountered a direct proof of this, only elaborate inferences that ultimately boil down to a logical fallacy. At best, it is a belief based on the idea that "because this is probably true, it is." Nevermind that the universe we live in does not work that way. You can have 99% certainty that you will measure an electron in your trap, but 1% of the time, it is spontaneously outside it. Our universe does not deal in absolutes of this kind. --And that is with things we CAN observe and test.
Post by: bahihs on June 10, 2015, 01:11:29 pm
All I got out of that was that Boh wants Tim to counterbate Boh's mortis, whatever that means. I'm not sure I want to know, really.
If I'm not mistaken, its pulled from "The Once and Future King". It means something like "Fear of death doesn't bother me", the context I believe, was when Wart (little King Arthur) is transformed into a bird of prey, and speaks with the other birds of prey in the aviary.
Post by: TD1 on June 10, 2015, 01:17:47 pm
I'm curious to know how many of you are Deontologists.
Post by: wierd on June 10, 2015, 01:27:50 pm
Quote
Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics).
I am not a deontologist. I am a utilitarian, that focuses on the consequences of actions. I do not personally ascribe to genuinely immutable concepts of good and evil. Rather, I perceive a sliding a scale of social acceptance vs consequence. EG- "Murder is unacceptable, but killing in self defense, and killing in war are acceptable, within tolerances."
I am NOT an "end justifies the means" kind of person, as that road leads to madness, and gross excess of wasteful actions to secure marginally better outcomes. The consequences of the actions undertaken must include the costs of the actions, and potential lost as a result of those actions. This means that genocide is something I find very, very, very, very far at the bottom of that sliding scale.
This mode of thinking makes some people think I am "Fast and loose" with my ethics, but this is untrue. While I might feel no problems whatsoever with pulling a pirate copy of software, I have DEEP reservations about going into somebody's house and taking their things-- no matter how hard the BSA, the RIAA, and the MPAA try to conflate those two things-- for example.
Post by: TD1 on June 10, 2015, 01:30:18 pm
Post by: wierd on June 10, 2015, 01:40:23 pm
Rather than "Happiness and displeasure", I hold "empowerment and potential, and their inverse" as the measure.
EG, a person can be "Supremely happy" attached to life support with electrodes stuck into their limbic system. They are not, however, free to exercise their agency.
My views rectify this problem.
Post by: Bohandas on June 10, 2015, 01:49:32 pm
This mode of thinking makes some people think I am "Fast and loose" with my ethics, but this is untrue. While I might feel no problems whatsoever with pulling a pirate copy of software, I have DEEP reservations about going into somebody's house and taking their things-- no matter how hard the BSA, the RIAA, and the MPAA try to conflate those two things-- for example.
Also, beyond the enormous difference between taking something away from somebody vs. making a copy of something without depriving anybody of anything, even if they were the same there'd still be the additional extenuating difference between stealing from a person and stealing from a corporation; morally these are on opposite ends of the scale pf target acceptability. From least moral to target to ok to target it goes:
stealing from a person>tragedy of the commons and stealing from the government (tied)>stealing from an animal>stealing from a corporation
That one anti-piracy psa says that "you wouldn't steal a car" and "you wouldn't steal a purse"; I indeed wouldn't steal these things from people, but if I was certain I'd get away with it I'd gladly steal them from Time Warner or Fox or Disney without a twinge of guilt.
Post by: scrdest on June 10, 2015, 03:37:51 pm
Then either you'd be fine with socially approved, consequence-free genocide, or you have additional hidden caveats and thus the system as stated is incomplete, it seems.QuoteDeontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics).
I am not a deontologist. I am a utilitarian, that focuses on the consequences of actions. I do not personally ascribe to genuinely immutable concepts of good and evil. Rather, I perceive a sliding a scale of social acceptance vs consequence. EG- "Murder is unacceptable, but killing in self defense, and killing in war are acceptable, within tolerances."
That one anti-piracy psa says that "you wouldn't steal a car" and "you wouldn't steal a purse"; I indeed wouldn't steal these things from people, but if I was certain I'd get away with it I'd gladly steal them from Time Warner or Fox or Disney without a twinge of guilt.You... do realize that even if it formally belongs to any of those companies there's a person - or people - who are going to pay for it indirectly, and it's probably not the CEO?
Post by: Arx on June 10, 2015, 03:43:10 pm
I guess I'm a utilitarian and a deontologist. If there are no apparent consequences (good or bad) to a Biblically forbidden action, I won't take it. But if not doing something forbidden would clearly lead to a lot of death (particularly of non-Christians), I'm better off damning myself.
Post by: TD1 on June 10, 2015, 03:45:48 pm
What does a few more years mean against eternity, especially an eternity of your suffering.
Post by: TempAcc on June 10, 2015, 04:01:35 pm
There is no true absolute one sided damnation given by God (in most christian doctrines, or at least the non super fundie ones), a person only goes to hell by being both a sinner and not repenting.
In regards to transhumanism: there are several religions that embrace transhumanism. In fact, spiritism as a whole seems to welcome it as a necessary step in the evolution of humanity.
I'm very much a utilitarian, also.
Post by: TD1 on June 10, 2015, 04:11:29 pm
For example, there is a person who is definitely going to heaven by most definitions. They have sinned, they have repented, they have even done penance for the sake of argument. They welcome God into their hearts and minds. If it were against a Biblical doctrine, one that would send you to hell, but not one that would cause undue physical difficulty, would you then not save their life?
Post by: Arx on June 11, 2015, 12:07:02 am
As for your hypothetical: if nothing else, there's almost nothing I can do that's completely irredeemable. It's obviously optimal to save lives wherever possible, but I certainly wouldn't kill to save a single life.
Post by: TempAcc on June 11, 2015, 07:25:24 am
Another point in which God puts value in human life is in the comming of Jesus. Since humanity was full of sin, but instead of wiping everyone out, decides to send his own son onto earth, to expiate for/redeem humanity, thus saving it from both itself and God's wrath.
Keep in mind, though, that documents such as the bible (as we known it today, at least) have been written through the ages by multiple people, from different backgrounds and different points in history. Its no wonder it may contradict itself at several points. Same goes for hindu scripture, the torah, buddhist literature (even more so for these, since most of these are a fair bit more ancient then the bible) etc.
Post by: UXLZ on June 11, 2015, 07:53:43 am
Post by: TempAcc on June 11, 2015, 08:14:03 am
He also makes a covenant with Noah, promissing to not kill off humanity with a great flood again, or something, I dont remember that well, which would imply he regreted it.
Post by: lemon10 on June 11, 2015, 04:13:11 pm
It has always seemed to me that its pretty clear that the biblical god isn't all knowing from his actions, despite the fact that the bible explicitly says he is.
Post by: Micro102 on June 11, 2015, 04:55:07 pm
Post by: UXLZ on June 12, 2015, 01:07:09 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on June 12, 2015, 01:17:30 am
Omniscience is weird. Personally, I'm leaning towards a non-standard interpretation of the word "regret", but that's probably just stubbornness on my part.
(Also, Uxie, God doesn't change, so that's not really relevant.)
Post by: UXLZ on June 12, 2015, 01:39:32 am
Although from what I can gather, I'd say it's more likely that His regret was more along the lines of "It is sad, but it must be done."
Which is also kinda stupid since if anyone could Take a Third Option it would be God. Maybe He's trapped by fate or something, I dunno.
Post by: wierd on June 12, 2015, 01:49:31 am
This is also why the accuser/satan/"insert title here" is still around; God and this entity have been having a pointed argument that God refuses to just GodMode Sue out of existence.
Biblical God seems unwilling to GodMode Sue his problems away.
Post by: Bohandas on June 12, 2015, 01:50:25 am
That was the point, OW. If God is actually Omniscient then there's no way He could ever regret anything without changing if he was also Omniscient. I actually wrote what I said badly, though, what I meant was that in the grand scheme of things, if even a single being anywhere is truly omniscient the universe is on rails it's never getting off from.
Although from what I can gather, I'd say it's more likely that His regret was more along the lines of "It is sad, but it must be done."
Of course that would mean he's not omnipotent
Post by: wierd on June 12, 2015, 01:58:52 am
A god that does not obey the very rules it lays down for others is not a just god. The christian god proudly proclaims being a just god. That means that while physically capable of doing evil things, it simply wont do them.
The argument then has an analog like this:
"So, you say you are omnipotent?"
YES. I AM.
"Cool. Murder this guy."
NO.
"C'mon, it's not like it matters to you- you can murder him an unlimited number of times and simply resurrect him instantly afterwards. He wouldnt even realize you had murdered him. There wouldnt be any consequences! Just do it!"
NO.
"So what you are saying, is that you are NOT omnipotent!"
Basically, the morality of an omnipotent being transcends consequence as we think about it. "god" would know that he had comitted a murder, even if the murder lasted 0 picoseconds before the stiff was brought back to life. If he did that, he would not be fit to judge other beings. Thus, he willfully does not engage in such actions-- even if it is more than possible for him to do so.
Post by: UXLZ on June 12, 2015, 02:08:23 am
There's also this analog:
"So, you're omnipotent, omniscient, nothing but benevolent and can do utterly anything?"
OBVIOUSLY.
"Cool, can you make this guy happy? He's been wanting to commit suicide for years."
NO.
"Wait, why not, I thought you were only benevolent?"
A LIFE LIKE THAT HAS NO MEANING.
"Can't you just make it have meaning? You're omnipotent, right?"
ER...
Post by: Descan on June 12, 2015, 02:15:12 am
Post by: scrdest on June 12, 2015, 06:04:51 am
Post by: TempAcc on June 12, 2015, 07:48:36 am
Omnipresence is thing thats mentioned or implied, though, and is a quality that became more explicit when the idea of the trinity (father, son, holy ghost) was conceived, and this quality is attributed to the "holy ghost", meaning god is literally everywhere at the same time, meaning god is yog sothoth :v
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 12, 2015, 08:07:23 am
Post by: scrdest on June 12, 2015, 09:17:20 am
god is yog sothoth :vIf I lived in States of USonia, I'd be massively tempted to go out on a road with a sandwichboard with 'LORD knows the gate! LORD is the gate! HPL 19:28-29' right about now.
Post by: Bohandas on June 12, 2015, 10:00:21 am
meaning god is yog sothoth :v
You know, it's been a theory of mine for a while that the name "Yog-Sothoth" is meant to be a corruption of "YHVH-Saboath"
Post by: lemon10 on June 12, 2015, 01:01:33 pm
Ye, the omnipotent and omniscient qualities attributed to god could quite possibly been just results of mistranslations. At no point does god specifically mention he knows everything, AFAIK, nor does god seem to "read minds" in the bible, altough he does have insight on several thing, and ocasionaly makes prophecies, but this could just be god predicting the results of a plan he's working on, rather then actual precognition.From my readings of the old testament (but not yet the new), it seems that there are two kinds of prophecies: One of them is god going "This is what I am going to do", and the other being "This is what is going to happen naturally".
Omnipresence is thing thats mentioned or implied, though, and is a quality that became more explicit when the idea of the trinity (father, son, holy ghost) was conceived, and this quality is attributed to the "holy ghost", meaning god is literally everywhere at the same time, meaning god is yog sothoth :v
The first only means that he is immensely powerful, and can basically choose the outcome of events if he choses.
The second means that god can indeed see the future to some degree, although this pretty obviously has some limits as there are some things he doesn't predict.
I should note that I don't have anything remotely concrete to back this up though.
Post by: TempAcc on June 12, 2015, 02:28:30 pm
meaning god is yog sothoth :v
You know, it's been a theory of mine for a while that the name "Yog-Sothoth" is meant to be a corruption of "YHVH-Saboath"
god is yog sothoth :vIf I lived in States of USonia, I'd be massively tempted to go out on a road with a sandwichboard with 'LORD knows the gate! LORD is the gate! HPL 19:28-29' right about now.
Now here's the thing: in hermeticism, when god talks to Hermes Trismegistus, he calls himself "Poimandres"/"Pimander", and says that he is only god's mind ("the mind of the great lord"), meaning he's Nyarlatothep :v!
Post by: scrdest on June 12, 2015, 02:43:52 pm
Post by: ggamer on June 21, 2015, 10:21:48 am
Interesting read, even if you don't agree with what Bloom is saying.
FAKEDIT: interestingly enough a couple writers on that website, such as John Piper (!!), still subscribe to the view that LGBBQ folk obviously have some sort of spiritual craving or mental trauma that they're dealing with, which I don't have to tell you is a hilariously outdated notion.
Post by: Frumple on June 21, 2015, 10:32:07 am
Ah. Olympic, current pop... thing, and apparently publicly transitioning? Never heard of 'em, before or after the name change, but those first bits explain why. First I've heard of... whatever's going on regarding that.
Will... kinda' say it's a little distasteful the author says be compassionate and understanding and then insists on using the wrong name for most of the article :-\
Wrong pronoun I could see due to personal beliefs (though it's still a bit of a jackass thing to do :V), but if the critter's changed their name they've changed their name, and it's time to update your method of address. Insisting otherwise is a pretty clear demonstration of lack of... well, what the author is ostensibly proposing.
Post by: Arx on June 21, 2015, 10:58:27 am
So yeah, I think the author is more right than many people but is still failing in many respects. Particularly in the respect of watching their tongue, alas.
Post by: ggamer on June 21, 2015, 11:02:05 am
Biblically, there is no justification for transphobia. The 'correct' Christian approach to the whole gender revolution is, as I understand it, also the popular liberal approach. It interests me that the author refers to 'sin-broken'ness, but doesn't mention why this is sinful or a 'disorder'.
So yeah, I think the author is more right than many people but is still failing in many respects. Particularly in the respect of watching their tongue, alas.
I'll agree with the pronouns, that was a bit wierd
IIRC the argument used by most christians (or at least John Piper) is that god created man and woman as a purposeful duality, and that transgendered peeps fly in the face of that. He quotes a few verses, but they're rather vague and I don't feel very comfortable with him using them like that.
Post by: Arx on June 21, 2015, 11:05:06 am
Post by: Rolan7 on June 21, 2015, 11:18:54 am
Quote
Speaking truth is itself a form of love, even if a person doesn’t receive it as such initially. But “in love” also means speaking with great respect, empathy, and appropriate humility. And it means a willingness to love strugglers with deeds (such as hospitality), not just words (1 John 3:18).
Respect, empathy, and humility. This sounds nice, but where is the respect when they don't use her new name or pronoun? They don't even accept that she's Christian:
Quote
Jenner professes to be a Christian. Whatever that means, he at least may have potential openness to biblical truth. Let us pray that the truth of the gospel will set him free (John 8:32), knowing how much Jesus loves to redeem and restore sin-broken people.
They're speaking like she's a confused child who needs prayer, not an adult to be debated. They emphasize sharing their "truth" with her and other "broken" transgendered people. This is the opposite of humility and respect. In the last paragraph they finally have a little "humility": (emphasis added)
Quote
That is precisely why Jesus came: to deliver people like Bruce Jenner and us from our domains of sinful darkness (Colossians 1:13) and our failing, disordered bodies, and give us glorious, powerful, disorder-free resurrection bodies (1 Corinthians 15:42–44).
But only in the "we're all sinners" sense. They still claim to know the truth (and they still want to stop HER sins now instead of relying on Jesus). If it were only calling for prayer, that would be kinda humble. But instead it tips its hand:
Quote
Growing in our understanding of the nature of transgender and sexual-orientation disorders is necessary so that we don’t hold ignorant assumptions and say erroneous and insensitive things to people. And it would be wise for us to anticipate the possibility of discovering someday that our child, grandchild, cousin, nephew, niece, friend, co-worker, or possibly a parent is enduring such a struggle. If that should happen, we want to be safe people for them to talk to.
IE, a main reason for understanding and being nice to transgender people is so they'll come to us for answers. So we can fix them. Because we know the truth. This is evangelism 101: Destroy their self-esteem (while being compassionate), then humbly offer salvation. It works so well!
Here's how it would look with actual respect, empathy, and humility:
"Caitlyn Jenner (formerly Bruce Jenner) is a transgendered Christian. We think that being transgendered is wrong in God's eyes. We hope and pray that God will reveal the truth on the issue to Caitlyn and to us, so we all can avoid doing wrong."
I think most Christians actually feel that way about sin, they just aren't the loud ones...
Post by: TD1 on June 21, 2015, 11:21:01 am
They speak of prostitutes as people, but I don't recall a similar thing on transgenders.
Of course, given this was written in a time when I very much doubt people often said "I am a man in a girl's body" or vice versa, I suppose that would be why. I doubt Jesus knew much about transgender people.
Post by: wierd on June 21, 2015, 11:28:40 am
Look at the South-Asian concept of "Third Gender".
(Specifically in India.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_%28South_Asia%29
The identity has been recognized since antiquity.
Post by: scrdest on June 21, 2015, 11:36:10 am
They wouldnt have had the surgical skills to perform the body mod, but the "Mental status" was almost certainly there.In India. Doesn't mean it was recognized by cultures elsewhere. Like, say, ancient Middle East.
Look at the South-Asian concept of "Third Gender".
(Specifically in India.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_%28South_Asia%29
The identity has been recognized since antiquity.
Post by: wierd on June 21, 2015, 11:48:12 am
"Not culturally accepted == NOT THERE!"
No no no. There almost certainly WERE people who were third gender, just as there most certainly WERE people who were homosexual. That they had to hide their actual status due to social pressure is another thing entirely. Since they existed, I am quite sure that the culture of the period had words to describe such people, even if they were pejorative.
Post by: scrdest on June 21, 2015, 12:15:34 pm
You are making a faulted presumption.Considering they hid their actual status, they didn't need to have words for them. Transgender, at least, because homosexuality was overtly practiced at least in Rome, if not other neighboring countries... which, you know, being an occupant and all, were possibly in some quantity present in there.
"Not culturally accepted == NOT THERE!"
No no no. There almost certainly WERE people who were third gender, just as there most certainly WERE people who were homosexual. That they had to hide their actual status due to social pressure is another thing entirely. Since they existed, I am quite sure that the culture of the period had words to describe such people, even if they were pejorative.
Plus, you don't need to have one single word to describe things. When something is rare enough, using 'guy attracted to guys' is more linguistically economic than making up a new word to act as a macro for the phrase.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2015, 01:17:23 pm
Post by: TempAcc on June 22, 2015, 01:25:47 pm
Of course, there wasn't any transgender related surgery going on, but there was some measure of gender bending going around.
I remember reading an ancient Roman account of a general sugesting that legionaires should be encouraged to let their beard and body hair grow so they'd look less attractive to their fellow soldiers, or something.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on June 22, 2015, 06:12:13 pm
-Jesus
-Abraham
-The Flood
-Moses
Feel free to give an explanation if you wish.
Post by: Arcvasti on June 22, 2015, 06:30:31 pm
Berlin making a triple Church (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27872551) that caters to all three Abrahamic faithsThe new world monoreligion rises
Is this a new thing? I thought there was a church like that in Jerusalem somewhere. Encouraging religious unity[Or at least "not stabbing each otherness"] is sort of nice though.
A survey for everyone: Do you believe that the biblical events/people listed below happened in history?
-Jesus
-Abraham
-The Flood
-Moses
Feel free to give an explanation if you wish.
In descending order of plausibility:
Jesus, while basically all of the details are somewhat contested, totally lived, was a religious leader and then got crucified. We've got decent evidence of that.
Moses is iffier. I don't actually know as much about how well cited they are, but I'd say they're still quite a bit more plausible then all the below entries because their life was described in Exodus, which seems to describe actual historic events[Plus some stuff about plagues and sea parting which is of somewhat more dubious origins].
Abraham is hella far removed from the present day. Thus, possibility of error is pretty high. To top that, its entirely possible that they are, at least partially, a symbolic character. I wouldn't rule out their existence, but I don't have a terribly large amount of confidence in it either.
The Flood... The Flood, if I remember correctly, was pretty conclusively debunked a while back, although it might have been a smaller, regional event. I'd say its either metaphor/symbolism or an exaggeration of the flooding of a certain area.
Post by: Descan on June 22, 2015, 06:35:50 pm
Jesus, while basically all of the details are somewhat contested, totally lived, was a religious leader and then got crucified. We've got decent evidence of that.You know, a lot of people say that, and a lot of people say the antithesis, and yet I've never seen much evidence either way about it.
Also, I don't know if I'd say Exodus describes historical events...
Post by: redwallzyl on June 22, 2015, 06:37:50 pm
A survey for everyone: Do you believe that the biblical events/people listed below happened in history?
-Jesus
-Abraham
-The Flood
-Moses
Feel free to give an explanation if you wish.
-yes
-no idea probably a grain of truth
-not like in the story but something happened to create the story from a historical perspective perhaps a tsunami or a breaking ice dam as many cultures from around the world have similar stories.
-he probably existed in some way once again a grain of truth
I'm a vary weird Christian probably as i am going into a anthropological field and have a good deal of history schooling. the way i see it the old testament is the oral tradition of the Jewish people written down long after the events happened so they are not particularly accurate but have grains of truth reflecting their cultural preferences and morals. the new is mostly the story of Jesus with the various things his followers thought about things collected into one area and from my knowledge of early church history i know for a fact they right away they all had differing interpretations even among the original disciples. for the record i am a nineteen year old, introverted, vary logical, liberal leaning, democrat who loves science and believes in evolution and i see no conflict with that and my beliefs. my unfounded musings are that god set the universe in motion with the intent to create life and when it eventually got to a state worthy he grated it sentence (the various species of human) and just watches things play out seeing how we do and sending Jesus to steer us on the right track. (once again unfounded musings)
Post by: Frumple on June 22, 2015, 06:40:01 pm
-Complete toss-up. Too far back to have any meaningful way of telling, so far as I can recall.
-No. Arc covered the more charitable response, and we've had the flood discussion a few times previous in thread.
-See 2.
Depends on what you mean by happened, though. As the bible itself described would be a no across the board -- the chances of actual historical figures being as described in the bible is basically nil. Too much time, too much corruption of the source, too dubious a source to begin with insofar as historical accuracy goes. That there may have been historical people or events that the biblical ones worked off afterwards has always been a possibility. A possibility that's largely unverifiable for many of the figures, but a possibility.
Post by: TheDarkStar on June 22, 2015, 06:42:41 pm
A survey for everyone: Do you believe that the biblical events/people listed below happened in history?
-Jesus
-Abraham
-The Flood
-Moses
Feel free to give an explanation if you wish.
-Yes.
-Yes.
-Yes, although it may have only affected a certain area.
-Yes.
Post by: ggamer on June 22, 2015, 07:22:35 pm
Post by: lemon10 on June 22, 2015, 11:18:48 pm
A survey for everyone: Do you believe that the biblical events/people listed below happened in history?Jesus: Yes, despite there being no non-bibilical evidence. The time between the new testament being written and him dying is small enough that its very likely that he indeed lived.
-Jesus
-Abraham
-The Flood
-Moses
Abraham: Not really. I don't know enough about him to judge properly though.
The Flood: Nope. It flies in the face of all known scientific evidence and is impossible for it to have happen naturally (although of course, if a omnipotent god really wanted to create a global 30 thousand feet flood (as would be necessary to cover the top of mount everest) then hide all evidence that it ever happened it certainly could).
Moses: Not really. I don't know enough about him to judge properly though.
Post by: wierd on June 23, 2015, 12:37:02 am
A survey for everyone: Do you believe that the biblical events/people listed below happened in history?Jesus: Yes, despite there being no non-bibilical evidence. The time between the new testament being written and him dying is small enough that its very likely that he indeed lived.
-Jesus
-Abraham
-The Flood
-Moses
Abraham: Not really. I don't know enough about him to judge properly though.
The Flood: Nope. It flies in the face of all known scientific evidence and is impossible for it to have happen naturally (although of course, if a omnipotent god really wanted to create a global 30 thousand feet flood (as would be necessary to cover the top of mount everest) then hide all evidence that it ever happened it certainly could).
Moses: Not really. I don't know enough about him to judge properly though.
A roman historian named Josephus gives a pretty solidly based account for the genuine existence of a historical figure meeting the identifying credentials of Jesus of nazareth.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XX#Chapter_9
There is another reference to the jesus (the christ) he gives that is of less respected quality.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3
In addition to Josephus, there is also another Roman historian named Tacitus, who wrote some time in the second century. (Josephus was 1st century)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_%28Tacitus%29/Book_15#44
So, the romans themselves clearly believed that there was a historical figure for jesus (the christ).
Post by: Bohandas on June 23, 2015, 12:37:23 am
A survey for everyone: Do you believe that the biblical events/people listed below happened in history?
-Jesus
-Abraham
-The Flood
-Moses
Feel free to give an explanation if you wish.
For Jesus, Abraham and Moses there doesn't seem to be to be any reason to assume that they were any less real than L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, or Marshall Applewhite
As for the flood, I do recall hearing about archaeological evidence of a period of intense widespread flooding in the middle east that could have inspired the legend. I also definitely recall archaeological evidence showing that the Mesopotamians were telling that story about their own gods and heroes long before the Hebrews started telling their version.
Post by: Vilanat on June 23, 2015, 12:43:12 am
What we fail to imagine is just how ignorant the general population was at the time. with literacy rates well below the 5% and almost non existent communication between ordinary people even across a small space as the Land of Israel, it's easy to invent a story about a guy that performed miracles in another city and have them believe in it. The "space" between a simple farmer born in 100 AD in a village near Nazareth to a simple urban dweller born in 100 AD living in Jerusalem can be bigger than the "space" a simple farmer from Israel has to an urban dweller from Alaska. It would have taken them at least 3 days of full daylight travel. those people of old might have indirect communication via merchants or travelers, but the chances of them having direct communication is rather slim. in that "space" of old time, an organization driven by a certain agenda can inject any number of "Facts", "Tales", "Eye Witnesses", Texts and whatnot to an extremely large proportion of the population and establish a character that never existed, or, existed in a whole different manner and importance.
This "space" is further magnified when speaking about a village dweller living 100 AD in a village near Nazareth and the happenings of 50 AD in jerusalem.
A roman historian named Josephus gives a pretty solidly based account for the genuine existence of a historical figure meeting the identifying credentials of Jesus of nazareth.
Again, as i said above, in an era where the literature was almost completely in control by the established religion, such texts could have been easily manipulated and injected with any number of pages the original author never wrote.
Post by: Rose on June 23, 2015, 12:52:12 am
Post by: wierd on June 23, 2015, 12:54:08 am
That is, unless you think this is something a christian scribe would write:
Quote
Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 23, 2015, 10:15:44 am
To be contrary, it does seem somewhat possible that it could be fake. Particularly due to the end, where Tacitus expresses sympathy for the Christians. Paraphrased, "Even the heathen witnesses the Christians being martyred and realizes that it's unjust". But, it does look pretty legit.
Post by: TempAcc on June 23, 2015, 10:52:27 am
Nero was never very popular in Rome, so its natural that contemporary Roman historians and scholars would find reasons to portray him in a negative light regardless of what they were discussing. Hell, from all we know, most sordid/nefarious details of Nero's personal life (incestous relationship with his mother, dressing his catamite as his late wife and calling him by her name while crying on his lap, running down children under his chariot, etc) might just be political propaganda fabricated by his many contemporary detractors.
And in regards to the survey thing, pretty much what everyone said. There are contemporary and multiple sources (some reliable, other less so) pointing to the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, both directly and indirectly.
Moses is a bit more questionable, since there aren't many non christian sources pointing to him left. Some egyptian sources supposedly refer to a figure that could be Moses, but thats still open for interpretation.
On Abraham, he's just too far back and there's no non jewish/christian sources that mention him, I think, altough that is kinda expected from such an ancient figure. His existence is not unlikely, though.
As for the great flood, its doubtful it had the proportions described in the bible, but there is archeological evidence that a pretty big flood happened in the area in which the biblical Noah would have lived. Probably not a world destroying catastrophic event, but localized disaster? Not that unlikely.
Post by: Bohandas on June 23, 2015, 11:13:10 am
Wow, that's a fascinating quote.
To be contrary, it does seem somewhat possible that it could be fake. Particularly due to the end, where Tacitus expresses sympathy for the Christians. "Even the heathen witnesses the Christians being martyred and realizes that it's unjust". But, it does look pretty legit.
The choice of the word "heathen" m8ght be more due to the translator's prejudices than the original writer's
Post by: Calidovi on June 23, 2015, 12:03:34 pm
As for the great flood, its doubtful it had the proportions described in the bible, but there is archeological evidence that a pretty big flood happened in the area in which the biblical Noah would have lived. Probably not a world destroying catastrophic event, but localized disaster? Not that unlikely.
I find it interesting how the bible's scale only goes so far. Middle Eastern peninsula + East Mediterranean Europe + Egypt does not represent the world, and when prophets of those times bear no insight to the scope of the world in comparison to Abrahamic God it's always odd, if not slightly humorous, how the vast creations of the world are merely all that can be seen by the prophets of those times.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 23, 2015, 12:06:06 pm
Wow, that's a fascinating quote.
To be contrary, it does seem somewhat possible that it could be fake. Particularly due to the end, where Tacitus expresses sympathy for the Christians. "Even the heathen witnesses the Christians being martyred and realizes that it's unjust". But, it does look pretty legit.
The choice of the word "heathen" m8ght be more due to the translator's prejudices than the original writer's
Ugh sorry, I made that look like a literal quote when I was actually paraphrasing. My fault.
Post by: Persus13 on June 23, 2015, 06:07:37 pm
Josephus wasn't just a Roman historian, he was a Jewish Pharisee who gave us a pretty good account of the Jewish rebellion in AD 70 and is our source for a lot of historical knowledge on other Messianic figures in 1st century Judea.A roman historian named Josephus gives a pretty solidly based account for the genuine existence of a historical figure meeting the identifying credentials of Jesus of nazareth.
Again, as i said above, in an era where the literature was almost completely in control by the established religion, such texts could have been easily manipulated and injected with any number of pages the original author never wrote.
This post (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html) by a guy who is a self described "atheist bastard" is one that I think does a decent job on the subject of Josephus and Tacitus (although its a little long, and I have some minor disagreements with him based on the fact that I'm Christian and he isn't).
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 25, 2015, 09:07:35 am
Post by: UXLZ on June 25, 2015, 05:49:50 pm
Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on June 25, 2015, 09:13:24 pm
How do you reconcile conflicting accounts between various writers of the Bible?what does the g in front of the the names mean?Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)
Post by: Frumple on June 25, 2015, 09:15:23 pm
E: Specifically, it's being used to denote the difference between, say, John the figure and the text that is the Gospel According to John. The passage is consistent about that use, anyway.
Post by: Calidovi on June 26, 2015, 12:10:17 pm
How do you reconcile conflicting accounts between various writers of the Bible?Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)
They are people, and their viewpoints will contradict. I take it that opinions weren't squandered during the compilation of the bible, and misinformation, ignorance, and simply forgetting to write something down were common issues.
Post by: Ghills on June 26, 2015, 03:33:33 pm
How do you reconcile conflicting accounts between various writers of the Bible?Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)
How do you reconcile conflicting accounts between various writers of the Bible?Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)
Everything Laptisen said, plus this:
Ancient peoples did not have the same idea of what history or documentation meant. Now, we want all our sources to agree on important facts, have standards of evidence, etc. Then, the standards were very different.
Also, I think each gospel was written for a different audience so each focuses on different things, presents ideas differently, uses different language, etc.
As for the doctrines, LDS theology says:
Every person is a spirit child of Heavenly Father born into a body. Jesus was, in addition to being a spirit child of God, conceived with the Holy Spirit and thus the Son of God in a physical as well as spiritual sense. He lived without committing sin which is what qualified him to be the perfect sacrifice, freeing all humanity from death. Committing sin would have disqualified him and left the rest of us eternally stuck.
He got baptized because
1) Part of living without sin is obeying commandments, and everyone is told to get baptized as part of the process of getting back to heaven, and
2) To set a clear example for all the rest of us so that we absolutely know baptism is required to get back to heaven.
Post by: Persus13 on June 26, 2015, 05:44:07 pm
How do you reconcile conflicting accounts between various writers of the Bible?Well I don't really see that as conflicting. As the others said, each gospel goes about telling things in a different way and so there is overlap in all of them but many stories are only found in 1 or 2 of them. If you interviewed four witnesses of something that happened, all of them would probably have different but overlapping things to say about the event, and the gospels are the same way. John leaving out the baptism is not surprising because he was being very deliberate about what went into his book and its a lot more structured then the others. So from a Christian perspective he just left out the bit on the baptism because he didn't see it as important to the narrative he was telling. Also from a Christian perspective there isn't a conflict between the two passages in Matthew and Mark and the lack of a mention in John. The blogger's perceived conflict comes out of his interpretation of the three gospels and what Jesus they're describing, while from a Christian perspective, there isn't any conflict between the Jesus described in them.Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)
In terms of how do you reconcile conflicting accounts in the Bible in general, I'm no expert on the Bible, and I certainly can't speak Greek, Ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, so what I would do is ask someone like a seminarian or a priest or a biblical scholar about it or consult a book, but a lot of times stuff in the Bible makes more sense if you understand the cultural context or the language behind it. There's been almost 2000 years of thought on that front, so I'm sure someone has probably looked into it before. You could probably say that about any question asked in this thread though.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on June 27, 2015, 07:58:08 am
-snip-well said.
Post by: ggamer on June 28, 2015, 09:50:02 am
Yknow, I wonder if we saw Iraqi Christians singing their anthem in church we would think it was as normal.
This kinda stuff makes me want to vomit
E: what the fuck
What possesses people to be this damn stupid
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 09:59:18 am
That is WHY our nation (is supposed to) keeps religion and politics separate. (GOP and fundamentalism not withstanding. ahem.)
Military anthems, nationalist anthems, and political rhetoric have no place in a church. Religious anthems, rhetoric, and dogma have no place in the governance of the nation.
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 28, 2015, 11:06:27 am
Conflation of religious faiths with state nationalism is ALWAYS a bad thing.
That is WHY our nation (is supposed to) keeps religion and politics separate. (GOP and fundamentalism not withstanding. ahem.)
Military anthems, nationalist anthems, and political rhetoric have no place in a church. Religious anthems, rhetoric, and dogma have no place in the governance of the nation.
The anthem of the United Kingdom is God save the Queen, though to be fair it is rather vague as to which god (I quite like the idea of Loki watching over her). This manages both those objectionable things, along with a third strike of hereditary entitlement all rolled in for some kind of combination of deluxe fuck up. Even then, for some unknown reason people often wonder why I (as an atheist Welshman) have little to no loyalty to such a set up.
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 11:13:18 am
Post by: Descan on June 28, 2015, 12:10:08 pm
We have the Queen as our Head of State, and head of the Anglican church, but we ALSO have publicly-funded Catholic schools.
Post by: Bohandas on June 28, 2015, 12:18:00 pm
Conflation of religious faiths with state nationalism is ALWAYS a bad thing.
That is WHY our nation (is supposed to) keeps religion and politics separate. (GOP and fundamentalism not withstanding. ahem.)
Military anthems, nationalist anthems, and political rhetoric have no place in a church. Religious anthems, rhetoric, and dogma have no place in the governance of the nation.
Speaking of which, does the "under God" line in the Pledge of Allegiance strike anybody else as mildly seditious? It disparages the authority of our government and the legitimacy of our democracy. The nation is not under anything!
Post by: Helgoland on June 28, 2015, 12:21:02 pm
The nation is not under anything!Err...
Post by: Rolan7 on June 28, 2015, 12:37:43 pm
Post by: Persus13 on June 28, 2015, 01:08:14 pm
Conflation of religious faiths with state nationalism is ALWAYS a bad thing.Well, nationalism is a religion itself, especially in America.
That is WHY our nation (is supposed to) keeps religion and politics separate. (GOP and fundamentalism not withstanding. ahem.)I'd definitely agree with you here in terms of institutions, but its kind of hard to separate religion and politics when it comes to people.
Speaking of which, does the "under God" line in the Pledge of Allegiance strike anybody else as mildly seditious? It disparages the authority of our government and the legitimacy of our democracy. The nation is not under anything!Not really, its just another aspect of the American civil religion that says America can do no wrong, so its actually the opposite.
Something tells me Poe's Law is in effect here.The nation is not under anything!Err...
Post by: Helgoland on June 28, 2015, 01:14:22 pm
Not exactly Poe's law, but it was a very unfortunate way to say what's meant.
Post by: Bohandas on June 28, 2015, 01:18:51 pm
The nation is not under anything!Err...
The UN and NATO are confederated systems (in the technical sense, not the racism sense), their member nations are not "under" them.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 28, 2015, 01:21:25 pm
Quote from: Perseus13
I can't speak for Bohandas, but I think it's a serious point. The USA were founded on principles of liberty and religious freedom. When neocons added "Under God" to the pledge to differentiate us from them godless commies, they betrayed both those principles.Something tells me Poe's Law is in effect here.The nation is not under anything!Err...
Post by: Bohandas on June 28, 2015, 01:43:56 pm
Quote from: Perseus13I can't speak for Bohandas, but I think it's a serious point. The USA were founded on principles of liberty and religious freedom. When neocons added "Under God" to the pledge to differentiate us from them godless commies, they betrayed both those principles.Something tells me Poe's Law is in effect here.The nation is not under anything!Err...
Exactly
Post by: Persus13 on June 28, 2015, 01:53:14 pm
I'm against the under God as you are, but for a different reason. American civil religion is a theory that the United States basically has a religion in all but name based around American exceptionalism. Considering how there are plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who seem to believe this or at least state America can do no wrong rhetoric as well as how American patriotism feels like a religion sometimes with how reverently the Founding Fathers are treated as well as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, I think this theory is valid. Hence, the under God in the pledge is part of this civil religion and since this civil religion is part of America since the beggining, if you think that's contrary to liberty or religious freedom then those were betrayed at the beginning.Quote from: Perseus13I can't speak for Bohandas, but I think it's a serious point. The USA were founded on principles of liberty and religious freedom. When neocons added "Under God" to the pledge to differentiate us from them godless commies, they betrayed both those principles.Something tells me Poe's Law is in effect here.The nation is not under anything!Err...
This is a 1967 essay (http://www.robertbellah.com/articles_5.htm) by a Robert Bellah who came up with the current iteration of the theory.
Post by: Bohandas on June 28, 2015, 01:57:25 pm
I'm against the under God as you are, but for a different reason. American civil religion is a theory that the United States basically has a religion in all but name based around American exceptionalism. Considering how there are plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who seem to believe this or at least state America can do no wrong rhetoric as well as how American patriotism feels like a religion sometimes with how reverently the Founding Fathers are treated as well as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, I think this theory is valid. Hence, the under God in the pledge is part of this civil religion and since this civil religion is part of America since the beggining, if you think that's contrary to liberty or religious freedom then those were betrayed at the beginning.Quote from: Perseus13I can't speak for Bohandas, but I think it's a serious point. The USA were founded on principles of liberty and religious freedom. When neocons added "Under God" to the pledge to differentiate us from them godless commies, they betrayed both those principles.Something tells me Poe's Law is in effect here.The nation is not under anything!Err...
That doesn't hold up because it's more or less unambiguous that the "God" referred to is the god of the major western faiths (Christianity/Judaism/Islam) and not one of the Founding Fathers or Abe Lincoln or the Constitution or the Atomic BOMB.
Post by: Persus13 on June 28, 2015, 02:02:16 pm
I never said that the referred to god was any of those things. The god is just an American god, otherwise I doubt Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson would reference him. And yes, of course there is Christian elements in the American civil religion (like monotheism), and some Christians incorporate the American civil religion into there faith by believing that America is essentially a new Israel that was endowed by God, taking of the Puritan beliefs, but its not an explicitly Christian god. There's a distinct lack of Christ for instance.I'm against the under God as you are, but for a different reason. American civil religion is a theory that the United States basically has a religion in all but name based around American exceptionalism. Considering how there are plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who seem to believe this or at least state America can do no wrong rhetoric as well as how American patriotism feels like a religion sometimes with how reverently the Founding Fathers are treated as well as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, I think this theory is valid. Hence, the under God in the pledge is part of this civil religion and since this civil religion is part of America since the beggining, if you think that's contrary to liberty or religious freedom then those were betrayed at the beginning.Quote from: Perseus13I can't speak for Bohandas, but I think it's a serious point. The USA were founded on principles of liberty and religious freedom. When neocons added "Under God" to the pledge to differentiate us from them godless commies, they betrayed both those principles.Something tells me Poe's Law is in effect here.The nation is not under anything!Err...
That doesn't hold up because it's more or less unambiguous that the god referred to is the god of the western faiths and not one of the Founding Fathers or Abe Lincoln or the Atomic BOMB.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 28, 2015, 02:14:08 pm
American Exceptionalism rant:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 02:16:16 pm
I too am against American Exceptionalism, because the very notion goes against rational empiricism. Americans are humans. Like all other humans. They are neither better nor worse, fundamentally, than any other group of humans.
The "My Country: Love it or leave it" types are a cancer. Always have been.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 28, 2015, 02:24:29 pm
American patriotism is practically the opposite of nationalism. It involves examining the current administration critically and holding personal rights sacred.
Lots of idiots call themselves patriots when they're really just nationalistic...
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2015, 02:25:37 pm
They are neither better nor worse, fundamentally, than any other group of humans.Empirical evidence points to 'fundamentally worse'
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 02:29:03 pm
They are neither better nor worse, fundamentally, than any other group of humans.Empirical evidence points to 'fundamentally worse'
Incorrect. They are just as bad as any other group, fundamentally. They simply have access to more resources, and are therefor more influential.
(You can find the antecedent of current Amerika(tm) in the former British Empire.)
Post by: Arcvasti on June 28, 2015, 02:41:04 pm
Americans are humans. Like all other humans. They are neither better nor worse, fundamentally, than any other group of humans.
...
I'd say that groups of humans are differentiated from each other by their values and by their actions. America, as a group, has a set of values that it demonstrates with its actions. Groups of humans grouped by something that doesn't necessarily entail shared values and actions[EG: Race, sex, sexual orientation] are too disparate to put in the same boat. But I believe that a country CAN be better or worse then another country. Countries are arbitrary demarcations of population and can therefore be judged on the reason that they are demarcated[EG:Their laws, government and dominant culture]. So I could totally judge Americans, as a unit, for not legalizing gay marriage sooner. Each citizen is responsible for the state of affairs in the country. If I dislike the state of affairs in the country, this state of affairs exists because of the citizens of said country, so disliking the citizens of said country as a whole is therefore a reasonable position.
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 02:45:10 pm
See for instance, the rhetoric of many senators and congressmen concerning the NAFTA vote, and now with TPP. (It should have been clear with the popular uprising against SOPA, and PIPA, that TPP was NOT something the populace wanted. They voted for it anyway. Should ordinary Americans be held responsible?)
Post by: redwallzyl on June 28, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
so I'm somehow worse then you because other people in my country have a position you see as worse then yours even if i take your "better position"?Americans are humans. Like all other humans. They are neither better nor worse, fundamentally, than any other group of humans.
...
I'd say that groups of humans are differentiated from each other by their values and by their actions. America, as a group, has a set of values that it demonstrates with its actions. Groups of humans grouped by something that doesn't necessarily entail shared values and actions[EG: Race, sex, sexual orientation] are too disparate to put in the same boat. But I believe that a country CAN be better or worse then another country. Countries are arbitrary demarcations of population and can therefore be judged on the reason that they are demarcated[EG:Their laws, government and dominant culture]. So I could totally judge Americans, as a unit, for not legalizing gay marriage sooner. Each citizen is responsible for the state of affairs in the country. If I dislike the state of affairs in the country, this state of affairs exists because of the citizens of said country, so disliking the citizens of said country as a whole is therefore a reasonable position.
Post by: TD1 on June 28, 2015, 04:28:06 pm
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 04:34:53 pm
While each manifestation of a human culture is unique, it still is a human culture, and has underlying characteristics that are always conserved. The propensity for shameless self promotion, the feature being discussed, is not unique, and is conserved among all human cultures.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2015, 04:36:20 pm
Lel you comparing the British Empire with the American Empire? No one is fundamentally the same as their fellow. Everyone is fundamentally different. Same goes with Americans, who just so happen to be fundamentally worse than 100% of the planetIncorrect. They are just as bad as any other group, fundamentally. They simply have access to more resources, and are therefor more influential.They are neither better nor worse, fundamentally, than any other group of humans.Empirical evidence points to 'fundamentally worse'
(You can find the antecedent of current Amerika(tm) in the former British Empire.)
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 04:41:35 pm
Lel you comparing the British Empire with the American Empire? No one is fundamentally the same as their fellow. Everyone is fundamentally different. Same goes with Americans, who just so happen to be fundamentally worse than 100% of the planetIncorrect. They are just as bad as any other group, fundamentally. They simply have access to more resources, and are therefor more influential.They are neither better nor worse, fundamentally, than any other group of humans.Empirical evidence points to 'fundamentally worse'
(You can find the antecedent of current Amerika(tm) in the former British Empire.)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Simply asserting a contrary statement does not make it so.
Examples of hypernationalism, the feature being discussed, are everywhere, in every culture. The degree of that hypernationalism is always congruent with the amount of resources the culture is able to bring to bear.
This is like arguing that "not all tree branches are the same! See, that one bends 90 degrees, and that one 45!" Nevermind that fundementally, a tree branch is still a tree branch.
Ancient rome brought the resources of the known world to bear against its later conquests before burning from within.
The British empire brought enough land under its sway that the sun literally never sat on it.
The American Empire (TM) has more military might than the rest of the world combined.
All thought that they were the epitome of civilization.
Post by: TD1 on June 28, 2015, 04:42:28 pm
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 04:44:52 pm
Post by: TD1 on June 28, 2015, 04:48:11 pm
And yes. It can be mitigated. So can anything. So, you can say that Americans are more prone to self promotion than X culture/nation.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2015, 04:49:07 pm
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Simply asserting a contrary statement does not make it so.Simply asserting that the different are the same does not make it so - you are asserting the contrary.
Examples of hypernationalism, the feature being discussed, are everywhere, in every culture. The degree of that hypernationalism is always congruent with the amount of resources the culture is able to bring to bear.Call a straight twig or a bent twig the same and you're missing that fundamentally they're not the identical; pointing out they're both from a tree is like pointing out how we're all human so we must be the same. What makes us different makes us different. Fundamental differences in culture are fundamental.
This is like arguing that "not all tree branches are the same! See, that one bends 90 degrees, and that one 45!" Nevermind that fundementally, a tree branch is still a tree branch.
Ancient rome brought the resources of the known world to bear against its later conquests before burning from within.Despite Pax Britannica being a thing, whether it was the Spanish, French, Russians, Germans or Americans - there was always at some point someone on the cusp of surpassing them. Pax Americana lasted even shorter than Pax Britannica, and provided even less of cultural worth. Only Rome was worthy.
The British empire brought enough land under its sway that the sun literally never sat on it.
The American Empire (TM) has more military might than the rest of the world combined.
All thought that they were the epitome of civilization.
Somehow American culture has had more pomp than its far more worthy predecessors.
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 05:01:19 pm
many electronic devices were developed in the united states by US citizens, including electric motors, 3-phase AC power, the microwave oven-- even the transistor was invented here.
History often depicts past civilizations with a rosy hue. Be wary, even the abomination that is the modern US could well get that treatment.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2015, 05:02:23 pm
Also the victors write history, the USA has already lost
Also USA invented Facebook with that internet gj
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 05:16:05 pm
We are contemporaries of the horror. Our accounts will be chronicled, but the ones given weight in schools will be the ones most favored by the spindoctors of tomorrow.
Especially when said "Pax Americana" hasnt really "ended" yet. (I would be hard pressed to say that a genuine "Pax" even occurred. Perhaps during the isolationist era prior to WW1 maybe-- but since? America has been in a state of constant foreign conflict ever since. the US became addicted to war.)
Then again, so was the British Empire, and the Roman empire before it.
Post by: Bohandas on June 28, 2015, 05:25:56 pm
many electronic devices were developed in the united states by US citizens, including electric motors, 3-phase AC power, the microwave oven-- even the transistor was invented here.
Don't forget radio/wireless communication, invented by Tesla (although to be fair Tesla received his education in Austria)
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2015, 05:30:37 pm
Also their religious convictions are being all undermined as they enter the godless states phase that Yurop has already embraced, meaning their people have been thrown into glorious disunity within the United States of Murica.
Admittedly that last remark was added in just to keep this tangentially on topic. There a thread where this'd be more on point?
Post by: Bohandas on June 28, 2015, 05:43:30 pm
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 05:45:21 pm
Wait, Cerenkov radiation doesn't count as inner light? Well DAMN!
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2015, 05:48:56 pm
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 05:53:08 pm
Russia knows that. Why do you think Putin is pushing the envelope by saying he will resume nuke production?
No, the only weapon the US really has, is that the IMF still bases all global economic activity models on the dollar as the reserve currency. The only option the US has really is the thermonuclear self-financial-meltdown option.
That could change though, if the US decides to become Fascist America 2.0 instead of "Fascist-Lite America".
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2015, 05:55:27 pm
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 06:39:20 pm
The corporate mentality is about as close to neofascism as you can get. Get some people like Trump in office, and off you go.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2015, 06:40:58 pm
Post by: Calidovi on June 28, 2015, 07:17:28 pm
Clearly, you are unacquainted with our corporations, who own government.
The corporate mentality is about as close to neofascism as you can get. Get some people like Trump in office, and off you go.
Could you explain the corporate mentality's relation to neofascism? I'm not the most political of sorts, but I don't really see anything inherently direct.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Bohandas on June 28, 2015, 11:07:40 pm
Clearly, you are unacquainted with our corporations, who own government.
The corporate mentality is about as close to neofascism as you can get. Get some people like Trump in office, and off you go.
Could you explain the corporate mentality's relation to neofascism? I'm not the most political of sorts, but I don't really see anything inherently direct.
Well, instead of everything existing to serve the state, everything exists to serve the corporations that control the state
Post by: wierd on June 28, 2015, 11:17:57 pm
The defining characteristic of a fascist government model, is one where corporate power and government power are one and the same. In this definition, "Corporate" is more the "Bodies corporate" definition; corporate trade groups that represent the interests of tradesmen and industry.
Things like the RIAA and pals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
To accomplish this, corporate power is consolidated into the hands of a dictator, or other authoritarian regime, which then directly controls both government and industry. Unlike Communism, which seeks to redistribute wealth, Fascism makes no such effort, and has no such tenet. It instead DOES seek profit, and operates under the principle that what is good for the government and industry, is good for the nation as a whole, and thus good for its citizens as well. As such, it has no qualms at all about using military might to seize assets it finds valuable or desirable. Since corporate power and government power are one in the same, what industry wants, is what industry gets. Fascist regimes almost always employ hyper-nationalistic fervor to make the rank and file population obedient and pliant to the desires and actions of the state and its industrial might. The nazi party went so far as to attempt to create a mythical/magical basis for its rule, enshrining the citizenry of Germany as literal demigods, along with powerful nationalistic slogans and propaganda.
US corporations are very much fascist in construction; While there is a board of directors that is elected by share holders, the majority stake holders are the real power. Often, those people are also the CEO, CIO, CFO, and pals. Since modern corporations differ significantly from the bodies corporate type corporations of the past, the proper term is "neofascist". Nobody within an organization tells the CEO he cannot do something without there being reprocussions, excepting perhaps, the legal department. Corporations run very much like a fascist regime, where the growth and profit of the company is seen as beneficial for all members of the company, from CEO to schlum worker in the basement. As such, the growth, expansion, and might of the company are seen as the single paramount thing to fixate on, and the CEO has nearly unlimited power within his corporation.
Given that corporations, and in particular, their lobbyists, have a revolving door with important positions of power within the US government, and that most modern legislation is just the government rubberstamping what industry wants (See TPP and pals), the US has taken on a distinctly fascist aftertaste. Hence my referring to it as "Fascist Lite". This is NOT HELPED AT ALL by the "My Country: Love it or leave it!" types, who's nationalism and semi-religious dogma (discussed earlier) are at extremes rivaling that of the Nazi party.
Donald Trump lives in the world of the CEO. He's poised to attempt claiming the presidency. DO NOT ELECT HIM. He would attempt to run the US government like it was a modern US corporation, with him as the CEO. The US would become distinctly neofascist under that kind of regime, and what industry wants, industry would get. Even more than it does now.
The NeoCons of the current US politic are very much in line with many of the definitions used by various political thinkers for Fascism.
Seriously, read these, then think critically about the US government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 29, 2015, 05:56:09 am
Post by: Persus13 on June 29, 2015, 09:02:20 am
Post by: scrdest on June 29, 2015, 09:55:01 am
Divorce yourself from the "Fascists == nazis" mindset. That is simply not true. Nazis WERE fascists, but not all fascists are or were nazis.The 'corpora' in 'corporatism' refers to the original meaning, which is far broader. It's referring to a corporation in the way medieval universities were called corporations. From the Latin 'body', so a 'body of people'. An association, in other words. You've mentioned it yourself, but took it into a weird (dare I say - wierd?) direction.
The defining characteristic of a fascist government model, is one where corporate power and government power are one and the same. In this definition, "Corporate" is more the "Bodies corporate" definition; corporate trade groups that represent the interests of tradesmen and industry.
Things like the RIAA and pals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
RIAA is a corporation in that way, yeah. But that's a very sneaky way to smuggle in the implication that only modern-parlance corporations are corporations corporatism is concerned about.
In fact, it's quite the opposite in a way. Apple and Microsoft taken separately wouldn't be a corporation in that sense. Their interests are divergent. If they formed some kind of a, I'unno, Tech Industry Organization, that would be one - representing the interests of, well, Tech Industry. Corporatism - fascist or otherwise - was and is syndicalist in nature.
The distinction of 'neofascism' is one you've pretty much made up. There has never been a society of the kind you describe, so it's pretty much a Get Out Of Weak Analogy Free Card.
There is a major distinction between how a (mod. parl.) corporation is run and how a nation is run in one major and very important way. Being a part of a corporation isn't mandatory. If a CEO is being a shitler, you can leave the company. Or not apply in the first place. You cannot get fired from a fascist country you are born in. Only fired at. You can *escape* but we're talking legal ways.
So, this argument boils down to 'I don't like modern corporations and government favoritism thereof, therefore fascism'. The first sentence is fine and dandy, no objections here, but don't co-opt unrelated concepts to criticize it.
Post by: Calidovi on June 29, 2015, 10:46:02 am
-snip-
Thank you. I was confused in the usage of fascism to describe corporate ideals.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 29, 2015, 10:50:14 am
Assuming the God represents an actual deity, can someone explain why it isn't a betrayal of our ideals of liberty and religious freedom?
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 29, 2015, 10:58:26 am
Post by: Calidovi on June 29, 2015, 10:59:59 am
As a reminder, this interesting derail started from the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.
Assuming the God represents an actual deity, can someone explain why it isn't a betrayal of our ideals of liberty and religious freedom?
The phrase "Under God" wasn't in the original pledge. It was added later by a few people, motivated by their own denominations or something. I suppose it just caught on and government didn't want to intervene, being that a majority Christian population may have an issue with it.
EDIT:
Presumably every monotheist would be able to get under that, assuming liberty stems from the big deity 'god given rights' and all thatEven then I'm pretty sure the notion of "God-given rights" is kind of an abstract concept. Locke (if he was even the one that started it, I forgot) probably worded it as such to drive the point home that these rights cannot be taken away. I mean, who wants to go against God?
Post by: Helgoland on June 29, 2015, 11:01:32 am
Post by: Rolan7 on June 29, 2015, 11:09:26 am
In 1954 the "Under God" was added (by law) specifically as a response to "atheist" powers like communist Russia. From Wikipedia:
Quote
Eisenhower stated "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."
So, it really is a bit of a kick in the face. Specifically to atheists, but honestly to any non-Christians.
Post by: wierd on June 29, 2015, 11:12:01 am
[snip]
Seen One-O-These before? (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/06/10/should-companies-be-allowed-to-make-workers-sign-noncompete-agreements/noncompete-agreements-hurt-workers-and-stifle-competition) What's that, your company you were working for and have invested much of your life in to get the retirement savings plan just got bought out by a multinational corporation, and now they want to make sure you never leave, just before putting the screws to you using a non-compete agreement? I guess you are free to leave! (Just, you cant work for any competitor! (shitler laugh))
Or maybe an intellectual property agreement that lasts in purpetuity? (https://ipdraughts.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/key-terms-in-ip-contracts-consequences-of-termination/) What, you WANT TO QUIT!? Foolish worker drone! WE OWN YOUR MIND, AND ALL IDEAS YOU HAVE, FOREVER. See right here, where you agreed to "This agreement survives termination." without any sunset provision whatsoever? Did you really think you could just LEAVE?
Perhaps you should ask Truean about how corporations behave when it comes to such things.
Post by: TripJack on June 29, 2015, 11:16:18 am
Kids were required to recite it in schools, possibly they still are?not in most states, no
Post by: Calidovi on June 29, 2015, 11:18:34 am
It's legal. Kids were required to recite it in schools, possibly they still are? I think it eventually became legal to dissent from speaking it (and be that kid who refused to say the pledge with everyone else) but I don't really know.
In 1954 the "Under God" was added (by law) specifically as a response to "atheist" powers like communist Russia. From Wikipedia:QuoteEisenhower stated "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."
So, it really is a bit of a kick in the face. Specifically to atheists, but honestly to any non-Christians.
Any monotheist would be fine with that, though I'm fairly sure that Eisenhower included something about Christianity specifically.
Post by: wierd on June 29, 2015, 11:19:52 am
Still, somewhat relevant. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I)
Post by: Rolan7 on June 29, 2015, 11:24:35 am
The supreme court ruled in 1943 that students can't be required to recite the pledge, which is cool.Kids were required to recite it in schools, possibly they still are?not in most states, no
This came 3 years after they ruled that students *did* have to recite it, in response to Jehovah's Witnesses refusing on religious grounds. Apparently that resulted in a "rash of mob violence and intimidation" against the Jehovah's Witnesses.
This was all before they added the "Under God". So yeah, students are allowed to dissent - just like they were allowed to stand aside as teachers led Christian prayers.
Post by: wierd on June 29, 2015, 11:28:36 am
"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!" the religiouisity types squeal. Same old story. Same old song and dance.
Post by: scrdest on June 29, 2015, 01:01:09 pm
That is a beautiful example of a well-crafted entirely irrelevant argument. At no point I claim corporations or US law as-is are good. But don't call a case of Cholera 'Ebola' because you don't like it and it sounds scarier.[snip]
Seen One-O-These before? (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/06/10/should-companies-be-allowed-to-make-workers-sign-noncompete-agreements/noncompete-agreements-hurt-workers-and-stifle-competition) What's that, your company you were working for and have invested much of your life in to get the retirement savings plan just got bought out by a multinational corporation, and now they want to make sure you never leave, just before putting the screws to you using a non-compete agreement? I guess you are free to leave! (Just, you cant work for any competitor! (shitler laugh))
Or maybe an intellectual property agreement that lasts in purpetuity? (https://ipdraughts.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/key-terms-in-ip-contracts-consequences-of-termination/) What, you WANT TO QUIT!? Foolish worker drone! WE OWN YOUR MIND, AND ALL IDEAS YOU HAVE, FOREVER. See right here, where you agreed to "This agreement survives termination." without any sunset provision whatsoever? Did you really think you could just LEAVE?
Perhaps you should ask Truean about how corporations behave when it comes to such things.
Post by: TD1 on June 29, 2015, 01:04:11 pm
Yup. The conflation of "Religionness!" with "Morality", (and the need for public schools to instil/reinforce moral instruction) often leads there.It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.
"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!" the religiouisity types squeal. Same old story. Same old song and dance.
Post by: Persus13 on June 29, 2015, 01:09:27 pm
As a reminder, this interesting derail started from the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.I don't think anyone would argue that the under God phrase in the pledge violates the separation of church and state. And today I'd say it violates our ideal of religious freedom too. Why it violates the ideal of liberty I'm not completely sure your reasoning for that, although as a monotheist, Loud Whispers point probably applies to me. The thing is that no one seems toseriously care enough about the pledge outside of schools enough to change it.
Assuming the God represents an actual deity, can someone explain why it isn't a betrayal of our ideals of liberty and religious freedom?
Well, according to Wikipedia the person who came up with argued that it was part of American cultural heritage and pointed to Lincoln using it in the Gettysburg Address. It eventually made it in in the 1950s, most likely as a way to distinguish from the Communists. I'm hoping you knew all this though.As a reminder, this interesting derail started from the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.
Assuming the God represents an actual deity, can someone explain why it isn't a betrayal of our ideals of liberty and religious freedom?
The phrase "Under God" wasn't in the original pledge. It was added later by a few people, motivated by their own denominations or something. I suppose it just caught on and government didn't want to intervene, being that a majority Christian population may have an issue with it.
Is the pledge of allegiance determined by law or something, or is it just a bit of folklore around the US as a nation, like the anthem or the flag? If it's the latter, it containing the phrase 'under God' is no more a violation of religious freedom than the Scandinavian flags containing crosses.I wouldn't exactly consider national anthems and flags as folklore. They usually are adopted by governments and so have laws concerning their use. Especially considering how prevalent the two symbols are. The pledge is something I've only seen in public education, never really outside of that sphere. I'd consider the flag and anthem far more important than the pledge since both are used far more often.
This was all before they added the "Under God". So yeah, students are allowed to dissent - just like they were allowed to stand aside as teachers led Christian prayers.I would disagree with this comparison. The pledge has two words that are controversial. You rarely hear complaints about the rest of the pledge which is what effectively West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (the 1943 case) ruled on, whereas school led monotheist prayers are a completely different case that Engel v. Vitale rightly stopped despite being allowed dissent. Would you object to teacher led prayers being said in a private Christian school?
Yup. The conflation of "Religionness!" with "Morality", (and the need for public schools to instil/reinforce moral instruction) often leads there.Is there any point to this post aside from holier than thou grandstanding? I'd like to think there is something in here actually constructive.
"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!" the religiouisity types squeal. Same old story. Same old song and dance.
How much of the Bible have you read? Just curious to know where in the Bible God rapes. Also, what do you mean by fossilization.Yup. The conflation of "Religionness!" with "Morality", (and the need for public schools to instil/reinforce moral instruction) often leads there.It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.
"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!" the religiouisity types squeal. Same old story. Same old song and dance.
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2015, 01:11:18 pm
Unless things have changed, though, it's still recited in school with regularity, it's just not mandatory and a kid can't get in (legal, anyway) trouble if they don't join in, or leave parts out. And they are required to sit through it while everyone else doles it out -- you can't really leave the classroom in protest or somethin'. Recitation of the pledge is also very much common to a lot of group events in the US. The pledge is still really damn pervasive, especially around pre-adults.Kids were required to recite it in schools, possibly they still are?not in most states, no
Post by: wierd on June 29, 2015, 01:12:57 pm
"Fascism" does not have a single, well defined definition. Dont believe me, look it up and see for yourself. Under many of the proposed definitions, the actions I have cited as extant would make modern corporations qualify.
But please, do continue to your argument from authority fallacy.
Exhibit A
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
Exibit B
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Exhibit C
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism
Exhibit D
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Exhibit E
http://www.anesi.com/Fascism-TheUltimateDefinition.htm
(and I could do this all day long.)
Using an amalgamation of the recurring themes in those not quite 100% matching definitions, we get something along the lines of:
An authoritarian regime that does not tolerate insubordination, which uses hypernationalism and propaganda, and which controls industry through indirect means "for the national interest."
By analogue, the mechanics of a modern corporation resemble this-- The CEO and board of directors does not tolerate insubordination, and controls the workers through indirect means (such as the courts, via such things as those agreements) for the corporation's interest.
Back on topic, RE:Is there a point to that?
There is a rather pernicious problem with people who are raised to be religious; they cannot seperate their faith's views of morality from the conception of morality. As such, they simply cannot fathom that there are other modalities of morality besides religious ones. Specifically, ones originating in their faith. This is why many such people consider people of different faiths "innately evil", and can mentally justify atrocities against them. I have had that very conversation with many people of religious conviction. Try it yourself.
Post by: TD1 on June 29, 2015, 01:23:16 pm
I have read all of the Bible. Hell, I used to have favourite verses and stories from it.How much of the Bible have you read? Just curious to know where in the Bible God rapes. Also, what do you mean by fossilization.Yup. The conflation of "Religionness!" with "Morality", (and the need for public schools to instil/reinforce moral instruction) often leads there.It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.
"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!" the religiouisity types squeal. Same old story. Same old song and dance.
Fossilized as in turned to stone, or rock salt in this case. Pillars of salt, etc.
As for raping, there are a number of cases in which God condones raping, even slavery. And, though it hadn't occurred to me until you asked, I suppose you could argue God raped Mary, as I don't recall ever reading of her giving consent. Just being told what to name the child.
Post by: Bohandas on June 29, 2015, 01:31:15 pm
I have read all of the Bible. Hell, I used to have favourite verses and stories from it.How much of the Bible have you read? Just curious to know where in the Bible God rapes. Also, what do you mean by fossilization.Yup. The conflation of "Religionness!" with "Morality", (and the need for public schools to instil/reinforce moral instruction) often leads there.It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.
"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!" the religiouisity types squeal. Same old story. Same old song and dance.
Fossilized as in turned to stone, or rock salt in this case. Pillars of salt, etc.
As for raping, there are a number of cases in which God condones raping, even slavery. And, though it hadn't occurred to me until you asked, I suppose you could argue God raped Mary, as I don't recall ever reading of her giving consent. Just being told what to name the child.
I don't recall him having sex wih her either (unless you take a highly anachronistic interpretation of the phrasing of Luke 1:35)
Post by: Rolan7 on June 29, 2015, 01:33:17 pm
For a long while kids weren't *required* to join in school prayer, but by choosing to abstain they disassociated themselves from the group. It's literally equivalent to having a "voluntary" recital of any other political rhetoric, where any child is "free" to separate themselves from the group and watch.
I think you missed a word, but you're saying it does violate separation of church and state? Based on your second sentence.As a reminder, this interesting derail started from the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.I don't think anyone would argue that the under God phrase in the pledge violates the separation of church and state. And today I'd say it violates our ideal of religious freedom too. Why it violates the ideal of liberty I'm not completely sure your reasoning for that, although as a monotheist, Loud Whispers point probably applies to me. The thing is that no one seems toseriously care enough about the pledge outside of schools enough to change it.
Assuming the God represents an actual deity, can someone explain why it isn't a betrayal of our ideals of liberty and religious freedom?
As for liberty, the pledge is asserting that our nation is "under" another entity. It's not Britain, but it's still a rejection of our independence.
Just to belabor my point, some of the people who pushed this through were Catholic.
How much of the Bible have you read? Just curious to know where in the Bible God rapes. Also, what do you mean by fossilization.There was a long discussion about this, let me find it...
Okay well, Numbers 31 involves giving women to the Levites (special chosen people of God, like Samson) to be raped. Not exactly God raping though.
Oh it was in the previous thread, found it:
Mary did not choose to let the Holy Ghost impregnate her, she wasn't even asked. She probably knew some of the stories of God's wrath, or at least that her cousin-in-law the priest had been struck dumb by a terrifying angel. And here was the same angel, informing her of imminent... well... rape. What the Holy Ghost did probably wasn't technically sex, but she was impregnated without her consent.So yeah, as you probably expected, we're saying that God raped Mary by impregnating her without consent. Even if that didn't involve penetration.
And did she really even accept it? She didn't openly defy the terrifying angel who cursed her cousin-in-law and made her cousin supernaturally pregnant. It would have been pointless and she probably expected punishment if she expressed doubt or ingratitude. So she agreed that the thing would happen, then *didn't tell her fiancee*. She tried to go through with the marriage but her pregnancy was discovered. Either she thought both visitations were just dreams, or she was trying to hide the fact that she was bearing *the Messiah*.
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2015, 01:50:30 pm
As for god condoning rape, check Numbers (31), Deuteronomy (20, 21), some of the bits on slavery in Exodus (21, which pretty much says you're okay to rape your slaves), Samuel (2 Samuel 12, where god gives up a person's wives to their neighbor to be raped), Judges (21), and Zechariah (14, where god straight up says he's going to have the women of Jerusalem raped). Probably bits I'm missing, too. It pops up in a handful of places.
---
... did make me finally realize we actually have the technology to perform virgin births nowadays, don't we? If someone really wanted to, and could find a sufficiently unethical medical practitioner. Doesn't really mean much considering it's fairly arguable mary actually was a virgin, but still.
Post by: TD1 on June 29, 2015, 01:53:15 pm
"Eh...let's just say God popped him there."
It was inevitable.
:P
Post by: Orange Wizard on June 29, 2015, 04:12:02 pm
It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.By God's standards, God is moral. He's not moral by your (or someone else's) standards, but I'd also wager that your moral standards are largely irrelevant to him.
Post by: TD1 on June 29, 2015, 04:19:59 pm
So, whilst God thinks he is right, to many his view in this regard is wrong. At least, the view the Bible represents him as having is, for many, wrong. His moral standards are thought by many to be relevant, but just like mine are ultimately irrelevant.
Post by: scrdest on June 29, 2015, 05:10:34 pm
If God's standards are not the same standards he demands of his followers, they aren't standards. And have the interesting implication that by the standards He demands of others, God is Evil.It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.By God's standards, God is moral. He's not moral by your (or someone else's) standards, but I'd also wager that your moral standards are largely irrelevant to him.
OW, when did you start advocating Satanism?
Post by: Bohandas on June 29, 2015, 05:13:07 pm
It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.By God's standards, God is moral. He's not moral by your (or someone else's) standards, but I'd also wager that your moral standards are largely irrelevant to him.
Like the gods of the CTHULHU Mythos
Post by: Orange Wizard on June 29, 2015, 05:14:35 pm
OW, when did you start advocating Satanism?'Bout the same time I posted this thread, actually. But I thought I was being subtle. How did you guess?
Post by: scrdest on June 29, 2015, 05:15:50 pm
Like the gods of the CTHULHU MythosWhy the hell did you spell Cthulhu like that?
Gut feeling. Also the down-pointed pentagram, but mostly gut feeling.OW, when did you start advocating Satanism?'Bout the same time I posted this thread, actually. But I thought I was being subtle. How did you guess?
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 29, 2015, 05:22:03 pm
OW, when did you start advocating Satanism?Why advocate Satanism when you can advocate Stannisism? STANNISISM THE MANNISISM
Post by: TD1 on June 29, 2015, 05:26:01 pm
Stannis is a cold brute of a man who acts on harsh duty. To quote (somewhat accurately, I hope) Jane Eyre, "feeling without judgement is too washy a draught...but reason without feeling is too bitter."
Post by: origamiscienceguy on June 29, 2015, 05:26:53 pm
The point is that people think God's morals are somehow the standard by which we should act, and that is false. Nearly everybody would say rape is wrong, no matter the context or person who says it's okay.I think this is a bad example since God says rape is wrong too.
So, whilst God thinks he is right, to many his view in this regard is wrong. At least, the view the Bible represents him as having is, for many, wrong. His moral standards are thought by many to be relevant, but just like mine are ultimately irrelevant.
Post by: TD1 on June 29, 2015, 05:29:46 pm
And that is horrible.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 29, 2015, 05:33:17 pm
Because Satan is a misunderstood soul who looked to the stars and was, as a consequence, sealed in the lowest vaults of matter and time away from the stars. He was the insidious, yet loveable whisperer who told us of the advantages of knowledge.Sure sounds like Satanism in here
Stannis is a cold brute of a man who acts on harsh duty. To quote (somewhat accurately, I hope) Jane Eyre, "feeling without judgement is too washy a draught...but reason without feeling is too bitter."
Post by: Bohandas on June 29, 2015, 06:17:49 pm
Like the gods of the CTHULHU MythosWhy the hell did you spell Cthulhu like that?
As a parody of the word "LORD" being written with small-caps like that in some editions of the bible. The same reason why I've taken to writing the word "bomb" as "BOMB" when referring to Atomic Weapons.
Post by: ggamer on June 29, 2015, 06:18:21 pm
Or perhaps Satan is the final boss and he's totally like a dragon but he used to be a dude and he was a snake before that and now he's totes gonna be a sick boss fight like even sicker than monsoon and maybe almost as sick as virgil but definitely below the sick level of Ganon
Or maybe
Satan is a misunderstood soul who looked to the stars and was, as a consequence, sealed in the lowest vaults of matter and time away from the stars. He was the insidious, yet loveable whisperer who told us of the advantages of knowledge.
Stannis is a cold brute of a man who acts on harsh duty. To quote (somewhat accurately, I hope) Jane Eyre, "feeling without judgement is too washy a draught...but reason without feeling is too bitter."
Or maybe Satan is like a perpetual mismaia that invades everybody and stands aside as a great scapegoat for your everyday problems because it is very hard to come to terms with the fact that everything - even the bad stuff - is a part of God's plan
or maybe or maybe or maybe
Post by: scrdest on June 29, 2015, 06:22:37 pm
Oh. That makes sense.Like the gods of the CTHULHU MythosWhy the hell did you spell Cthulhu like that?
As a parody of the word "LORD" being written with small-caps like that in some editions of the bible. The same reason why I've taken to writing the word "bomb" as "BOMB" when referring to Atomic Weapons.
Post by: TD1 on June 29, 2015, 06:24:49 pm
Satan is an algamation of several different figures at different points in the bible, most likely created in the heyday of the little c catholic church to better fit the human dichtomy between good and evilOr, more than maybe, bordering on certainty, he does not exist.
Or perhaps Satan is the final boss and he's totally like a dragon but he used to be a dude and he was a snake before that and now he's totes gonna be a sick boss fight like even sicker than monsoon and maybe almost as sick as virgil but definitely below the sick level of Ganon
Or maybeSatan is a misunderstood soul who looked to the stars and was, as a consequence, sealed in the lowest vaults of matter and time away from the stars. He was the insidious, yet loveable whisperer who told us of the advantages of knowledge.
Stannis is a cold brute of a man who acts on harsh duty. To quote (somewhat accurately, I hope) Jane Eyre, "feeling without judgement is too washy a draught...but reason without feeling is too bitter."
Or maybe Satan is like a perpetual mismaia that invades everybody and stands aside as a great scapegoat for your everyday problems because it is very hard to come to terms with the fact that everything - even the bad stuff - is a part of God's plan
or maybe or maybe or maybe
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2015, 06:39:47 pm
Assuming you are right, though I don't recall any such belief being expressed, it still means he finds it acceptable in at least some contexts.The bible does have condemnations against rape, such as in Deuteronomy 22:25 (though just before that, the same passage* says that if a woman (well, only a virgin promised to be married, and only if they're in town) is raped, but does not scream out, she is to be stoned to death along with the rapist, so...), among others. Though the cursory searching had some trouble finding any blanket condemnations... just stuff like in Deuteronomy. Old Testament's really not the most assuring of sources on the subject, and from what I understand the NT is pretty mum on it -- probably bundled the act under sexual immorality and/or adultery in general, but without much in the way of explicit statement in the face of the OT's bits, it's somewhat hard to tell.
And that is horrible.
*To say nothing of Deuteronomy 21, which...
---
But yeah, probably the biggest problem regarding the issue and the bible is that the bible's treatment of the subject is significantly more nuanced than it bloody should be (especially to anything approaching modern sensibilities regarding the act), and then there's passages like the ones I mentioned above that are just kinda' beyond the pale. The bible only sorta' says that rape is wrong, mostly excuses it under some circumstances, and has god explicitly use the act as part of its plans. It runs pretty hard into the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" thing, except even then it's not so much "As I say" as "As your best interpretation of what I say can be, while ignoring the uncomfortable bits".
Even then, that's only one category of act among many. The many acts of mass murder of children always bothered me a bit more, personally...
Post by: Helgoland on June 29, 2015, 06:49:29 pm
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2015, 06:55:58 pm
Post by: Helgoland on June 29, 2015, 07:00:30 pm
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2015, 07:16:34 pm
I mean, there's other bits in that passage that are probably worse. Married women have no recourse at all, they just get stoned to death with whoever they're found in bed with, rape or not *shrugs*
E: There's also the bit where the counterpart verse explicitly involved rape, not just extramarital shenanigans. Would seem to point against that interpretation, wouldn't it?
Post by: Calidovi on June 29, 2015, 07:43:08 pm
The phrase "Under God" wasn't in the original pledge. It was added later by a few people, motivated by their own denominations or something. I suppose it just caught on and government didn't want to intervene, being that a majority Christian population may have an issue with it.
Well, according to Wikipedia the person who came up with argued that it was part of American cultural heritage and pointed to Lincoln using it in the Gettysburg Address. It eventually made it in in the 1950s, most likely as a way to distinguish from the Communists. I'm hoping you knew all this though.
Sorry for spreading such misinformation, I suppose I was overconfident in that sense.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 29, 2015, 08:24:27 pm
And I think you're exactly right about why the government doesn't intervene. I've deleted a bit of a rant - I just ate so many m&m's that I'm actually shaking - so I'll just remind everyone that the 114th Congress is 97% Judeo-Christian, versus 75% of their constituents. And churches aren't exactly afraid of getting involved in politics... Even though that's the original purpose of their tax-exempt status.
Gonna go walk this sugar off, wow
Post by: Calidovi on June 29, 2015, 08:32:24 pm
I don't see any misinformation in that... They did put their faith into the pledge of allegiance. Their justification was to emphasize that Americans are faithful unlike those atheist commies. Rather awkward for those of us who aren't believers, being lumped in with the reds like that.
And I think you're exactly right about why the government doesn't intervene. I've deleted a bit of a rant - I just ate so many m&m's that I'm actually shaking - so I'll just remind everyone that the 114th Congress is 97% Judeo-Christian, versus 75% of their constituents. And churches aren't exactly afraid of getting involved in politics... Even though that's the original purpose of their tax-exempt status.
Gonna go walk this sugar off, wow
th-thanks
Post by: TD1 on June 30, 2015, 05:48:47 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSm7YPMQOSo
Wow.
Edit: Although the comments below suggest this is misinformation. Any one know?
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 06:38:28 am
So yeah. Excrementum bovus.
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 06:59:18 am
Post by: wierd on July 02, 2015, 07:18:49 am
Remember, for a very sginificant period in early christian history, opening practicing the religion would get you killed. Horribly. (See Tacitus's account of what happened in Rome, a few pages back.) As such, people worshipied on the down low, under the radar, and did not build elaborate temples or places of worship.
It was not until well after being embraced by the Romans, via emperor Constantine, that such houses of worship came to be. At that point, the great "inclusion" of many pagan practices was initiated, which ultimately reached an apex during the dark ages in europe.
Over that course of time, the architectural style of places of worship dedicated to mithras came to be employed for christian churches, christmas as a holiday came to be, the lake of fire and perdition came to be known as "hell", and a great many others.
As such, there is certainly a connection between mithraism and modern christian dogmatic practice-- the question though, is how much of mithraism was adapted in the face of rising christianity, and how much was christianity adapting its dogma to convert mithras worshipers.
I dont really know the full extent of that.
Post by: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 08:13:09 am
Not sure exactly about christmas being a thing from Mithraism, though, I always thought it came from the "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti" due to the worship of Sol Invictus in Rome, or a christian adaptation of Saturnalia.
For example, at one point, according to a Swedish friend of mine, as Scandinavia started to convert to Christianity, Jesus was worshipped alongside Thor in some places, which is one of the coolest examples of syncretism.
Of course, its unlikely these things happened to the extent people like Stephen Fry like to claim, given he's a politically active atheist actor with a very obvious agenda and a face that looks like its constantly melting :v
I always thought the english word "hell" came from "hel", though. Plus, hell has been subjected to mistranslations and syncretic interpretations so many times and called by some many names that nobody is completely sure of the original meaning. Judaism only speaks of "Sheol" as far as I know (which is a very different from the modern idea of the christian hell), while the early greek translations use "hades" and "tartarus".
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 08:16:47 am
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 08:24:19 am
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 08:32:47 am
Quote from: Ecclesiastes
There is nothing new under the sun.
Post by: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 08:51:47 am
And faith being enough to save you is mostly a new testament thing, IIRC, due to Jesus' sacrifice, but ye, I dont remember many religions having faith as the only actual requirement for salvation, altough there are "more forgiving" beliefs in which even faith isn't a requirement.
In hermeticism, for example, it is said that humanity will eventualy achieve true freedom (freedom from materiality/the body/etc), but seeking knowledge and distancing yourself from the wants of the body and material things speeds up the process quite a bit, and having faith does help (in hermeticism, one of the biggest sins is ignorance from god). Even spiritism, which is derivated from christianity, says that faith isn't a requirement, but having faith while also being a good person and helping others hastens your soul's development, etc.
You'd be hard pressed to find any religions with completely original elements anyway.
Post by: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 08:59:55 am
Post by: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 09:06:38 am
Post by: Adragis on July 02, 2015, 09:26:27 am
Post by: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 09:27:44 am
Post by: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 09:29:44 am
@Temp: Of course, though honestly speaking something based purely and accurately on my own personal beliefs would be... Quite strange, to say the least.
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 09:31:36 am
Post by: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 09:41:06 am
Many people have used religious liberty as a means to pose themselves against people they dont like, but this doesnt mean religion itself is a problem, in this case, and you see that kind of argument being used on both sides. The "cherry picking parts of the bible to support my claim" thing is happening on both sides of the argument, be it LGBT/militant atheists or fundamentalist protestants/catholics/islamists/etc.
Yes, the bible does in fact say that homosexuals should be put to death, but you have to consider the fact the bible is nearly two thousand year old document formed from hundreds of documents written by different authors at different moments of history and under different cultural influences. IIRC, the anti homosexual part is from the old testament, and may or may not predate the 10 commandments, and which say nothing of homosexuality while condemning the killing of people.
I generally like to think that the Pro-LGBT parties are attempting to use those quotes to demonstrate that using the Bible as a basis for the legality/morality of LGBT marriage/couples is ludicrous. All evidence points otherwise, but I have faith.
More seriously though, extremism is bad for both sides of an argument save as a hypothetical scenario.
Post by: Adragis on July 02, 2015, 09:57:39 am
What religion isn't for the £££? The Christian church wouldn't have survived if not for its avarice. Indeed, commercialism is still a large part of Catholicism. When I was young, there was a Catholic family we knew who wouldn't send their child to a Protestant primary school (the closest one available, with good standards) because they'd have to pay the church quite a large amount to pray for his soul.Buddhism? Rastafarianism? I'd like to know how some of the anti-materialistic religions (heck, Christianity's meant to be at least somewhat anti-materialistic and look at the sterling example we've managed to set, what with all these televangelists and such) are in it for the bucks.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 02, 2015, 10:07:12 am
I'd appreciate it if people could be a little careful about the religion thing. The number of unbased statements and things that are just plain wrong that get said is incredible.I agree with this 100%! Faith is literally belief in unbased statements, and often that leads to just plain wrong (yet very fiercely held) convictions. It's in-credible.
Post by: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 10:13:06 am
Post by: Rolan7 on July 02, 2015, 10:27:22 am
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 10:30:14 am
slavery, and holy wars were all supported by Christian faith.
Huh? Can I get chapter and verse on those? Christian faith, for preference, so something based off what Jesus said.
I had the slavery argument with smeeprocket quite thoroughly over PMs while between religion threads. We eventually agreed that the Bible doesn't support slavery (certainly the New Testament doesn't) but does contain structures to ensure fair treatment of slaves should not keeping slaves be impractical for whatever reason.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 02, 2015, 10:36:26 am
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 10:38:02 am
That doesn't change the fact that the Bible doesn't support slavery.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 02, 2015, 10:42:48 am
1 Peter 2:18
Quote
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.1 Timothy 6:1
Quote
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.Ephesians 6:5
Quote
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.*As unto Christ*. And for this particular issue, the Bible doesn't say both things and let people choose which to follow. It doesn't condemn slavery anywhere.
Holy wars are much more complicated. But the belief in hell for nonbelievers, along with (Peter?) demanding that Christians spread the faith, provided plenty of justification. Less justified than slavery, but clearly enough.
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 10:51:53 am
It doesn't condemn slavery anywhere.
Do you then consider taking someone as property and stripping them of their rights to be loving them as much as you can?
Holy wars are much more complicated. But the belief in hell for nonbelievers, along with (Peter?) demanding that Christians spread the faith, provided plenty of justification. Less justified than slavery, but clearly enough.
This really, honestly, baffles me. Are you saying that because the Bible says non-believers will perish in Hell, it's okay to send those non-believers to Hell sooner, depriving them of their chance to repent, in order to convert other non-believers? Because that's what it seems like you're saying, but that doesn't make any sense to me from a Biblical standpoint.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 02, 2015, 11:00:59 am
No, though many slave owners did.It doesn't condemn slavery anywhere.
Do you then consider taking someone as property and stripping them of their rights to be loving them as much as you can?
The fact that the Bible says to "love" people doesn't change the rest of what it says. Slaves should obey their masters, even the harsh ones. And as you pointed out, they should "love" their masters. If they're wronged, they should "turn the other cheek" rather than resisting.
I didn't come up with this stuff, it was a reasonable interpretation of what the Bible actually says.
Holy wars are much more complicated. But the belief in hell for nonbelievers, along with (Peter?) demanding that Christians spread the faith, provided plenty of justification. Less justified than slavery, but clearly enough.
This really, honestly, baffles me. Are you saying that because the Bible says non-believers will perish in Hell, it's okay to send those non-believers to Hell sooner, depriving them of their chance to repent, in order to convert other non-believers? Because that's what it seems like you're saying, but that doesn't make any sense to me from a Biblical standpoint.
Yes, because you're saving future generations and anyone you can capture. It's horrible that so many people are going to hell, but killing a few *now* does reduce the overall amount of damnation.
Post by: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 11:05:30 am
What religion isn't for the £££? The Christian church wouldn't have survived if not for its avarice. Indeed, commercialism is still a large part of Catholicism. When I was young, there was a Catholic family we knew who wouldn't send their child to a Protestant primary school (the closest one available, with good standards) because they'd have to pay the church quite a large amount to pray for his soul.Buddhism? Rastafarianism? I'd like to know how some of the anti-materialistic religions (heck, Christianity's meant to be at least somewhat anti-materialistic and look at the sterling example we've managed to set, what with all these televangelists and such) are in it for the bucks.
Buddhism isn't exactly truly "anti materialistic" though, just look at tibet. During the theocratical regime, monks were (and still are) rich as hell and temples get nearly daily donations, and owned slaves, but of course, there isn't one united Buddhist doctrine, so some varieties may be less materialistic then others.
I dont know enough to say anything about rastafarianism other then what we know today as rastafarianism may not be exactly while Haile Selassie taught.
Both hermeticism and spiritism are very anti-materialistic. Hermeticism claims that man's true nature is spiritual, and the only way to return to it and thus gain real freedom is to give up on materialistic tendencies and seek knowledge. In fact, while Hermes does mention demons as things that exist, he says that the greatest enemy of a man is his own body, since it stops man from perceiving reality's true nature and achieving true freedom. He also says you should fast whenever possible and give alms to the poor.
Spiritism is very similar, altough it doenst claim that the body is evil, or that you should necessarily avoid material experiences, it just says that you should never value them above the spiritual part of life, and that your true life isn't here, incarnated, but only a small part in your soul's development, which you should use to become a better person and help others in any reasonable way possible to you.
Of course, this is mainly why these religions aren't that widespread :v
Its interesting how religions that claim reincarnation is a real thing tend to be anti materialistic in a way or another. This isn't true for all of them, though.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 02, 2015, 11:12:30 am
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 12:00:00 pm
No, though many slave owners did.
The fact that the Bible says to "love" people doesn't change the rest of what it says. Slaves should obey their masters, even the harsh ones. And as you pointed out, they should "love" their masters. If they're wronged, they should "turn the other cheek" rather than resisting.
I didn't come up with this stuff, it was a reasonable interpretation of what the Bible actually says.
Ah. At this point, we hit the glorious point of 'it's a reasonable interpretation', and neither of us is able to conclusively prove the other wrong. I do, however, maintain that it is not Christian to have slaves. It's also not Christian to be a slave and hate your master; it's just that the latter is made explicit in the Bible because it's much harder and less obvious than for a master to be kind to their slaves.
Quote
Yes, because you're saving future generations and anyone you can capture. It's horrible that so many people are going to hell, but killing a few *now* does reduce the overall amount of damnation.
I guess. I can't think of any cases of actual open warfare acting to convert people, though. I mean, the Crusades didn't really manage that except possibly by accident (Middle-Eastern technology and all that), and there aren't really many other instances of it. ISIS certainly doesn't make me want to convert to Islam, for example.
Post by: Bohandas on July 02, 2015, 12:09:23 pm
That doesn't change the fact that the Bible doesn't support slavery.
"you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you." -Leviticus 25:44
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 12:17:27 pm
"you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you." -Leviticus 25:44
"A second is equally important [to the greatest commandment]: love your neighbour as yourself." - Matthew 22:39
"The second is like it: you shall love your neighbour as yourself." - Mark 12:31
"In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this sums up the law and the prophets." - Matthew 7:12
Post by: Descan on July 02, 2015, 12:46:03 pm
I can't think of any cases of actual open warfare acting to convert people, though. I mean, the Crusades didn't really manage that except possibly by accident (Middle-Eastern technology and all that), and there aren't really many other instances of it. ISIS certainly doesn't make me want to convert to Islam, for example.Odd that you say that, considering that Islam spread so quickly as much by the sword as by any institutional programs like the Jizya tax.
Also, last I checked the Baltics are pretty Christian now-a-days, not many pagans there, and the Teutonic Order and the Northern Crusade were pretty much what did that, as far as I can tell.
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 12:47:58 pm
Post by: Frumple on July 02, 2015, 12:48:34 pm
I guess. I can't think of any cases of actual open warfare acting to convert people, though.Active warfare, not particularly, but sustained campaigns of violence? Yes. The US's treatment of native americans is pretty much a glaring example of that. Quite a lot of the mistreatment and murder of those populations were, at least in part, explicitly to induce conversion. There were other aspects to it as well, of course, but that was definitely one of them.
From what I understand, similar campaigns have been... not exactly unknown throughout history. The conversion aspect usually comes after the initial conquest, though, sure, for what that's worth.
And ninja'd be desc with other examples :V
Post by: Rolan7 on July 02, 2015, 12:54:50 pm
"A second is equally important [to the greatest commandment]: love your neighbour as yourself." - Matthew 22:39Do slaves really count as neighbors? Even if they do, it makes sense to love your property and treat it well.
"The second is like it: you shall love your neighbour as yourself." - Mark 12:31
"In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this sums up the law and the prophets." - Matthew 7:12
For Matthew 7:12, the golden rule, here's an equivalent conclusion: "If I owed money, I'd like for the debt to be erased. Therefore I should erase everyone's debts to me. My bank will do well."
Slavery and indentured servitude weren't about hatred, they were about contractual labor. They also broke certain human rights, but people in Jesus's time didn't know that. *And Jesus didn't tell them*
1 Peter 2:18QuoteServants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.1 Timothy 6:1QuoteLet as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.Ephesians 6:5QuoteServants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.*As unto Christ*. And for this particular issue, the Bible doesn't say both things and let people choose which to follow. It doesn't condemn slavery anywhere.
These followers of Jesus not only praise obedient slaves, they award honor to slave owners. Just look at that Ephesians quote!
This goes beyond just being influenced by the morality of the time (which Jesus openly defied in many ways, but *never* condemned slavery). This is saying to be the most loyal, reverent slaves possible. To disrespect your master is to blaspheme God (1 Timothy). Honor them even if they're cruel (1 Peter). Be obedient to them and Christ *equally* (Ephesians).
The Jews took slaves all the time. Jesus, a Jew, said a lot of things but he never says to end that practice. "Love each other" just doesn't count. Your interpretation contradicts the above passages, and relies on a modern understanding of slavery being evil. Nobody back then would interpret it the way you have. Slave owning wasn't about hatred, it was a common financial arrangement. *Now* we know that it's wrong, but people back then didn't.
Fakedit: Oh oops, I was going to comment about the Native Americans and such. Basically, missionaries have historically succeeded in areas dominated by military (or more recently, economic) power. Sometimes they try going to sovereign places, like China, which doesn't work out so well for them.
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 01:28:02 pm
Do slaves really count as neighbors?
Do slaves really count as people?
Even if they do, it makes sense to love your property and treat it well.
Of course. But you have to consider - wouldn't you be loving them more if they were free and had their own will? If someone truly wants to be a slave, then they should be allowed to be enslaved, provided it doesn't cause other problems, of course.
For Matthew 7:12, the golden rule, here's an equivalent conclusion: "If I owed money, I'd like for the debt to be erased. Therefore I should erase everyone's debts to me. My bank will do well."
I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this...? Did you mean you should erase your debts to everyone else, as in refuse to repay them? Because if so, yep. If someone asks me for something, I give (as opposed to loan) it to them if I possibly can, on the basis that that's how I'd wish to be treated. If everyone acted like that, we'd have a lot fewer problems in the world.
Slavery and indentured servitude weren't about hatred, they were about contractual labor. They also broke certain human rights, but people in Jesus's time didn't know that. *And Jesus didn't tell them*
So if they didn't know it was bad, why was it bad? I mean, if you can't tell something's a problem, even by listening to the people it's apparently a problem for, it seems unlikely that it's a problem.
These followers of Jesus not only praise obedient slaves, they award honor to slave owners. Just look at that Ephesians quote!
Quote from: Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Not seeing it. Could you elaborate a bit?
This goes beyond just being influenced by the morality of the time (which Jesus openly defied in many ways, but *never* condemned slavery). This is saying to be the most loyal, reverent slaves possible. To disrespect your master is to blaspheme God (1 Timothy). Honor them even if they're cruel (1 Peter). Be obedient to them and Christ *equally* (Ephesians).
Of course. "Love your enemy, and pray for those who curse you." There is no room for hatred in Christianity. Not even to someone who owns you and you have every reason to hate.
The Jews took slaves all the time. Jesus, a Jew, said a lot of things but he never says to end that practice. "Love each other" just doesn't count. Your interpretation contradicts the above passages, and relies on a modern understanding of slavery being evil. Nobody back then would interpret it the way you have. Slave owning wasn't about hatred, it was a common financial arrangement. *Now* we know that it's wrong, but people back then didn't.
Well, yes. Slavery is only forbidden by the whole love thing if it's problematic, which the way you're describing it it isn't.
Active warfare, not particularly, but sustained campaigns of violence? Yes. The US's treatment of native americans is pretty much a glaring example of that. Quite a lot of the mistreatment and murder of those populations were, at least in part, explicitly to induce conversion. There were other aspects to it as well, of course, but that was definitely one of them.
From what I understand, similar campaigns have been... not exactly unknown throughout history. The conversion aspect usually comes after the initial conquest, though, sure, for what that's worth.
/me files this away.
Something to think about. Thanks, and to Descan.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there has ever been a civilization with such universal slave ownership that it would be suspicious not to own slaves. From my understanding it's an upper class thing usually, and middle class families might have a few. You might not be able to keep a high social status in some civilizations without slaves, but keeping slaves so you can stay rich goes a little beyond just cowardice.
Regardless of that, I still don't buy the "only if it's inconvenient" thing. If the Bible contained instructions on how to properly skin someone alive, that would be an implicit approval of flaying people. It would be silly to interpret this hypothetical passage as rules for when it's inconvenient to not skin a guy alive - the only reason you'd do that would be if you were actively trying to minimize things that make the Bible look bad.
You're probably right. Does my assorted rambling in an attempt to answer Rolan above sort of answer this?
Edit: typing with freezing cold hands is hard. If you see a slash or a greater-than symbol somewhere it's a typo for a question mark.
It's getting a little late here, and I have an early start tomorrow. I may suddenly disappear until the sixth or seventh, sorry.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 02, 2015, 02:00:11 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 03:27:06 pm
Quote from: Arx link=topic=147792.msg6347624#msg6347624 date=1435861682
Do slaves really count as people?
No. Not to the one who owns him, nor to the people of that time. Are monkeys people? No, they would say. Are slaves people? No, just like monkeys, they are not. They bear resemblance to us in some actions and words, but they are base all the same. There is a reason it was a revelation for a black man to say, wrapped in his chains as he was, "am I not a brother and a man?"
Quote
Of course. But you have to consider - wouldn't you be loving them more if they were free and had their own will? If someone truly wants to be a slave, then they should be allowed to be enslaved, provided it doesn't cause other problems, of courseWould you care if to you they weren't a person? And, assuming some human to human empathy stirred you, how would you be helping them by leaving them without work and 'employment.' Indeed, they seem rather helpless. Better to keep them and let them work for their bread like God-fearing men should.
Quote
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.Not to be rude, but to put it bluntly couldn't that be made to say "Work like a nigger for your master, because he's as Christ to you?"
Not seeing it. Could you elaborate a bit?
Quote
Of course. "Love your enemy, and pray for those who curse you." There is no room for hatred in Christianity. Not even to someone who owns you and you have every reason to hate.In which case God is a hypocrite. His message and actions in the Old Testament are often hatred inciting.
Oh, also, saw this on facebook:
Quote
Yesterday an ISIS member stopped the car of a Christian couple.
ISIS member: Are you Muslim?
Christian man: Yes, I'm Muslim.
ISIS member: If you are a Muslim, then recite a verse of Quran.
Christian man recited a verse from the Bible.
ISIS member: Ok yallah go.
Later his wife tells him: "I cannot believe the risk you just took.
Why did u tell him that we are Muslims?
If he knew you were lying he would have killed both of us."
"Do not worry! If they knew the Quran they would not kill people" answered the Husband.
ISIS is not Islam, terrorism has no religion.
Kindly share it as much as you can
As I can't rant at the author, I will do so to an extent here.
Of course the ISIS member had read the Quran. They read it...well, religiously. Just because your view and interpretation of religion doesn't involve such things doesn't mean that someone who sees religion as having a different meaning is no longer following the original religion. They are a different type of Muslim, perhaps, but they are following their religion. Christians who follow the anti-gay verses aren't suddenly not Christian. Muslims who follow the 'Kill your non-Muslim neighbour' verses aren't suddenly not Muslim.
Post by: Vilanat on July 02, 2015, 03:41:58 pm
QuoteYesterday an ISIS member stopped the car of a Christian couple.
ISIS member: Are you Muslim?
Christian man: Yes, I'm Muslim.
ISIS member: If you are a Muslim, then recite a verse of Quran.
Christian man recited a verse from the Bible.
ISIS member: Ok yallah go.
Later his wife tells him: "I cannot believe the risk you just took.
Why did u tell him that we are Muslims?
If he knew you were lying he would have killed both of us."
"Do not worry! If they knew the Quran they would not kill people" answered the Husband.
ISIS is not Islam, terrorism has no religion.
Kindly share it as much as you can
As I can't rant at the author, I will do so to an extent here.
Of course the ISIS member had read the Quran. They read it...well, religiously. Just because your view and interpretation of religion doesn't involve such things doesn't mean that someone who sees religion as having a different meaning is no longer following the original religion. They are a different type of Muslim, perhaps, but they are following their religion. Christians who follow the anti-gay verses aren't suddenly not Christian. Muslims who follow the 'Kill your non-Muslim neighbour' verses aren't suddenly not Muslim.
Obviously that incident in that quote never happened. its a simple propaganda.
Post by: Adragis on July 02, 2015, 03:43:45 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 03:45:15 pm
Propaganda for what? Or is it just general against-ISIS propaganda?Presumably it's just general theistic propaganda. "What, Muslim terrorists show religion can do bad things? But their religious crusade isn't religious, don't you know!"
Post by: Adragis on July 02, 2015, 03:48:20 pm
Post by: Vilanat on July 02, 2015, 03:50:23 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 03:54:04 pm
Post by: Descan on July 02, 2015, 04:59:51 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 02, 2015, 05:06:07 pm
Post by: Descan on July 02, 2015, 05:19:29 pm
Post by: Vilanat on July 02, 2015, 05:23:21 pm
Edit - descan beat me to it..
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 02, 2015, 05:25:11 pm
Post by: RedKing on July 02, 2015, 05:28:23 pm
We're a long time past having specific deities of war (other than Hinduism).
I think it was "These guys are bad Muslims because if they had read the Qu'ran, they'd know what I just said was from the Bible, not the Qu'ran".
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 05:33:57 pm
That doesn't sound like he's simply saying "These guys are bad Muslims because if they had read the Qu'ran, they'd know what I just said was from the Bible, not the Qu'ran".
Post by: Vilanat on July 02, 2015, 05:39:43 pm
In its ideal form, it is a religion of peace. Hell, ALL religions are, in their ideal form.
We're a long time past having specific deities of war (other than Hinduism).
I think it was "These guys are bad Muslims because if they had read the Qu'ran, they'd know what I just said was from the Bible, not the Qu'ran".
Sorry, i'll call BS to that as well. Judaism and Islam are not religions of peace. you could argue christianity is, since it has a rather general progressive and peaceful theme, but Islam? hell no. Muhammad himself slaughtered and beheaded his enemies.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 02, 2015, 05:41:45 pm
In its ideal form, it is a religion of peace. Hell, ALL religions are, in their ideal form."BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD," screamed the cultist on his weekly blood donation drive.
Post by: RedKing on July 02, 2015, 05:44:24 pm
All major religions have violence in their history, even as they strive to create a peaceful, "good" society (what constitutes "good" being relative to each religion)
See, if people would just donate their blood to Khorne regularly, we wouldn't have to have all these messy forced donations. (And I did make a note about war gods, and the lack thereof)In its ideal form, it is a religion of peace. Hell, ALL religions are, in their ideal form."BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD," screamed the cultist on his weekly blood donation drive.
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 05:48:22 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 02, 2015, 05:51:09 pm
Spoiler: Obligatory (click to show/hide)
Jokes aside though the death for apostasy rule is kinda shit
Post by: RedKing on July 02, 2015, 05:56:01 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 02, 2015, 06:02:02 pm
Post by: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 06:02:34 pm
And on Islam, yea, I never bought the idea of Islam somehow being a religion of peace. The only reason Islam even exists is because of war (Islam is one of the only religions that was almost exclusively spread through war). Muhammad was a warlord above all else, and slaughtered people that didn't agree with Islam (a religion he orchestrated himself based on christianity and judaism) and where willing to fight him, and stablished his special tax on anyone who didn't agree with him but didn't want to fight. Islam has never been a religion of peace, not before, not now, and probably never will be.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 02, 2015, 06:04:10 pm
The new testament marks the key difference between judaism and christianity. Its where Christianity becomes its own thing and God stops being treated as a militant god of the jews and more like an actualy benevolent god.There were Buddhists are far west as Persia
And on Islam, yea, I never bought the idea of Islam somehow being a religion of peace. The only reason Islam even exists is because of war (Islam is one of the only religions that was almost exclusively spread through war). Muhammad was a warlord above all else, and slaughtered people that didn't agree with Islam (a religion he orchestrated himself based on christianity and judaism) and where willing to fight him, and stablished his special tax on anyone who didn't agree with him but didn't want to fight. Islam has never been a religion of peace, not before, not now, and probably never will be.
Were
Post by: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 06:07:55 pm
Genocide and Islam are two things that have been walking hand in hand for ages.
Post by: Vilanat on July 02, 2015, 06:08:32 pm
In fact, seeing how not all muslims are violent, i hold them non-violent muslims to a higher praise, since being non-violent after being raised in a non-violent religion is simply logical, but being non-violent after being educated in an utterly violent religion shows extreme strength of character.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 02, 2015, 06:10:12 pm
Other than that he was, well, Jesus
Post by: scrdest on July 02, 2015, 06:38:31 pm
It's not restricted to Islam either (see: Spanish Inquisition).Shit.
I didn't expect that.
Post by: Descan on July 02, 2015, 06:43:30 pm
That part is also what makes it "If they were really Muslim, they'd agree with my interpretation!"/"ISIS aren't Muslim" rather than just "ISIS doesn't represent all Muslims."Quote"Do not worry! If they knew the Quran they would not kill people" answered the Husband.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 02, 2015, 06:45:22 pm
In regards to this, which seems to me like the muslim equivalent of "and then an eagle flew in the window and shed a single tear" copypasta, I think this bit is saying that ISIS people don't read the Qu'ran so they wouldn't know if what someone was reciting was legit or not, only if they panickedThat part is also what makes it "If they were really Muslim, they'd agree with my interpretation!"/"ISIS aren't Muslim" rather than just "ISIS doesn't represent all Muslims."Quote"Do not worry! If they knew the Quran they would not kill people" answered the Husband.
Meaning they can't practice what they preach because they never learned
Post by: Frumple on July 02, 2015, 07:07:24 pm
The new testament marks the key difference between judaism and christianity. Its where Christianity becomes its own thing and God stops being treated as a militant god of the jews and more like an actualy benevolent god.... if by "One of the only" you mean "like every major religion". Seriously, check your history -- every single major religion in existence spread primarily through conquest, coming on the back of an invader, or backed by very substantial degrees of force. Christianity did, hinduism did, buddhism did, freaking Jainism experienced one of its largest propagation points on the back of an expansionist government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanda_Empire). Saying that Islam is particularly unusual or egregious in the extent it was spread by the sword strikes me as incredibly ignorant of human history.
And on Islam, yea, I never bought the idea of Islam somehow being a religion of peace. The only reason Islam even exists is because of war (Islam is one of the only religions that was almost exclusively spread through war).
As for the rest of this painfully standard and desultory anti-islam spiel, y'all are welcome to continue to say the vast goddamn majority of Muslim practitioners have no idea how to follow their own religion and are just one "proper" interpretation of the Qu'ran from running out and murdering everyone. About 1/3rd of the human population will continue to prove that bullshit as bullshit.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 02, 2015, 07:10:40 pm
Post by: ggamer on July 02, 2015, 08:22:29 pm
The new testament marks the key difference between judaism and christianity. Its where Christianity becomes its own thing and God stops being treated as a militant god of the jews and more like an actualy benevolent god.... if by "One of the only" you mean "like every major religion". Seriously, check your history -- every single major religion in existence spread primarily through conquest, coming on the back of an invader, or backed by very substantial degrees of force. Christianity did, hinduism did, buddhism did, freaking Jainism experienced one of its largest propagation points on the back of an expansionist government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanda_Empire). Saying that Islam is particularly unusual or egregious in the extent it was spread by the sword strikes me as incredibly ignorant of human history.
And on Islam, yea, I never bought the idea of Islam somehow being a religion of peace. The only reason Islam even exists is because of war (Islam is one of the only religions that was almost exclusively spread through war).
As for the rest of this painfully standard and desultory anti-islam spiel, y'all are welcome to continue to say the vast goddamn majority of Muslim practitioners have no idea how to follow their own religion and are just one "proper" interpretation of the Qu'ran from running out and murdering everyone. About 1/3rd of the human population will continue to prove that bullshit as bullshit.
haha silly frumple what do you mean indonesia exists no thanks islam is a religion of hatred gib it about ten years and europe will be islamope hurp hurp hurp
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 02, 2015, 08:25:44 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 08:48:02 pm
As for the rest of this painfully standard and desultory anti-islam spiel, y'all are welcome to continue to say the vast goddamn majority of Muslim practitioners have no idea how to follow their own religion and are just one "proper" interpretation of the Qu'ran from running out and murdering everyone. About 1/3rd of the human population will continue to prove that bullshit as bullshit.Except for, you know, the Muslims in peaceful places and countries who still answer militant calls. Hell, even little girls go. They were the ones who saw the militant message and answered it. Yes, there are peaceful passages in the Quran. But these are heavily outnumbered by the violent ones. So a violent message isn't the only.way to view Islam. It is, however, one of the most viable.
Post by: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 10:02:16 pm
The new testament marks the key difference between judaism and christianity. Its where Christianity becomes its own thing and God stops being treated as a militant god of the jews and more like an actualy benevolent god.... if by "One of the only" you mean "like every major religion". Seriously, check your history -- every single major religion in existence spread primarily through conquest, coming on the back of an invader, or backed by very substantial degrees of force. Christianity did, hinduism did, buddhism did, freaking Jainism experienced one of its largest propagation points on the back of an expansionist government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanda_Empire). Saying that Islam is particularly unusual or egregious in the extent it was spread by the sword strikes me as incredibly ignorant of human history.
And on Islam, yea, I never bought the idea of Islam somehow being a religion of peace. The only reason Islam even exists is because of war (Islam is one of the only religions that was almost exclusively spread through war).
As for the rest of this painfully standard and desultory anti-islam spiel, y'all are welcome to continue to say the vast goddamn majority of Muslim practitioners have no idea how to follow their own religion and are just one "proper" interpretation of the Qu'ran from running out and murdering everyone. About 1/3rd of the human population will continue to prove that bullshit as bullshit.
haha silly frumple what do you mean indonesia exists no thanks islam is a religion of hatred gib it about ten years and europe will be islamope hurp hurp hurp
A certain indonesian christian girl I know would probably enjoy talking to you about how muslims have persecuted her family while they were in Indonesia, how they close non islamic businesses during holidays, the fact the great majority of terrorist cells in Indonesia are islamic, etc.
And never did I say other religions were not spread by the sword. Most were, even the so called peaceful ones like buddhism, however, islam is special since it was spread by violence by design. Holy war/jihad is a concept thats very much accepted and inherent to Islam, as it was spread through violent at its very root, in agressive moves that wiped out entire african and middle eastern cultures and even ethnic groups. This is why muslim terrorism is a reality even in relatively peaceful places.
Christiany was certainy spread with violence and coercion throughout history, but not at its core. Christ did tell his followers to acquire swords, but that they could survive, given they were persecuted by both jewish clerics and the Roman Empire. Christianity started being spread through large scale violence with the conversion of the Roman Empire, but before that it was spreading mostly due to having a popular message, as Roman historians like Tacitus like grudgingly point out at several points in history. Buddhism likewise had a peaceful and humanitarian start, which didn't stop it from later becoming the core cause of several wars in india, china, japan and the middle east.
Pretending Islam somehow is somehow similar to other religions because said religions were involved in violent conflicts at one point or another in history is misguided at the very least.
Keep in mind that Islam's violent startup isn't even a point of contention, in fact it is well documented by islamic scriptures, and proudly so.
We do, however, have to make a key distinction. Most islamic terrorist groups consist of sunni muslims. There are shia terrorists, yes, but the shia are very persecuted minority among muslims and have suffered from the violent militant tendencies of Islam as much as any other people.
Post by: Frumple on July 02, 2015, 10:54:54 pm
Most were, even the so called peaceful ones like buddhism, however, islam is special since it was spread by violence by design. Holy war/jihad is a concept thats very much accepted and inherent to Islam, as it was spread through violent at its very root, in agressive moves that wiped out entire african and middle eastern cultures and even ethnic groups.You're displaying an incredibly profound ignorance of the islamic basis for jihad, here. Even my own very cursory understanding of the concept can tell you what you're attributing the concept is boils down roughly to bupkis. Its basis for being used to justify wars of aggression is very much sketchy from a theological perspective, on top of other aspects. Jihad is not a concept that really tracks one to one to the western concept of holy war, even remotely. It's very much a nuanced thing, and doesn't really equate to simply being a theological acceptance of violence. The violence perpetrated by islamic nations over history would be considerably lesser if they actually stuck to the core of their tenants. Which, hey. They don't, just like everyone else.
It wiping out ethnic groups is pretty irrelevant, though -- that's also something most of the other major religions have indulged in. Christianity itself was a major player in destroying or near-destroying entire continents worth of ethnic groups in the Americas, on top of what they helped to manage in Europe and other areas. I'd hate to do a comparative study of genocide or ethnic cleansing headed by forces predominately of a single religion simply due to how goddamn depressing it would be, but it would not paint a particularly pretty picture, in the least.
As for the terrorism in fairly peaceful areas, well. I rather imagine if the middle east hadn't been quite so thoroughly shat upon, and wasn't continuing to be thoroughly shat upon, you'd see a considerably lesser amount of that, more in line with what you see in predominately christian (or whatever, really) countries (and hey, yes, that happens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence), just to offer one example -- there's very much nastier shit in parts of south america or africa, as well.). Go figure, when you have a massively destabilized area that's predominately of a particular religion (or any substantial ideology, really), the effects of that can have influence beyond that immediate area.
Post by: Vilanat on July 02, 2015, 11:54:32 pm
Jihad IS a holy war, exactly like in the "western concept". the concept of it being a spiritual inner struggle is a later adaptation, Jihad at its origin, the Jihad of Muhammad was definitely an armed struggle against enemies of Islam and its still is.
Post by: Arx on July 03, 2015, 12:11:08 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 03, 2015, 01:27:08 am
Just popping in again before disappearing to say that this argument would be a lot more meaningful with more quoting and less 'the Qur'an says'.
If someone disputes your claim, please be ready to provide sources.Indeed.
Post by: Baffler on July 03, 2015, 02:22:25 am
Spoiler: Surat Al-Baqarah (2:190-193) (click to show/hide)
One translation of the above refers to this passage, so I'll include it.
Spoiler: Surat At-Tawbah (9:36) (click to show/hide)
It's late and I don't have any meaningful commentary to contribute except that they both give the overwhelming impression that something was lost in translation, but there they are at any rate.
Post by: UXLZ on July 03, 2015, 04:34:04 am
Post by: scrdest on July 03, 2015, 05:43:40 am
Truthfully told, the existence of religion in and of itself is a catalyst for violence. That isn't to say it would not happen otherwise, as often it is merely used as a bad justification for actions people would likely commit otherwise, or that it is the fault of the religious people themselves (atheists and so forth can be just as bad in the 'holy crusade' mindset.)To paraphrase a certain ancient satirist, it may be of interest to those studying the chemistry of religions that at the point of contact of two religions a large amount of lead is precipitated.
Post by: Calidovi on July 03, 2015, 11:01:00 am
Truthfully told, the existence of religion in and of itself is a catalyst for violence. That isn't to say it would not happen otherwise, as often it is merely used as a bad justification for actions people would likely commit otherwise, or that it is the fault of the religious people themselves (atheists and so forth can be just as bad in the 'holy crusade' mindset.)
If you have the word of God behind you, who's to judge your holy intentions.
Post by: TD1 on July 03, 2015, 01:54:02 pm
Post by: Baffler on July 03, 2015, 02:17:19 pm
'Holy' is another way of saying arrogant.
And 'atheist' is another way of saying self-righteous, but that isn't a very constructive thing to say is it?
Post by: Rolan7 on July 03, 2015, 02:21:01 pm
"Holy" means... I honestly don't know actually. Depends on the religion I guess.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 03, 2015, 02:23:27 pm
Quote
"Atheist" means not knowing a thing (the existence of God)
No it doesn't. It means not being a theist aka, being an unbeliever. Nowadays it's mostly used to refer to people who don't follow any religious creed. Back in the day it could be used to refer to people who did not conform to the speaker's religious creed (eg: ancient Christians got called "atheists" for not taking part in the Roman Imperial Cult)
Post by: Rolan7 on July 03, 2015, 02:31:48 pm
An atheist is a non-theist. An atheist isn't convinced there is a God. People are atheist by default, just by not being sure.
I didn't mean to imply that Atheists were wrong by definition, that'd be silly.
Whereas anti-theists are convinced that there isn't a God, which is a positive claim. Even Dawkins isn't technically an anti-theist, but he does clarify that he considers the existence of gods extraordinarily unlikely. Just theoretically possible, like brain-in-jar scenarios.
I think strict anti-theism is fundamentally wrong, which I think makes me an agnostic atheist. I'm with Dawkins on the odds of there actually being a deity, though. Particularly any of the conceptions of god/gods humanity is aware of.
Post by: Adragis on July 03, 2015, 02:32:34 pm
"Holy" means... I honestly don't know actually. Depends on the religion I guess.Isn't 'holy' generally a synonym for 'sanctified'? So, 'set apart'?
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 03, 2015, 02:33:51 pm
I think that's what I meant?
An atheist is a non-theist. An atheist isn't convinced there is a God. People are atheist by default, just by not being sure.
I didn't mean to imply that Atheists were wrong by definition, that'd be silly.
Whereas anti-theists are convinced that there isn't a God, which is a positive claim. Even Dawkins isn't technically an anti-theist, but he does clarify that he considers the existence of gods extraordinarily unlikely. Just theoretically possible, like brain-in-jar scenarios.
I think strict anti-theism is fundamentally wrong, which I think makes me an agnostic atheist. I'm with Dawkins on the odds of there actually being a deity, though. Particularly any of the conceptions of god/gods humanity is aware of.
This is a fact oft misunderstood by many theists, and needs highlighting.
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 03:35:06 pm
Much like atheist means "Not a theist", agnostic means "not knowing." It comes from the word gnosis, meaning knowledge. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis)
The default condition is not having knowledge. (and through that absence of knowledge, not having any belief in any particular god)
Much like the distinction you are making, (hard vs soft atheism), there is a distinction between agnostics as well. Hard agnostics, like myself, assert from a purely logical point of view that knowledge of a supernatural god is impossible, and thus anyone stating that they know such knowledge is spreading falsehoods. This includes affirmative statements against the existence of such entities. Rather than take such a positive position on the debate, the hard agnostic states that the question is worthless to even bother with, and just ignores it as irrelevant. The soft agnostic however, simply has never encountered any information at all about any particular god, and thus by default has no knowledge. (For instance, the absence of knowledge I have about any belief systems that extra-terrestrials might have. I have never met an ET, so I have no clue whatsoever about what ET believes.) Soft agnostics have the potential to become either theists or atheists, depending on circumstances. (ET could come down from the sky and share the great virtues of the Juffo-Whup, and win them over for instance.) Hard agnostics do not, having consciously chosen to ignore the issue completely, due to its irrationality.
It is my argument, as a hard agnostic, that hard atheists and devout theists are both "equally wrong" in their assertions of knowing something about a divinity.
Post by: TD1 on July 03, 2015, 03:37:31 pm
'Holy' is another way of saying arrogant.
And 'atheist' is another way of saying self-righteous, but that isn't a very constructive thing to say is it?
I meant the 'holy' used in the context Laptism gave.
And you think atheists are self righteous? Meh, I suppose a few are. I like to think I'm not, but I'd be the last to know :P
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 03:42:31 pm
Not everyone who is "holy" is also arrogant.
Making such an obviously false assertion is either indication of delusionment, or of hypocrisy, given the subject matter.
"Holy" means that you hold a higher, "spiritualist" ideal. It does not need to relate to gods or other divine beings. Running a soup kitchen simply to help the people that cannot afford food, and thus help society as a whole, as a higher ideal, can be considered a "holy" calling for instance. Would you say the honestly good intending soup kitchen operator is arrogant?
Post by: TD1 on July 03, 2015, 03:46:22 pm
If you have the word of God behind you, who's to judge your holy intentions.
It is basically saying, "God is behind me, I am right, you're not, you can't judge me because I'm working for God."
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 03:48:29 pm
"I have the lack of evidence for your god behind me, I am right, you're not, you can't judge me because your god is not real."
??
Post by: TD1 on July 03, 2015, 03:52:24 pm
I have yet to meet an atheist who would say "you can't judge me" except for the odd one in books. Such arrogant self assurance is the preserve of those with a belief, rather than a lack of one, as a general rule.
The atheist who says "I am doing this for nothingness! Nothingness is right! I am right because nothingness is behind this!" Is rare.
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 03:55:48 pm
One is sessile, the other is proactive. Given that proactive atheism seems to exist (look at Dawkins!) how do you justify your previous statement?
What I am getting at, is that by its very nature, evangelism requires faith. Lack of faith is sessile. Belief in absence permits evangelism.
Post by: TD1 on July 03, 2015, 03:59:48 pm
It is just more common in religion than in atheism. It makes logical sense, anyway. The theist believes in an absolutist approach and is convinced of their rightness. The atheist is more flexible in that regard, and many won't say "I'm absolutely correct," but instead, like me and nearly everyone on this forum, would say "God is possible. It's just that possibility is as tiny as (to use the typical go-to example that I use) that of Santa Claus."
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 04:04:24 pm
This is also the same argument I have against the "orbiting teapot" rhetoric, and others like it. It is logically possible for us to have perfect awareness of all orbiting bodies in our solar system, given sufficient investment.
The same CANNOT be said for things that logically lie OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. We simply do not, and can never have, the tools or methods needed to test for the existence of a supernatural being. It is logically impossible.
Post by: TD1 on July 03, 2015, 04:13:36 pm
Besides, God isn't outside the physical universe. Were it true he would "logically lie outside the physical universe" then, logically, Jesus wouldn't have existed. God would not have caused the flood. God would not have talked to anyone, performed miracles, settled wars, turned people into salt.
God is ultimately physical, as only that which is physical can be a part of the physical world.
Post by: Bohandas on July 03, 2015, 04:17:05 pm
We are able to explore the North Pole, yes. But as everyone knows, he has magic. His toy factory need not be in plain sight, much like heaven. But fine. If you don't want to use the example of Santa Claus, try Zeus. Try the creator in any fictional book who is as probable as God is.
Besides, God isn't outside the physical universe. Were it true he would "logically lie outside the physical universe" then, logically, Jesus wouldn't have existed. God would not have caused the flood. God would not have talked to anyone, performed miracles, settled wars, turned people into salt.
God is ultimately physical, as only that which is physical can be a part of the physical world.
Read the novel Mogworld
Post by: Rolan7 on July 03, 2015, 04:20:05 pm
As I've shown a few times, Atheism (as in, even basic skepticism) is absurdly under-represented in the US Congress:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/congress-religious-affiliation_n_6417074.html
I'm not saying 91.8% is *fundamentalist* Christian, but it's still telling. And the fundamentalists are the backbone of the "moral conservatives" resisting positive social change.
I'm not a loud atheist because I hate people being wrong, though it helps. I'm loud because I can be legally fired for liking guys. I have to praise God in the Pledge of Allegiance and when I use cash money. I'm loud because women are being denied reproductive rights based on *faith*. Because stem cell research has been held back years based on *faith*. Because climate change is being denied based on *faith*. Because evolution is often presented as "just a theory" alongside an unscientific non-explanation which makes no predictions.
I don't hate Christians, but I hate what Christian political groups are doing to the country and me personally. I just want important issues to be discussed rationally rather than resorting to faith. That's literally all I'm arguing for.
And obviously there are progressive Christians, God bless. People whose morals are so strong that they're able to interpret heinous, hateful religious texts in a loving way. Focusing exclusively on the few nice parts. I consider them to be especially good people because they overcome and reject the evil in their dogmas.
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 04:23:31 pm
Characteristics of God, as defined by the bible:
Is the beginning and ending of all things.
Created the physical universe (not just the earth.)
Used Jesus as an avatar to accomplish some goal in heaven (not well stated, just that jesus's sacrifice satisfies some set of obscure laws in the divine realm)
"Is literally all things"
Those describe an extra-universal entity, which contains our universe. A thumb on a person's hand is not the person. It is a thumb. Searching the thumb for evidence of the whole person is logically absurd. However, the person can freely manipulate and even mutilate the thumb at their whim. The teapot analogy people are basically implying that not exploring something that can be explored is the same as not exploring something that cannot be explored. They are not the same thing.
"God" can exist as described, and satisfy all of those features, by being extra-universal in nature. It simultaneously explains how this entity is both beginning and end, is omniscient about the past, present, and future of our universe, and yet still seems bound by some set of laws and conventions.
Like many, you fall victim to preconceptions about the religion, rather than critically thinking about what is actually being stated in the religious texts. EG, what is actually written, vs the dogma associated.
Again, I am an agnostic, and a hard one at that. I dont KNOW that there is an extra-universal god, nor that our universe is merely a component thereof-- I am just pointing out that such a theoretical model holds with the description, and that your argument does not hold against such a circumstance.
Post by: TD1 on July 03, 2015, 04:27:24 pm
My point being, if he were outside the universe we couldn't know him. Spongebob could be outside the universe. The Kraken. We wouldn't know.
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 04:28:56 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 03, 2015, 04:30:34 pm
We can't prove the nonexistence of a god who never interacts with us, but it's meaningless. If the god does interact with us, is it really outside our universe in a meaningful way?
A brain in a jar isn't actually in a separate universe, it just perceives things that way. It can be effected by reality and, theoretically, learn things about reality.
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 04:38:01 pm
In this circumstance, we have a 'god' that sits outside the universe, and has some vested interest in the goings on inside that universe. There are mechanics inside our universe that it could employ to accomplish goals that would subvert all attempts at positive attribution of agency by that god. Take for instance, quantum vacuum fluctuations. As long as the total vacuum energy potentials remain balanced, any outcome simply looks like random chance. Pile enough random chance encounters on top of each other, and you end up with the improbable. Human scientists invent untestable theories like Many Worlds to satisfy the coincidences.
In short, this god's method of agency may merely be sustaining the rules that would ground the many worlds hypothesis as fact, and be willing to purge an infinite number of universes of its creation, to achieve its version of the logically perfect one.
You would never be able to know this.
Post by: TD1 on July 03, 2015, 04:45:12 pm
Of course, when you have random chance it's simpler to simply say it is random chance than to say it was God.
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 04:49:35 pm
Scientists wrestle with germs all the time with micro pipettes. Does that mean the scientists are in the petri dish?
When the game is rigged, you can make the game itself into your avatar, and thus have avatars of your avatar. Jesus can be attributed as such a meta-avatar. Created through the agency of this entity, to accomplish a goal of that entity, using the rules of the universe it was created in, through a process indistinguishable from random chance, but guaranteed to happen, due to many worlds being true, and the willingness to sacrifice an unlimited number of alternative timelines.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 03, 2015, 04:51:37 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 03, 2015, 04:52:08 pm
How can the INHERENTLY, not VISUALLY, different interact?
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 04:53:06 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 03, 2015, 04:55:40 pm
Not entirely certain how your statement is applicable as an argument. You imply that the scientist and germ are so different, that by my logic they should not be able to interact. But they are not so different. I am talking about 0 interacting with 1, you about two biotic, physical things interacting.
Post by: Bohandas on July 03, 2015, 04:58:10 pm
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 04:58:32 pm
The artificial world inside the game is not just visually different, it is logically different. And yet, you can manipulate it.
Post by: TD1 on July 03, 2015, 05:11:11 pm
You play video games, dont you?thing was a statement, not a genuine question. Like "you take cannabis, don't you?" in response to a question. Not that the implication is quite the same, heh.
You, the player, manipulate a purely artificial world, supported on the higher-level interaction of electrons and protons as they are arranged inside microchips inside a computer, and as arranged by high level logical algorithms, from your physical chair, with your physical hands.
The artificial world inside the game is not just visually different, it is logically different. And yet, you can manipulate it.
But at our base value, we are both the same. The artifical world isn't truly a world, just a construct of my imagination and my thought process. I may think there is something deeper than a screen with pretty lights arrayed on it, but there isn't. Me interacting with the game is just a more complicated way of saying I can push over a domino. It is physical versus physical. There is no artificial world, only my perception of one. There is no other world for me to be outside.
To be outside the universe, God would have to be utterly, completely different from ANYTHING, whereas me interacting with a game is the interaction of like with like. Matter with matter. What is it to say non matter can interact with matter? Different things can interact with different things within our world, because they are all made up of the same stuff. The minerals used to make the metals in the computer may be used to form part of me.
I could go on, but I think I'm getting convoluted enough as I am :P
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 05:16:29 pm
If we increase the complexity many orders of magnitude, such that the simulated environment is fully capable of producing and sustaining virtual intelligence, the virtual intelligences operating inside that game world environment would be none the wiser about atoms, electrons, or any of that shit. To them, WE are supernatural.
Post by: Bohandas on July 03, 2015, 05:20:09 pm
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 05:31:19 pm
In much the same way that we can predict all outcomes of X+2Y, for any given values of X and Y, without having to compute all possible values, (by knowing the rules)-- A hypothetical god could know our minds perfectly as if they were nonintelligent. In fact, our self-perception of intelligent agency would be a lie-- Just sufficiently complex that we ourselves cannot predict our own actions. Hooray. We just realized the existential version of the halting problem.
In short, depending on the rules that govern this hypothetical god's extrauniversal domain, this god may be able to compute the exact conditions needed for our universe, and not need to simulate at all-- or may have a directed brute force algorithm that simulates only what is needed to arrive at the desired conclusion.
Either way, our intelligences look unintelligent to this agency.
We arent brains in boxes. We are math problems.
Post by: Bohandas on July 03, 2015, 05:36:34 pm
Excepting that a full simulation need not be active! We perceive active simulation, that does not mean we are actively simulated.
In much the same way that we can predict all outcomes of X+2Y, for any given values of X and Y, without having to compute all possible values, (by knowing the rules)-- A hypothetical god could know our minds perfectly as if they were nonintelligent. In fact, our self-perception of intelligent agency would be a lie-- Just sufficiently complex that we ourselves cannot predict our own actions.
Disagree with the bolded part. There's a big difference between just plain will ("agency") and free-will specifically
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 05:40:40 pm
Watson has agency-- but does not have free will.
Post by: scrdest on July 03, 2015, 05:41:24 pm
does the game let you examine atoms? No?Yet.
But that aside, you're just arguing for a solipsism with a fancy bow on it. HOW CAN MIRRORS BE REAL is not a terribly interesting argument. It's undisprovable in the same way flipping the table and smashing the opponent's head in with a stool is a winning chess strategy. You cannot disprove it because you cannot reason within such a system.
Post by: Bohandas on July 03, 2015, 05:46:21 pm
True, that is very much the distinction between something like IBM's Watson, and true scifi AI.
Watson has agency-- but does not have free will.
Nothing has "free will" just "will"
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 05:46:37 pm
does the game let you examine atoms? No?Yet.
But that aside, you're just arguing for a solipsism with a fancy bow on it. HOW CAN MIRRORS BE REAL is not a terribly interesting argument. It's undisprovable in the same way flipping the table and smashing the opponent's head in with a stool is a winning chess strategy. You cannot disprove it because you cannot reason within such a system.
Did you miss the part where I said I was a hard agnostic? Seriously-- This exact argument ^ is what I am referring to when I say that knowledge of a supernatural entity cannot be known, and that the very question of its existence is meaningless in practical matters, and can be simply ignored!
The possibility that such an entity exists cannot be disproven. It also cannot be proven. As such, it is an undefined outcome to the question of the existence of an interested god manipulating our universe. Because the solution space cannot be completely conserved, BOTH sides of the argument are equally illogical.
Sorry I had to beat you to death with the fantastical to get you to see it, but I did not see another way.
Post by: scrdest on July 03, 2015, 06:01:48 pm
Great - so that's where we agree. But that's functionally equivalent to claiming there is no God - notice the case. A god of yours is not a God of Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or mostly anyone short of Yog-Sothoth cultists. The ramifications of your argument mean such a god can only act on an extradimensional level - or unverifiably subtle level in our universe.does the game let you examine atoms? No?Yet.
But that aside, you're just arguing for a solipsism with a fancy bow on it. HOW CAN MIRRORS BE REAL is not a terribly interesting argument. It's undisprovable in the same way flipping the table and smashing the opponent's head in with a stool is a winning chess strategy. You cannot disprove it because you cannot reason within such a system.
Did you miss the part where I said I was a hard agnostic? Seriously-- This exact argument ^ is what I am referring to when I say that knowledge of a supernatural entity cannot be known, and that the very question of its existence is meaningless in practical matters, and can be simply ignored!
The possibility that such an entity exists cannot be disproven. It also cannot be proven. As such, it is an undefined outcome to the question of the existence of an interested god manipulating our universe. Because the solution space cannot be completely conserved, BOTH sides of the argument are equally illogical.
Sorry I had to beat you to death with the fantastical to get you to see it, but I did not see another way.
Such a god is undisprovable because he doesn't let himself become disprovable. At best, he's a massive dick whose miracles turn the rules of the reality so such a miracle can be easily replicated by some asshole in a white coat with a particle accelerator or something. But at any rate, it's not a god any denomination I know of worships.
Post by: wierd on July 03, 2015, 06:08:22 pm
When shed of the dogma, and reviewed at face value of what it actually says--- the christian god really does resemble Yog-Sothoth.
Post by: Bohandas on July 03, 2015, 06:12:23 pm
It resembles the christian god more than you realize. Even the "dick in labcoat" line. See the "miracles" of the antichrist.
When shed of the dogma, and reviewed at face value of what it actually says--- the christian god really does resemble Yog-Sothoth.
That may be by design. I heard I theory that The Dunwich Horror is meant to be a parody of the Gospel
EDIT:
"Yog-Sothoth" even kind of sounds and looks like "YHVH-Sabaoth"
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 08, 2015, 08:03:29 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 09, 2015, 04:05:18 am
Post by: Rose on July 09, 2015, 04:23:09 am
A Christian article about non-Christians getting into heaven. (http://zackhunt.net/2015/07/08/are-christians-really-the-only-ones-going-to-heaven/) He starts by talking about prehistoric people and continues to the modern day. I thought it was an interesting read as a non-Christian, and kind of refreshing in its positivity.Things like this confuse me a little, because really, I couldn't care less weather or not somebody thinks that I will be going to a place that only he thinks exists.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 09, 2015, 04:31:04 am
Things like this confuse me a little, because really, I couldn't care less weather or not somebody thinks that I will be going to a place that only he thinks exists.I don't really understand why it's a big deal either, honestly, although I'm not really representative of most Christians.
Post by: Calidovi on July 09, 2015, 08:52:24 am
1. Follow God's Law
2. Believe in God
Why do so many contemporary Christians, then, argue that you only have to act the latter to get into Heaven? The two parts must be equal in value.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 09, 2015, 09:05:44 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 09, 2015, 09:55:18 am
Post by: Magistrum on July 09, 2015, 10:03:00 am
Why do so many contemporary Christians, then, argue that you only have to act the latter to get into Heaven? The two parts must be equal in value.Because people are just seeking for some excuse to be awful while still acting like they are saints:
Under James 2:19.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."(New International Version).
"You believe that there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder." (JW bible translation).
Believing isn't much of a requirement as a step for the former, you gotta believe that the police exist to have any motivation to follow the constituent.
Post by: Arx on July 09, 2015, 10:31:00 am
The Bible argues that, to get into their Heaven, your have to:
1. Follow God's Law
2. Believe in God
Why do so many contemporary Christians, then, argue that you only have to act the latter to get into Heaven? The two parts must be equal in value.
"For we are saved by grace, through faith, not by works, that no man can boast."
"...that whosoever believes..."
The Law is important, but whether it's as important as belief is questionable. Even James, who took a hardline stand on this, doesn't say faith without perfection is dead - he says faith without action is dead.
Post by: Rose on July 09, 2015, 10:42:51 am
Post by: Arx on July 09, 2015, 10:46:08 am
Also the Vedas are clearly not valid. :P
Post by: Rose on July 09, 2015, 10:47:48 am
Post by: Rolan7 on July 09, 2015, 10:56:52 am
I'd love to hear more about Hinduism, this thread is (understandably) focused on abrahamic religions.
Post by: Arx on July 09, 2015, 10:58:01 am
Post by: Calidovi on July 09, 2015, 11:28:52 am
Post by: Ghills on July 09, 2015, 01:19:52 pm
Why do so many contemporary Christians, then, argue that you only have to act the latter to get into Heaven? The two parts must be equal in value.Because people are just seeking for some excuse to be awful while still acting like they are saints:
Under James 2:19.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."(New International Version).
"You believe that there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder." (JW bible translation).
Believing isn't much of a requirement as a step for the former, you gotta believe that the police exist to have any motivation to follow the constituent.
Yeah, basically. But people don't need to be awful to want this, just motivated by something other than the Gospel - which, to be fair, is pretty serious morally but not the same thing as being a criminal or a terrible person to be around.
The Bible argues that, to get into their Heaven, your have to:
1. Follow God's Law
2. Believe in God
Why do so many contemporary Christians, then, argue that you only have to act the latter to get into Heaven? The two parts must be equal in value.
As to the why, I think people like what is easy. There are sections of the scripture that can be used to say that belief/faith is how people are saved, but I think that's a serious misunderstanding for convenience's sake.
True belief motivates action. So if someone says they believe in the Gospel, but don't try to keep God's commandments, do they really believe the Gospel? Is it actually something that is important to them? Probably not. Their church social circle, or being able to say they're religious, or cultural traditions, etc, may be more important to them and their actions reflect that motivation. People don't have to be perfect, but if the underlying motivation for actions isn't the Gospel then it's probably not a deeply held belief and being spiritually lukewarm is not a good strategy.
It's like saying that you know eating fast food will make you fat but still eating at McDonalds every day. Words and actions need to match before either means anything. I think this comes through fairly clearly in scripture: If ye love me keep my commandments, all the sections about false prophets and those who profess belief but never really know Christ, by their fruits ye shall know them, etc. But obviously that's YMMV.
Post by: Rose on July 09, 2015, 02:32:10 pm
How much leeway is there with that? Does every sin influence what you'll reincarnate as, or is there a way to be absolved in this life?You pretty much rack up a list of karma, both good and bad, that influences where you go and what happens to you. Either any of the many hellish planets, or reincarnating on earth in a body that suits your actions, or up to heaven if you've been particularly pious. But all of them are temporary, even if they can take a very long time, so you will still end up back as a human eventually.
I'd love to hear more about Hinduism, this thread is (understandably) focused on abrahamic religions.
The specific branch of Hinduism that I was raised in says that by surrendering to Krishna, you can go directly to his abode, which is outside of any material universes entirely (with regular heaven still being in this universe, if not necessarily on the same plane) which is everybody's ultimate home, and once you go back there, you've broken out of the endless cycle of birth and death, and live eternally there with Him
It's interesting to note that while mainstream Hinduism is polytheistic, this branch, the bhakti movement, is not. It says that all the gods besides Krishna are still mortals, if very powerful.
Post by: Calidovi on July 09, 2015, 02:49:05 pm
How much leeway is there with that? Does every sin influence what you'll reincarnate as, or is there a way to be absolved in this life?You pretty much rack up a list of karma, both good and bad, that influences where you go and what happens to you. Either any of the many hellish planets, or reincarnating on earth in a body that suits your actions, or up to heaven if you've been particularly pious. But all of them are temporary, even if they can take a very long time, so you will still end up back as a human eventually.
I'd love to hear more about Hinduism, this thread is (understandably) focused on abrahamic religions.
The specific branch of Hinduism that I was raised in says that by surrendering to Krishna, you can go directly to his abode, which is outside of any material universes entirely (with regular heaven still being in this universe, if not necessarily on the same plane) which is everybody's ultimate home, and once you go back there, you've broken out of the endless cycle of birth and death, and live eternally there with Him
It's interesting to note that while mainstream Hinduism is polytheistic, this branch, the bhakti movement, is not. It says that all the gods besides Krishna are still mortals, if very powerful.
So is that what Swami Saraswati was asserting when he has trying to push the view that Hinduism is monotheistic?
Post by: Rose on July 09, 2015, 02:56:24 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on July 10, 2015, 02:21:09 pm
Spoiler: comrade pope (click to show/hide)
on a less amusing note speration of church and state? whats that? (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/10/421746931/pastors-on-the-run-hope-to-bring-biblical-values-to-politics)
Post by: Angle on July 10, 2015, 02:37:28 pm
Spoiler: comrade pope (click to show/hide)
LOL! That's interesting. Cool story behind it, too.
on a less amusing note speration of church and state? whats that? (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/10/421746931/pastors-on-the-run-hope-to-bring-biblical-values-to-politics)
Didn't they already try that? And find that it was an unmitigated failure? I'm sure this time it will work for them...
Post by: Rolan7 on July 10, 2015, 08:02:05 pm
Seriously, religion-driven politics like that makes it hard for me to remember that these are people, just doing what they think is right. Must not dehumanize... Must not hate... Understand the other side...
Like, typically my first impulse would be to write them off as nutcases who don't represent normal Christians. But normal voting Christians have, in the past, ate this stuff up. The exact portion depends on the specific issue, but it's made such a horrific impact on American politics. Which is the only reason Christianity bothers me more than other religions. I'd be arguing against Islam if we were headed towards Sharia law.
Post by: TD1 on July 10, 2015, 08:29:15 pm
Where I'm from, it is present to a worrying degree.
Post by: Frumple on July 10, 2015, 08:42:48 pm
Didn't they already try that? And find that it was an unmitigated failure? I'm sure this time it will work for them...I'm not entirely sure it counts as an unmitigated failure, exactly, when the highest offices of our legislative branch are... what was it, something like 98% christian? Which is about 23% better representation than the actual population :V
And that's not getting into the record for the executive (Every single POTUS) or judicial branches (we've had some jews there, at least, and one maybe agnostic). One of these days I'll figure out how the religious right in the US figures they're losing traction in government when christianity has an excessive stranglehold over political positions already, and doesn't actually seem to be losing it, even in the face of it being massively disproportionate to the country's actual demographics.
... seems like maybe more of a thing for the USpol thread than here, though.
Post by: Bohandas on July 11, 2015, 02:01:14 am
How much leeway is there with that? Does every sin influence what you'll reincarnate as, or is there a way to be absolved in this life?You pretty much rack up a list of karma, both good and bad, that influences where you go and what happens to you. Either any of the many hellish planets, or reincarnating on earth in a body that suits your actions, or up to heaven if you've been particularly pious. But all of them are temporary, even if they can take a very long time, so you will still end up back as a human eventually.
I'd love to hear more about Hinduism, this thread is (understandably) focused on abrahamic religions.
The specific branch of Hinduism that I was raised in says that by surrendering to Krishna, you can go directly to his abode, which is outside of any material universes entirely (with regular heaven still being in this universe, if not necessarily on the same plane) which is everybody's ultimate home, and once you go back there, you've broken out of the endless cycle of birth and death, and live eternally there with Him
It's interesting to note that while mainstream Hinduism is polytheistic, this branch, the bhakti movement, is not. It says that all the gods besides Krishna are still mortals, if very powerful.
Even Vishnu??
Post by: wierd on July 11, 2015, 02:20:50 am
I am not an adherent, but the gods, and their servitors in the heavens are not themselves omnipotent, nor are they truly immortal. The way I have read of this, is that the Narakas (hells) and the Nirvanas (heavens) experience time differently than the earth plane does, and the beings living in them live substantially longer regardless.
A person who is sadly born into say, the crushing death Naraka, can expect to be crushed to "death" repeatedly for several thousand years, at least, before they finally actually get to really die, and get reincarnated on another plane. Karmic consequences (A much better term to use than "debt") can take time to manifest, and thereby manipulate how the next incarnation will go.
Japa is probably a better source on the topic, I have only passively read on it for comparative religious investigation on pure curiosity. Japa has however, gotten to sample the full ethnic religious experience.
Post by: Robsoie on July 11, 2015, 06:22:06 pm
Even James, who took a hardline stand on this, doesn't say faith without perfection is dead - he says faith without action is dead.To add on that point, that faith is not to be passive and without deeds to be alive, there's the Christ's parable of the Sheep and the Goats (it's in Matthew 25 for those interested to check) that is interesting to keep in mind.
Post by: Bohandas on July 12, 2015, 12:36:36 am
Yes.
I am not an adherent, but the gods, and their servitors in the heavens are not themselves omnipotent, nor are they truly immortal. The way I have read of this, is that the Narakas (hells) and the Nirvanas (heavens) experience time differently than the earth plane does, and the beings living in them live substantially longer regardless.
A person who is sadly born into say, the crushing death Naraka, can expect to be crushed to "death" repeatedly for several thousand years, at least, before they finally actually get to really die, and get reincarnated on another plane. Karmic consequences (A much better term to use than "debt") can take time to manifest, and thereby manipulate how the next incarnation will go.
Japa is probably a better source on the topic, I have only passively read on it for comparative religious investigation on pure curiosity. Japa has however, gotten to sample the full ethnic religious experience.
The issue I had was that he said that all gods except Krishna are ultimately mortal. It was my understanding that Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu so if Krishna is completely immortal than Vishnu should be too.
I was already aware of the thing with the gods aging. IIRC I remember reading that Brahma is said to age the equivalent of a day every 4-8 billion years, Vishnu ages the equivalent of a day in the time it takes Brahma to die of old age and be reincarnated, and Shiva ages the equivalent of a day in the time it takes Vishnu to grow old, die, and be reincarnated
Post by: Rose on July 12, 2015, 01:59:40 am
We believe that Vishnu is an incarnation of Krishna, not the other way around, with Krishna being immortal, and Vishnu being more temporary.
And there's not just one Vishnu either. There's Mahavishnu, for whom a single breath is the birth and creation of entire universes, of which there are millions.
Then there is your normal Vishnu, who lives with his wife Lakshmi in the milk ocean, who's job is maintaining the universe, putting him as the more important of the big three demigods, the other two being Brahma, who's job is creation, and Shiva, who's job is destruction.
Then finally there's a Vishnu that resides in the center of every atom in the universe.
Krishna, on the other hand, doesn't have a job. He just lives in his abode, outside the material world, meaning outside all the millions of universes, and the ocean they are in, where he is eternally 16, and just plays around, enjoying himself, all day, erry day.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 12, 2015, 05:09:45 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 12, 2015, 10:37:13 am
Post by: TD1 on July 12, 2015, 11:43:36 am
Post by: UXLZ on July 12, 2015, 01:14:55 pm
Within the particular religion, I mean.
Post by: Reelya on July 12, 2015, 05:30:29 pm
Krishna, on the other hand, doesn't have a job. He just lives in his abode, outside the material world, meaning outside all the millions of universes, and the ocean they are in, where he is eternally 16, and just plays around, enjoying himself, all day, erry day.
Krishna sounds like a broI think we imagine Krishna sitting around relaxing in some historical setting, i.e. in a nice ancient dwelling, in a way that would have made sense for people back them. But of course this is nonsense. Krishna's lifestyle would not be limited by any human time period's technology or way of life. That just plainly doesn't make any sense when you think about it. Clearly, Krishna has not just every game console and form of entertainment that exists, he has all the forms of entertainment that could exist, in any one of those millions of universes. We can't begin to imagine how much fun Krishna is having.
Post by: Frumple on July 12, 2015, 05:37:15 pm
Post by: Adragis on July 12, 2015, 05:44:39 pm
I have seen into the veil of reality and realized that every prepubescent spewing curses at you over voice chat is, in fact, Krishna. All glory to being teabagged by the almighty!Praise be!
Post by: Bohandas on July 12, 2015, 05:55:16 pm
And there's not just one Vishnu either. There's Mahavishnu, for whom a single breath is the birth and creation of entire universes, of which there are millions.
Then there is your normal Vishnu, who lives with his wife Lakshmi in the milk ocean, who's job is maintaining the universe, putting him as the more important of the big three demigods, the other two being Brahma, who's job is creation, and Shiva, who's job is destruction.
Then finally there's a Vishnu that resides in the center of every atom in the universe.
Now are all these Vishnus different deities with the same name, or are they ultimately the same entity like the Holy Trinity or Amon-Ra
Post by: Helgoland on July 12, 2015, 05:58:47 pm
Why worship the divine equivalent of a lazy teenager?
Post by: Frumple on July 12, 2015, 06:18:03 pm
It's not like most of the other major religions have a better deity option, though. I'll take lazy teenager over psychopathic lazy teenager with severe ego issues any day of the week.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 12, 2015, 06:38:30 pm
Post by: Rose on July 13, 2015, 12:33:37 am
Post by: TD1 on July 13, 2015, 09:03:56 am
Post by: Adragis on July 13, 2015, 09:32:05 am
I kind of like that, I think. Generally, I don't want to go to heaven. I quite like where I am, and would much rather if God (were he to exist) would just leave me here.Same here, to be honest. Literal eternal life always seemed to me like a better deal.
Post by: Helgoland on July 13, 2015, 09:34:14 am
Post by: Rose on July 13, 2015, 09:52:14 am
First and foremost, the place is for His enjoyment. And the first requirement for going there is wanting that.
As long as we want to enjoy ourselves, we stay here in the material world, going through the endless cycle of birth and death.
Post by: TempAcc on July 13, 2015, 09:55:27 am
Anyway, in many religions, transcending material life means many things that are now relevant to you cease to be relevant completely, including the feeling of being bored/tired, and your perception of time. So it doenst really matter if you choose to spend your afterlife watching the paint dry on a billion different surfaces in a billion different worlds, you'll probably feel just fine, as long its what you want.
I have no idea how hinduism deals with experiencing existence outside of bodily life, though.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 13, 2015, 10:48:15 am
Speaking of heresies, I've been reading up on a very interesting one: Catharism! Some of you might know it as "That Crusader Kings 2 heresy that allows female priests" but it's a lot more than that. It was the first appearance of several protestant ideas. They rejected idolatry and the excesses of the Catholic church, practiced voluntary rather than infant baptism, and believed in eventual salvation for all. They were kinda like Quakers in that they refused to kill or swear oaths, strictly following the New Testament.
http://www.cathar.info/cathar_legacy.htm#protestant
They also believed in reincarnation, even into animals, based on your conduct in life! Interesting connection to eastern religions there. They're explanation was that Satan, god of the world, trapped divine souls in mortal bodies. Hell is essentially secular life on Earth, and death is no escape. Fortunately Jesus showed us a way to end the cycle through willing spiritual baptism. It was also kinda like Catholic last rites, though. It was most commonly done for people about to die, inviting a piece of the holy spirit to live in the person and defy Satan's claim on the soul.
Then there were people who chose the baptism earlier, or unexpectedly survived. These "perfects" were like monks:
Quote
When a believer underwent the Consolamentum, his or her life changed for ever. After this rite they were members of the Elect. From now on they would lead the life of an ascetic. They were to be completely chaste, and were not permitted even to touch members of the opposite sex. They were not permitted to tell a lie, swear an oath, nor kill any living creature. They would have to undertake frequent fasts, including three 40 day fasts each year.
For those who expected to die within hours this had less significance than for those who undertook the rite without the expectation of imminent death. They lived simple, peaceful, devotional, chaste lives of poverty, often travelling on foot in pairs like the disciples, preaching and working in simple trades like weaving to earn their living. To their followers the Elect were living saints. Touched by the Holy Spirit, they were God's ambassadors in an alien world. The contrast with bejewelled, warmongering, sybaritic, indolent, lascivious Churchmen living on forcibly extorted tithes was difficult for the slowest peasant to miss.
Kinda like if nuns and monks were in charge of the church. And women were allowed to do this too - the faith was apparently popular among women for treating them completely equally.
Here's where they go farther than later protestant faiths: They explain the New Testament vs Old Testament contradiction. They explain why God is an abominable, arbitrary tyrant in the Old Testament, then suddenly does everything he can to save humanity. They explain why the world is wicked, and spirituality is good.
They kiiinda say that the God of the Old Testament, creator of the world is Satan. Having lost the rebellion in heaven, he rules over the material plane instead. Human souls are actually angels he's trapped in "tunics of flesh" to corrupt to his will.
i think it makes sense
Post by: TempAcc on July 13, 2015, 10:56:31 am
In gnosticism, humans souls are divine sparks descended from Sophia or other divine beings, trapped in the material realm out of jealousy by the demiurge, which spawned from Sophia and is the self appointed creator/ruler of the material universe (altough he's neither, since he's also part of the material universe), and demands that all that reside in it worship and obey him.
Post by: That Wolf on July 13, 2015, 11:09:11 am
Or life is eternal.
What a drag I want neither
Post by: wierd on July 13, 2015, 11:16:26 am
Amusingly, Paul the apostle was quite adamant that these kinds of doctrines were false, and should be discarded. He rails and rants about it in much of the new testament.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 13, 2015, 04:30:19 pm
Yeah I like that idea in modern Christianity too, that Hell is just a secular place. Not full of torture, but forever apart from God. Thus awful in the sense that being with God would be infinitely better... But no actual "lake of fire" and such. It's a very reasonable idea, and I think the world might be a better place if the editors of the Bible had believed in it.Alternatively, people who believe in the Bible could choose the believe that Jesus was speaking in parables when he described Hell.
Really, there's a lot of ways around it. No reason to assume you're definitely going to be tortured for eternity.
Post by: Bohandas on July 13, 2015, 04:34:21 pm
QuoteWhen a believer underwent the Consolamentum, his or her life changed for ever. After this rite they were members of the Elect. From now on they would lead the life of an ascetic. They were to be completely chaste, and were not permitted even to touch members of the opposite sex. They were not permitted to tell a lie, swear an oath, nor kill any living creature. They would have to undertake frequent fasts, including three 40 day fasts each year.
For those who expected to die within hours this had less significance than for those who undertook the rite without the expectation of imminent death. They lived simple, peaceful, devotional, chaste lives of poverty, often travelling on foot in pairs like the disciples, preaching and working in simple trades like weaving to earn their living. To their followers the Elect were living saints. Touched by the Holy Spirit, they were God's ambassadors in an alien world. The contrast with bejewelled, warmongering, sybaritic, indolent, lascivious Churchmen living on forcibly extorted tithes was difficult for the slowest peasant to miss.
Kinda like if nuns and monks were in charge of the church. And women were allowed to do this too - the faith was apparently popular among women for treating them completely equally.
Here's where they go farther than later protestant faiths: They explain the New Testament vs Old Testament contradiction. They explain why God is an abominable, arbitrary tyrant in the Old Testament, then suddenly does everything he can to save humanity. They explain why the world is wicked, and spirituality is good.
They kiiinda say that the God of the Old Testament, creator of the world is Satan. Having lost the rebellion in heaven, he rules over the material plane instead. Human souls are actually angels he's trapped in "tunics of flesh" to corrupt to his will.
i think it makes sense
Isn't that last part also the basis of Heaven's Gate and the Church of Scientology?
Post by: TempAcc on July 13, 2015, 05:29:53 pm
And heaven's gate didn't even have a single ideology. It was just (mostly) about how aliens want us to evolve but you can only do that by fully becoming aliens in all except body, and rejecting all supposedly human feelings and notions, except that changed over time according to the leader's whims (altough he genuinely believed in what he said), and after making several wrong predictions on when the aliens would finally rescue them from the world, decided that a passing comet was in fact an alien ship and the only way to reach it was by killing themselves before it went away.
Hell, even heaven's gate is very different from scientology in a multitude of ways, with the exception of the aliens are god thing.
Post by: Bohandas on July 13, 2015, 06:11:39 pm
Is it? I thought scientology was about an alien overlord ruling earth, how people have superpowers except not thanks to alien ghosts possessing them, and giv monies pl0x.
And heaven's gate didn't even have a single ideology. It was just (mostly) about how aliens want us to evolve but you can only do that by fully becoming aliens in all except body, and rejecting all supposedly human feelings and notions, except that changed over time according to the leader's whims (altough he genuinely believed in what he said), and after making several wrong predictions on when the aliens would finally rescue them from the world, decided that a passing comet was in fact an alien ship and the only way to reach it was by killing themselves before it went away.
Hell, even heaven's gate is very different from scientology in a multitude of ways, with the exception of the aliens are god thing.
Yes, but they are both sort of like gnosticism. Scientology has spirits pervasively trapped in bodies, and Heaven's Gate has aliens trapped in human bodies.
Post by: TempAcc on July 15, 2015, 12:43:47 pm
I find it hard to disagree, mostly, and I have nothing against christians, as I am one myself, sort of :v
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 15, 2015, 04:46:33 pm
Except the Reformed church, obviously. We're all perfect and holy and incorruptible and humble.
Post by: Frumple on July 15, 2015, 05:33:30 pm
*immediately sees child abuse hits*
>_> <_<
This is why we use the word "almost" in front of all :V
Though I guess I am occasionally curious about churchgoers' attitudes towards church corruption. From what I understand the religious circuit is pretty close to one of the largest fraud/corruption/etc. sectors in the world, with pretty sizable amounts of money basically disappearing, on top of everything that doesn't get reported (which is posited to be pretty substantial in and of itself, heh), yearly. Which is fairly understandable -- a church is pretty close to a confidence artist's wet dream, heh. Understand many churches have council type things or member participation in decision making and suchlike to attempt to curtail that, but, uh. I've seen that in action in a few different churches and ahahahahaha. Yeah, not so much.
Anyone have notable experience with how congregations manage that stuff? What sort of balance gets struck between the trust generally needed to be given to the clergy and the fact that, well. A fair number of them are pretty crooked?
Post by: Rolan7 on July 15, 2015, 05:39:41 pm
Seems like an odd name for a denomination, though. By the power vested in me from skimming a wikipedia page... It seems like a pretty cool one.
I mean, find me any group with hundreds of thousands of people which doesn't include terrible ones. "The group of people who aren't terrible" doesn't count.
Post by: Descan on July 15, 2015, 05:50:39 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 15, 2015, 05:51:34 pm
and me
Post by: Descan on July 15, 2015, 05:57:02 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 15, 2015, 07:50:04 pm
Then I went for a lovely road trip and remembered... I literally worship the natural world. Cathars would call me a Satanist, just like anyone who follows the Old Testament God. Different aspects of the world, but both are Satan's domain under that doctrine. So, my excitement wasn't really warranted.
(To be fair, nature is fucking terrifying. A massive thunderstorm swept through on my trip. I stood under an awning with my boss and a coworker and we just watched it for a whole hour, sharing tales of destructive floods. Years ago I became an animist while cowering in a forest when a thunderstorm caught me bicycling.)
Dualism is still interesting to me though. I think most modern Christians are mostly there, in that they follow Jesus and essentially reject Old Testament teachings. That's fair to say, right? It's different from calling the OT God a different entity (especially Satan) but... how different?
Jesus said "turn the other cheek". The God of the Old Testament demanded "an eye for an eye", and a long list of harsh punishments for minor crimes. How does one reconcile these two testaments? One must be false, and thankfully most Christians choose to reject the troublesome parts of the Old Testament.
But they still officially believe in the whole Bible, and thus grant credibility to the... hrm... the people who follow Old Testament scripture instead of Jesus. The people Cathars would call Satanists, who preach Biblically-mandated hatred and intolerance. Who use the Bible to justify slavery and holy war - because the Old Testament *DOES* support those things in the strongest language.
The New Testament isn't perfect either, but given just a little room for interpretation... The New Testament is good and the Old Testament is, mostly, bad.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 15, 2015, 08:45:08 pm
I'm five nines sure Orange Wizard was kidding :PYeah, that was supposed to be a joke but apparently I need to make it more obvious next time.
Anyone have notable experience with how congregations manage that stuff? What sort of balance gets struck between the trust generally needed to be given to the clergy and the fact that, well. A fair number of them are pretty crooked?I think a lot of people don't really think about it. More of a "that could never possibly happen here" kind of thing.
The Reformed church is pretty democratic - we elect our elders and deacons, and many decisions need the approval of the congregation. As far as I can tell, my church has never really had a problem with corruption (whether it's there or not I couldn't say) and we do trust the elders to do their job properly.
If corruption/fraud/whatever did turn up, I imagine that would be a crime worthy of both legal action and excommunication from the church.
Post by: Frumple on July 15, 2015, 08:53:17 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 15, 2015, 08:54:31 pm
Post by: Frumple on July 15, 2015, 09:04:56 pm
Post by: UXLZ on July 15, 2015, 09:05:22 pm
Quote from: Rolan
But they still officially believe in the whole Bible, and thus grant credibility to the... hrm... the people who follow Old Testament scripture instead of Jesus. The people Cathars would call Satanists, who preach Biblically-mandated hatred and intolerance. Who use the Bible to justify slavery and holy war - because the Old Testament *DOES* support those things in the strongest language.
The New Testament isn't perfect either, but given just a little room for interpretation... The New Testament is good and the Old Testament is, mostly, bad.
To be fair, I've never quite understood how people can simultaneously claim something is the Irrefutable Absolute Word of God,yet only follow it selectively. Almost all factions are guilty of this, too, extremists, and rationals alike (though I guess rationals are less likely to claim the thing as IAWoG in the first place, at least.)
It simply seems absurdly common practice that people will selectively pick and choose parts from their decided religious text to support their own views and provide validation/justification for whatever it is they want to believe and most likely would have believed anyway.
That's just how things appear to be to me, at least.
Regardless, literally everything that happens is by express and implicit permission of God, anyway.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 15, 2015, 09:18:12 pm
Yes, there's doublethink and other mental gymnastics, but that's the nature of the beast. Personally I don't see anything inherently wrong with irrational thought as long as you admit that it's irrational (and don't use it to justify anything morally reprehensible).
Post by: Telgin on July 15, 2015, 09:21:02 pm
Post by: Adragis on July 16, 2015, 02:20:20 am
I'm pretty sure Jesus explains it himself somewhere in the 'turn the other cheek' speech.
Post by: UXLZ on July 16, 2015, 03:13:10 am
Post by: Arx on July 16, 2015, 04:16:04 am
Anyone have notable experience with how congregations manage that stuff? What sort of balance gets struck between the trust generally needed to be given to the clergy and the fact that, well. A fair number of them are pretty crooked?
As someone fairly thoroughly involved with running a Methodist church:
There are a handful of Society Stewards, lay people from the congregation elected at society meetings that include the entire congregation. They are in charge of many things regarding keeping the church running, pertinently including counting and banking the offertory. These days, the majority of tithing and so forth is done over the internet or other forms of EFT, so a certain quantity of middle men get cut out. I'm also pretty sure the churches get audited often enough for it to be something we have to keep in mind.
The counting is always done by two or more people, who supposedly keep each other in line. Mostly, we hope that it's sufficiently unlikely that two or three people would be elected who are low enough to help themselves that two is enough.
My mother is the church's resident minister, and as far as I can tell she actually has very limited exposure to the church's funds. It's difficult to tell how generally true that is though, since my mother dislikes dealing with money. By and large, I think the way making purchases for the church works is that whoever makes the purchase makes it out-of-pocket and provides the receipt to the church (usually in the person of the secretary), who will reimburse them.
Honestly, it is mostly a trust situation. A lot of it is done electronically these days, which helps, and a lot is handled by the congregation, but I'm pretty sure it would be possible for a crook to squeeze money out without too much effort. The only thing is that they'd have to be a mighty dedicated crook to go through four years of training and continue to serve as a minister (not exactly an easy job) in order to skim off an extra R2000 per month (I think that's about all you could take off an average-size church before the disjoint between size and assessment payments became obvious).
If this post doesn't make sense, I apologise. Fairly tired right now.
Post by: Helgoland on July 16, 2015, 04:54:22 am
Post by: TempAcc on July 16, 2015, 07:48:36 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 16, 2015, 08:09:19 am
Post by: Rolan7 on July 21, 2015, 06:58:07 pm
The only issue is that it's the opposite of what the Old Testament God does and commands. What would Jesus do? Not those things.
So... Why do Christians insist that the God in the Old Testament is at all connected to Jesus? During the 3rd and 4th centuries, when the New Testament was being written and edited, there were many Gnostics who objected to this inconsistency. But in 367 Athanasius, a bishop in Alexandria (Africa), decided which books would be in the New Testament. (This list was approved in 382 by Pope Damascus I).
Who gave them that authority? Emperor Constantine I. He was ordering Bibles written as early as 331, decades before the church finalized canon. This *Roman Emperor* selected a branch of Christianity and threw the weight of the Empire behind it. Right or wrong, this branch won. And they hid the Bible in Latin for literally a thousand years (until the 1450s, when their grip slipped).
No wonder medieval "heretics" like the Cathars called out the great contradiction, the utter difference between the OT God and the NT God/Jesus. And I didn't mention this last time, but they payed very dearly for that. Pope INNOCENT III had them slaughtered.
Quote from: Caesarius of Heisterbach
When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius - Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.
That's how afraid they were. The Catholic Church had tried reasoned arguments earlier... And utterly failed. These ascetics believed in spiritual growth over worldly power and wealth. So they were wiped out by worldly power. It was arguably the first of many such purges in that era.
Isn't this the sort of thing modern Protestants should be examining? Now that the Church can't stomp it out? The God in the Old Testament is an absolute monster. His actions aren't mysterious, they're antagonistic to love and tolerance. He literally demands fear, blood sacrifice, and the death and rape of other tribes.
He isn't Jesus, to put it mildly.
Post by: Arcvasti on July 21, 2015, 07:02:15 pm
So... Why do Christians insist that the God in the Old Testament is at all connected to Jesus?
There's at least one "heresy" that posits that the God of the Old Testament is a "Separate and lesser" being then the all-loving God of the New Testament, although they're still sorta associated with each other.
Post by: UXLZ on July 21, 2015, 07:09:04 pm
Post by: Telgin on July 21, 2015, 09:21:22 pm
Really, the disconnect between the old and new testaments was a big part of what drove me to stop trusting anything in the Bible and ultimately drop Christianity altogether. Knowing that it was humans that decided on what went into the Bible and what didn't (that is, learning that it wasn't originally a single and continuous document) hurt a lot of my faith in it too. After all, if I was able to insert a verse or ten here or there and distribute my own version, who was to say that any particular version was legitimate at that point?
And if you can't trust in the only tangible part of Christianity, then there's not a lot of reason to trust the rest for me.
Post by: Calidovi on July 21, 2015, 09:37:08 pm
Or why it's selectively applied.
Really, the disconnect between the old and new testaments was a big part of what drove me to stop trusting anything in the Bible and ultimately drop Christianity altogether. Knowing that it was humans that decided on what went into the Bible and what didn't (that is, learning that it wasn't originally a single and continuous document) hurt a lot of my faith in it too. After all, if I was able to insert a verse or ten here or there and distribute my own version, who was to say that any particular version was legitimate at that point?
And if you can't trust in the only tangible part of Christianity, then there's not a lot of reason to trust the rest for me.
I absolutely agree. A moderate inconsistency in understandable and even appreciated though it can be easily faked. But when there are two opposite viewpoints that the author tries to connect in the work, then that just becomes horribly unreasonable and contradictory.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 21, 2015, 09:55:02 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on July 21, 2015, 10:01:13 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 21, 2015, 10:10:08 pm
But, I'm just saying... That God really acts like Satan.
Post by: Telgin on July 21, 2015, 11:23:18 pm
Well just do as I do and except that the old testament is simply a classic example of an oral history that's been written down. It's hugly warped and such by the generations and so it can just be ignored. The only part of the Bible that really matters is the whole Jesus part. The rest is mainly peoples opinions on that part( the new testament that is).
Ultimately this is what most Christians do I guess. After all, you literally can't apply a lot of it to modern life in most countries anyway without severe repercussions, and I'm pretty sure even the most die hard and fundamentalist Christians would balk at some of the things it tells us to do.
It's also interesting to see various justifications for why parts of it are still relevant but not entirely enforced. See my previous comment on why you're just supposed to say that homosexuals are going to Hell rather than murder them. I guess you could say that Jesus's teachings say that, but it requires quite a few leaps of logic in my opinion.
Post by: UXLZ on July 22, 2015, 04:29:55 am
And now he's the King of Hell. Which no one actually knows the appearance of, but everyone's certain what it looks like.
Quote from: Telgin
but it requires quite a few leaps of logic in my opinion.
Just about every religion on the planet has a few, or more than a few (or at least the ones I'm aware of.)
Faith: It makes up for all shortcomings in logic.
Post by: Telgin on July 22, 2015, 07:40:27 am
What was it, Satan was originally a servant of God whose job was to test Humans?
And now he's the King of Hell. Which no one actually knows the appearance of, but everyone's certain what it looks like.
Something like that. A Jewish scholar could probably say a lot more than I can, but the character depicted as Satan in the old testament was a tester of humanity and employed by God. Hence, the book of Job is no longer 100% crazy and is just unbelievably awful instead.
Somehow Satan became some fallen angel in the new testament and got roped into being the one who caused humanity to fall in Genesis despite there being no direct evidence for any of that to my knowledge. People claim he was the snake in the Garden of Eden, but the only reason to think that is some line later in the Bible calling Satan "the old snake" or something like that. If you look at Genesis from a purely Jewish standpoint, then it was literally a case of a snake telling Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. I think anyway. I'm not sure what differences exist between the old testament and the Torah or other Jewish documents.
Quote
Quote from: Telginbut it requires quite a few leaps of logic in my opinion.
Just about every religion on the planet has a few, or more than a few (or at least the ones I'm aware of.)
Faith: It makes up for all shortcomings in logic.
Fair enough. That said, this is probably what was the final nail in the coffin of my religious practicing. I quickly realized that the Christian God was perfectly happy for me to burn in Hell because He knew that under my current life circumstances I would never believe in His existence. He knows that I can't accept that He exists without more than tenuous word-of-mouth type proof of His existence, and that's too bad because He won't show up on Earth for a few minutes one day and let people know he exists. I've always said that it should be impossible to even doubt the existence of a real god, but... it seems to be the other way around for me.
I recognize that faith is a big part of what it is to be a Christian, but I just can't do that, and that means I have to go to Hell according to many / most Christians.
Hmm, speaking of Hell, that's another interesting topic that has been altered quite a bit over time from my understanding. Supposedly the words for it in the original texts were referring more to burning trash mounds or something, not a place that evil and unbelieving humans would spend all of eternity in the most painful existence imaginable. I guess that the people who interpret Hell as being more of a place where your soul is destroyed might have been on to something.
Boy do I wish I could have these conversations with my local preacher... I'd love to hear his answers for some of this.
Post by: TempAcc on July 22, 2015, 08:01:04 am
I thiiiiink that in the book of enoch, hell (tartarus) is place in which the watchers (fallen angels who betrayed God and mingled with humans) are trapped, and there's no mention of human souls going there.
Christian hell comes mostly from the new testament, and even then it isn't eternal before the apocalypse. In fact, if you were wicked in life, you just stay there until the resurrection of everyone ever during the apocalypse, in which the dead will be judged alongside the living, according to the bible, and the wicked may redeem themselves then, since they would already be aware of their sins by passing through hell.
The idea of an eternal hell is also denied by gnostic christians and spiritualists/spiritists, in which there's no actual hell, since we are already in the worst part of existence (material existence and mostly ignorant of God and our true nature).
Post by: Sheb on July 22, 2015, 10:38:25 am
Post by: Calidovi on July 22, 2015, 11:57:42 am
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point that now that Helgo baptized me in the Rhine, I am a Catholic, a New Creature and a Member of the Body of Christ (hopefully a good one, and not like his toenail or something.)(http://assets.amuniversal.com/9daba0909d2b012f2fe500163e41dd5b)
Post by: i2amroy on July 22, 2015, 03:24:40 pm
Post by: UXLZ on July 22, 2015, 06:03:24 pm
Quote from: Telgin
Fair enough. That said, this is probably what was the final nail in the coffin of my religious practicing. I quickly realized that the Christian God was perfectly happy for me to burn in Hell because He knew that under my current life circumstances I would never believe in His existence. He knows that I can't accept that He exists without more than tenuous word-of-mouth type proof of His existence, and that's too bad because He won't show up on Earth for a few minutes one day and let people know he exists. I've always said that it should be impossible to even doubt the existence of a real god, but... it seems to be the other way around for me.
I've gotta say, I agree a lot with this, especially the first part. However, for the Christian God as depicted, it goes even deeper than that. All things that happen, happen by God's will, and God's will alone. From the beginning of existence. Ironically, He doesn't really have a choice, either, a slave to His own omniscience. Even if He is... Let's say "outside the flow" and doesn't have His own actions dictated to Him by what He Himself can see... He knows all the consequences, stretching endlessly forever, of what He does, even if He simply chooses to take no action... That is still a choice.
To take a binary choice as an action... If you choose A, then B, if you choose B, then A. If you choose neither, then C. You have full knowledge of this, and you must make a choice, or make none, which is really a choice in disguise. Whatever the result, it occurs exclusively because of your choice.
So, all the bad things in the world, and the good, and the neutral. The small things, the random things, your flu or your broken leg? The coincidences that lead to the love of your life. The happy days, free of worry. The sad days, where you drown in despair. Your dead father, or your addict girlfriend? The hellish existence in concentration camps, and gulags, and the Vietnam war?
A nice big "God Approves!" sticker. All of it, all things that are, by God's will alone. Because how could He not?
Post by: UXLZ on July 22, 2015, 06:08:59 pm
Still, thanks. Fix'd. The closing bracket was stuck a bit, it mustn't have registered properly.
Post by: Helgoland on July 22, 2015, 08:18:20 pm
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point that now that Helgo baptized me in the Rhine, I am a Catholic, a New Creature and a Member of the Body of Christ (hopefully a good one, not his toenail or something.)Huh, I thought about asking you whether you'd keep this under wraps or make it a public thing.
Also dat penis joke.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 22, 2015, 08:50:30 pm
Post by: Telgin on July 23, 2015, 07:28:04 am
I've gotta say, I agree a lot with this, especially the first part. However, for the Christian God as depicted, it goes even deeper than that. All things that happen, happen by God's will, and God's will alone. From the beginning of existence. Ironically, He doesn't really have a choice, either, a slave to His own omniscience. Even if He is... Let's say "outside the flow" and doesn't have His own actions dictated to Him by what He Himself can see... He knows all the consequences, stretching endlessly forever, of what He does, even if He simply chooses to take no action... That is still a choice.
To take a binary choice as an action... If you choose A, then B, if you choose B, then A. If you choose neither, then C. You have full knowledge of this, and you must make a choice, or make none, which is really a choice in disguise. Whatever the result, it occurs exclusively because of your choice.
So, all the bad things in the world, and the good, and the neutral. The small things, the random things, your flu or your broken leg? The coincidences that lead to the love of your life. The happy days, free of worry. The sad days, where you drown in despair. Your dead father, or your addict girlfriend? The hellish existence in concentration camps, and gulags, and the Vietnam war?
A nice big "God Approves!" sticker. All of it, all things that are, by God's will alone. Because how could He not?
Yep, I agree with all of this. I had a fairly long discussion about just that in the previous religion (Christianity only?) thread. I'm a believer in strong determinism even outside of religion, and don't believe we have free will in any capacity. That's yet another thing that drove me away from Christianity, where free will is considered to be perhaps the most important part of what it is to be human. If free will doesn't exist, then a lot of the tenets of Christianity no long make sense or become pretty terrible.
It actually makes me wonder about people who believe in predestination. That's pretty much what it amounts to. Or likewise people who believe in once saved, always saved. In the latter case, I believe most people who believe that and witness someone who was supposed to be saved and a born again Christian doing something bad will just say "Oh, he was never saved at all I guess." Or maybe that's not how it works? The overwhelming majority of my exposure to Christianity has been through the Pentecostal Holiness churches of Protestant Christianity, which very much believe that if you do bad things you can become unsaved.
Post by: Arx on July 23, 2015, 08:08:06 am
Everything happens by the will of God, more news at eleven? I mean, it's a fairly standard thing that God could stop the bad things.
And I'm not quite sure why that makes Him a slave to His omniscience, any more than you're a slave to your knowledge of the world.
Post by: SirQuiamus on July 23, 2015, 08:36:59 am
Wait, that literally happened? I thought it was some sort of in-joke or metaphor.If you squint at Sheb's avatar for long enough, you'll notice that it looks like a combination of Jesus and Adenauer wearing an Imperial German helmet. With a Reichsadler in the background. :p
Post by: Rolan7 on July 23, 2015, 08:39:26 am
He's not the slave in that scenario, it's us. Our choices are meaningless because he could override them. There's even like a dozen parts in the Bible where he does override free will, often to make people do wrong things so he can "punish" them.
What this means is that every decision we make, right or wrong, is being implicitly approved by God. He can and has changed our minds in the past, without limit, which means we have the same "free will" as a bug you keep nudging in a certain direction. None. Just because you don't have to nudge the bug if it happens to go the right way, doesn't mean it made a meaningful choice. It just saved you effort.
That's all depressing though. I prefer to imagine God isn't all powerful, and is in an actual struggle with Satan. Satan being the one who
orders tribes to slaughter and rape each other
demands animal and human sacrifice in his name, especially goats
confounds human language at Babel because we're getting along too well
hates gays, foreskins, and mixed fabrics
says "throw the first stone, throw lots of stones"
demands fear and absolute obedience on pain of death, often by plague
mind controls Pharaoh into giving the Israelites a hard time so he can slaughter the Egyptian firstborns
demands an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
has absolutely nothing in common with Jesus or Jesus's father
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2015, 08:42:54 am
Personally, if my knowledge of the world included a means to prevent shit like stillborns, SIDS, etc., so forth, so on, I would probably get right on that. Maybe not order mass rape, commit mass murder and infanticide, allow all the torturous atrocities mankind gets up to, stuff like that. Try to come off as something besides a homicidal egoistic psychopath. The little things.
Some sort of lack of agency goes a long way towards... well, not exactly excusing that, but at least making it understandable. Plays nicely into the atemporal thing that's often posited regarding the critter's nature, too. All that happens has already been done by that way of looking at things, and the critter's a slave, in the sense of being unable to do anything about it, to actions already committed. The omniscience is just part of the decision making that's already occurred, even if it's in the relative (to mankind) future.
Dunno if that's actually particularly in line with the biblical depictions, though. Iirc, there's bits where the critter is stated as changing its mind (the second covenant bit would be a pretty big one, imo), and the omniscience thing is... arguable, as is exactly what that entails even if that is how the all-knowing stuff tracks. Critter gets played up a lot in the fanfiction, really...
Post by: UXLZ on July 23, 2015, 08:49:35 am
Quote from: Arx
And I'm not quite sure why that makes Him a slave to His omniscience, any more than you're a slave to your knowledge of the world.
Quote from: Rolan7
@Arx
He's not the slave in that scenario, it's us. Our choices are meaningless because he could override them. There's even like a dozen parts in the Bible where he does override free will, often to make people do wrong things so he can "punish" them.
Sort of, sort of not. See, I stated that He could be free of his Omniscience... Somehow, in a way that we can't comprehend. However, even if He is indeed free of it (in that His own actions aren't predetermined), He's still a slave to it in a certain regard. That is: He has no choice but to decide the fate of everything. As mere humans, we can allow things to 'take their own course' and choose to not do something, or make a choice without knowledge of its full consequences. God cannot do that, because it knows all the results of its choices. As I said, no choice is still a choice, if you know what not choosing results in.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 23, 2015, 08:55:44 am
So the concept of a perfect God is kinda boring, depressing, and also it wouldn't be good.
Post by: Arx on July 23, 2015, 09:00:13 am
As mere humans, we can allow things to 'take their own course' and choose to not do something
Emphasis mine. It's still a choice; you are a slave to your agency just as much as God is, God just knows more.
And honestly, I mostly agree with you guys about the omnipotence. Particularly given things like the variant translations of pankratos and all that.
Post by: UXLZ on July 23, 2015, 09:08:19 am
Quote from: Rolan
So the concept of a perfect God is kinda boring, depressing, and also it wouldn't be good.
I've argued extremely strongly against the existence of a perfect God in the first place even being possible, let alone likely, but for this discussion's sake I'm just assuming it somehow works.
Quote from: Arx
Emphasis mine. It's still a choice; you are a slave to your agency just as much as God is, God just knows more.
In the context of this argument though, God doesn't just know more, God knows everything.
It's like if I had a button, and if I pressed it, an ant mound was destroyed. If I didn't press it, it wasn't. In this scenario, I have exactly two choices, and regardless of what I do I am wholly responsible for that ant mound's fate. In God's case, the choice of to press the button or not press the button occurs an incomprehensibly large number of times, and decides the most minute of things. Like the individual location and molecular arrangement of the specks of dust that float into the air when you hit a cushion. But ultimately, these things are due to His choice, and His choice alone.
However, we, as humans, do not have things so simple. That is, we aren't aware of the total and utter consequences of every choice we make. God is.
If we start off at point A, and end at point C, that's not within our control. We don't know the consequences.
If God starts at point A, and ends at point B, that's entirely by His will, it can't not be. We could toss a coin, because we wouldn't know the outcome of that coin toss. God couldn't, He does.
Post by: Sheb on July 23, 2015, 09:09:14 am
Wait, that literally happened? I thought it was some sort of in-joke or metaphor.
No, no, we did it two weeks ago.
Post by: Calidovi on July 23, 2015, 09:32:28 am
snip
In the end though, the argument for not having a perfect life is that God knows what we need more than we do? It's a rather shallow concept, but it ties up ends.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 23, 2015, 09:37:11 am
Huh, that's a pretty cool thing to happen on a forum.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 23, 2015, 09:40:30 am
It ties up a couple while there are millions, though. People *can* grow from hardship, sure. But so many people randomly get too much to handle and just lose hope. It doesn't explain why God would keep kicking a homeless person who he knows is going to die in the street, unsaved. Or arrange for people to become addicted to life-ruining drugs.snip
In the end though, the argument for not having a perfect life is that God knows what we need more than we do? It's a rather shallow concept, but it ties up ends.
The right amount of hardship can make people reexamine their life, even become Christian. But then there are people who just get waaaay too much. And others who don't get any to speak of. God's theoretical manipulation is suspiciously similar to natural processes.
Makes sense if it's Satan trying to encourage materialism and tribalism though.
Post by: Calidovi on July 23, 2015, 09:44:32 am
It ties up a couple while there are millions, though. People *can* grow from hardship, sure. But so many people randomly get too much to handle and just lose hope. It doesn't explain why God would keep kicking a homeless person who he knows is going to die in the street, unsaved. Or arrange for people to become addicted to life-ruining drugs.snip
In the end though, the argument for not having a perfect life is that God knows what we need more than we do? It's a rather shallow concept, but it ties up ends.
The right amount of hardship can make people reexamine their life, even become Christian. But then there are people who just get waaaay too much. And others who don't get any to speak of. God's theoretical manipulation is suspiciously similar to natural processes.
Makes sense if it's Satan trying to encourage materialism and tribalism though.
That's the proper counterargument. People bite the dust way too often while Jesus argues that the suffering go to Heaven and leave the hellish Earth. There's a lot more about certain secular beliefs and whatnot, but that's the main idea I take from Christianity as a whole.
Post by: UXLZ on July 23, 2015, 09:48:30 am
snip
In the end though, the argument for not having a perfect life is that God knows what we need more than we do? It's a rather shallow concept, but it ties up ends.
I'm sure that everyone non-Christian needs to get their soul tortured in Hell for all of eternity, with no respite 'nor chance of redemption. Definitely what we need.
I'm being sarcastic though, and that idea of Hell is probably actually wrong anyway.
By the way, if God's actually omnipotent (which He isn't, but that's another can of worms and for argument's sake we'll assume He actually is somehow), then there's nothing that stops Him from just making us all happy and magically getting what we need. In fact, He could have just designed us differently from the start, really... The existence of an omnipotent being tosses "Need" out the window.
Post by: Calidovi on July 23, 2015, 09:50:43 am
By the way, if God's actually omnipotent (which He isn't, but that's another can of worms and for argument's sake we'll assume He actually is somehow),snip
In the end though, the argument for not having a perfect life is that God knows what we need more than we do? It's a rather shallow concept, but it ties up ends.
Just curious, do you have biblical evidence for that statement? Or is it inferred knowledge? I'm asking because I'd like to know, not because I want to be an upstart.
Post by: Arx on July 23, 2015, 09:52:49 am
By the way, if God's actually omnipotent (which He isn't, but that's another can of worms and for argument's sake we'll assume He actually is somehow),snip
In the end though, the argument for not having a perfect life is that God knows what we need more than we do? It's a rather shallow concept, but it ties up ends.
Just curious, do you have biblical evidence for that statement? Or is it inferred knowledge? I'm asking because I'd like to know, not because I want to be an upstart.
It's inferred based off the fact that he thinks omnipotence is self-contradictory. I disagree with him there, but hey.
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2015, 09:55:01 am
Post by: UXLZ on July 23, 2015, 09:56:30 am
On another note, it's mostly "Utter Perfection™" that I argue as being self-contradictory.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 23, 2015, 09:58:00 am
Quote from: Judges 1:19
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.The NIV version changes it to "they" couldn't drive them out, for obvious reasons, but even that hilarious revisionism doesn't really address the issue.
Edit: To be fair, maybe they were cold iron. Pretty sure Satan would be weak against that.
Edit: Kidding aside, the God of the Old Testament works in strangely limited ways and the Israelites suffered many crushing defeats despite his blessing. It honestly reads like the story of the most powerful god in a pantheon.
Post by: Arx on July 23, 2015, 10:00:00 am
Why do you disagree with me, though? Is there a counter-argument that doesn't boil down to "Just because"? There are a lot of explanations as to why Omnipotence is simply impossible, what's yours for why it is?
All the arguments I've seen you make are along the lines of not being able to make an object they can't lift, and so on. Those seem kind of meaningless when considering omnipotence, which as a concept is kind of meaningless. It's like saying you can't actually find the derivative of a function because you can't actually get the gradient across zero distance.
hilarious revisionism
I find this particularly a) offensive and b) arrogant. Unless you actually read Hebrew, and have read the original passage, you aren't in a position to say whether a translation is revisionist.
Post by: UXLZ on July 23, 2015, 10:07:04 am
A different kind of iron chariots. (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Can_God_create_a_rock_so_heavy_that_he_can%27t_lift_it%3F)
Post by: Calidovi on July 23, 2015, 10:09:12 am
Why do you disagree with me, though? Is there a counter-argument that doesn't boil down to "Just because"? There are a lot of explanations as to why Omnipotence is simply impossible, what's yours for why it is?
On another note, it's mostly "Utter Perfection™" that I argue as being self-contradictory.
This is why I added that little disclaimer. It's not because I want to refute your argument, it's because I want to know.
Arx, however, has answered that statement, though in vague terms.
Post by: Arx on July 23, 2015, 10:12:52 am
The point I'm making is specifically countering omnipotence though, not God as a whole. Omnipotence as a concept is meaningless because it can't exist.
...that's not an argument. And as I said, that's like saying differentiation is meaningless because the gradient of a graph at a point can't exist.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 23, 2015, 10:13:22 am
Post by: UXLZ on July 23, 2015, 10:18:44 am
More iron chariots. (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Omnipotence_paradox)
You mentioned before that you doubted God's omniscience Arx, do you doubt His omnipotence too?
Post by: Calidovi on July 23, 2015, 10:24:28 am
It's silly because omnipotence is silly. It doesn't work, and I've yet to see anyone tell me how it actually could short of saying it just does.
Not to be 2edgyFedoraMe about this, but isn't the basis of God "The Impossible"? Is there a reasonable conclusion of God created the universe, other than 'he just did'? How he formed life? You can tie scientific reasons into how God did what the Bible said he did, but then he's no longer God. He's just a manifestation of natural processes.
Post by: UXLZ on July 23, 2015, 10:46:21 am
My personal... Belief, is that if the Christian God does indeed exist then He's 'simply' just a very-powerful-being, on a universe-buster scale, and the various things attributed to Him are just massively over exaggerated.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 23, 2015, 10:53:59 am
Okay yeah, that was disrespectful of me. Sorry.hilarious revisionism
I find this particularly a) offensive and b) arrogant. Unless you actually read Hebrew, and have read the original passage, you aren't in a position to say whether a translation is revisionist.
Here's the closest I'll probably ever be to reading the original Hebrew:
http://biblehub.com/text/judges/1-19.htm
Seems to put all the focus on God, just like all but the most recent translations agree. But you're right that I don't know Hebrew. It's just a suspiciously convenient change.
But what I should have focused on is that the edit doesn't resolve the underlying issue. God was with Judah, and granted them victory over the mountain people. But He or they failed to drive out the valley people. Specifically because of iron chariots. It strongly implies God was at least still helping them, so I argue this is still evidence of God failing.
Also I still think that this god doesn't act anything like Jesus or Jesus's father.
Post by: UXLZ on July 23, 2015, 10:57:09 am
Post by: Arx on July 23, 2015, 11:18:57 am
It's silly because omnipotence is silly. It doesn't work, and I've yet to see anyone tell me how it actually could short of saying it just does.
More iron chariots. (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Omnipotence_paradox)
You mentioned before that you doubted God's omniscience Arx, do you doubt His omnipotence too?
Much as I fear I may go blind from quoting myself,
And honestly, I mostly agree with you guys about the omnipotence. Particularly given things like the variant translations of pankratos and all that.
I think you'll find I've already answered that question. I do still hold that from a human standpoint He might as well be, physically and in many ways metaphysically, but the Bible suggests Almighty just means really frickin' mighty.
Post by: TD1 on July 23, 2015, 11:47:32 am
Post by: Rose on July 23, 2015, 12:32:40 pm
Do you think the bible is the only way to know God?First you need to answer the question of "Is the bible a way to know God"
Post by: TempAcc on July 23, 2015, 12:41:39 pm
This is obviously, easier said than done, but the backwards path often leads to terrible things.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 23, 2015, 04:28:25 pm
Post by: TempAcc on July 23, 2015, 05:22:14 pm
This is why I'm no atheist, but certainly not a proper Christian according to most doctrines. I believe (emphasis in believe, as in, I don't know if this is true or even properly reasonable) that we should look for evidence of God and the divine in ourselves and the universe, and the first step to this is admitting that, in the grand scheme of the cosmos, we don't really know much of anything, and that quite a lot we know and take for granted (from both science and religion, in several ways) is based on speculation and relies a lot on our imperfect senses and awareness.
As such, (again, I believe) taking anything for granted, either by refusing to accept the existence of God because we cannot perceive it; or by completely assuming we are absolutely right in regards to God because we interpreted and understood (with our limited senses and awareness) a source of information attributed to Him in a way or another, means imposing limitations on your awareness and stunting your growth as a living mind.
I'm not really an agnostic, though, since I do believe in God and the divine, I just admit that, currently, I do not have enough awareness to claim it to be real. Faith, after all, doesn't mean knowing something to be true, in an empirical sense, but feeling that something is true. Some feel it, some don't, its part of our nature regardless.
As badly worded as it is, this is roughly what I believe in.
If the fundie protestant view of hell is true though, I'm prob kinda fucked, but whatever :v
Post by: Bohandas on July 23, 2015, 11:41:47 pm
Quote from: Judges 1:19And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.The NIV version changes it to "they" couldn't drive them out, for obvious reasons, but even that hilarious revisionism doesn't really address the issue.
This is now one of my favorite bible verses, (along with Ecclesiastes 1:2, Ecclesiastes 3:19, and the fake passage from Ezekiel in Pulp Fiction)
EDIT:
Also the story of Daniel Vs. Bel and the Dragon
EDIT:
Also Mathew 23:23 and 23:13
EDIT:
And Ecclesiastes 1:15, 1:18, 4:13, and 7:20, 9:1-6, 9:10-12, and of course 12:8
Post by: Descan on July 24, 2015, 12:11:10 am
Quote from: BIBBLES
The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.
Post by: Adragis on July 24, 2015, 12:47:30 am
The 'chariots of iron' thing is now my favourite bible verse
Although there's another one:
Daniel 2:1
'And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.'
department of redundancy department much
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 24, 2015, 12:58:22 am
Post by: Adragis on July 24, 2015, 01:02:58 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 24, 2015, 01:07:50 am
Post by: Frumple on July 24, 2015, 01:11:07 am
Post by: Adragis on July 24, 2015, 01:16:52 am
It is 'nebber-ka-nezzer', right?
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 24, 2015, 02:01:19 am
Post by: Rose on July 24, 2015, 02:05:40 am
Post by: Graknorke on July 24, 2015, 04:29:44 am
My favourite is Genesis 11:8.I don't think it's meant to be inspirational.Quote from: BIBBLESThe LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.
Post by: Calidovi on July 24, 2015, 09:48:48 am
I think it's neh-buh-ka-nee-zer. I am not completely sure though.
I say it Neh-bu-ka-neh-zer.
Post by: Descan on July 24, 2015, 11:45:03 am
That's the best part.My favourite is Genesis 11:8.I don't think it's meant to be inspirational.Quote from: BIBBLESThe LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.
If we're united, even God himself fears us!
Post by: TD1 on July 24, 2015, 11:48:55 am
Wasn't he scared because they were building a tower to him, or something? Wonder what he thought of rockets.
Post by: Adragis on July 24, 2015, 11:53:59 am
We didn't build a rocket to get to God, we did it to stand on a ball of rock.
Post by: TD1 on July 24, 2015, 12:06:00 pm
Quote
But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
Well, it seems he wasn't scared of being reached. He was just afraid of what his creation could create.
Rockets would fit with that fear, I'd think.
Post by: Descan on July 24, 2015, 12:06:32 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 24, 2015, 12:59:53 pm
also,
Quote from: Judges 1:19
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.without any background i would interpret this as
Quote
And the LORD was with Judah; and Judah drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.why isn't this the mainstream view?
Post by: TD1 on July 24, 2015, 01:02:19 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 24, 2015, 01:07:23 pm
Post by: Descan on July 24, 2015, 01:18:23 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on July 24, 2015, 03:19:22 pm
I thought Judah meant the nation of Judah, not a singular person?
Singular pronouns can be used to refer to nations. Judah was long dead by that time.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 24, 2015, 03:53:07 pm
Because God was with him, and he still failed. Saying Judah, with the help of God, failed is really not all that different from saying God failed.i guess the difference is that god doesn't fight Judah's battles, just gives it a damage bonus to certain units and bonus resource production, so there's still margin for human merit
Post by: TD1 on July 24, 2015, 04:13:56 pm
That just doesn't seem to be the case from what is written - God was with them, and they couldn't defeat the chariots.
Post by: Calidovi on July 24, 2015, 05:07:48 pm
I thought Judah meant the nation of Judah, not a singular person?
Do you mean Judea?
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 24, 2015, 05:19:02 pm
Post by: Adragis on July 24, 2015, 05:54:56 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 24, 2015, 06:02:38 pm
Okay that's a joke. But I seriously do think he acts like one would expect Satan to act. Like a lot of ancient people believed.
Post by: TD1 on July 24, 2015, 06:03:14 pm
the obvious answer is that iron is so scientific it defies the supernaturalAnswering once and for all the question "can science and religion co-mingle?"
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 24, 2015, 06:34:05 pm
Now I want to post that scene from The Simpsons where the judge rules that Religion must stay at least 200 metres away from Science at all times.the obvious answer is that iron is so scientific it defies the supernaturalAnswering once and for all the question "can science and religion co-mingle?"
Post by: scrdest on July 24, 2015, 06:54:43 pm
I still like the idea that it's cold iron and OT God is a demon or fey.No, it's just that GOD FUEL CANNOT MELT IRON
Okay that's a joke. But I seriously do think he acts like one would expect Satan to act. Like a lot of ancient people believed.
Post by: Calidovi on July 24, 2015, 06:56:22 pm
I still like the idea that it's cold iron and OT God is a demon or fey.No, it's just that GOD FUEL CANNOT MELT IRON
Okay that's a joke. But I seriously do think he acts like one would expect Satan to act. Like a lot of ancient people believed.BEAMSCHARIOTS
God's wrath can't melt iron chariots.
Post by: Teneb on July 24, 2015, 07:42:43 pm
Iron Chariots OP, pls nerf.God's wrath can't melt iron chariots.I still like the idea that it's cold iron and OT God is a demon or fey.No, it's just that GOD FUEL CANNOT MELT IRON
Okay that's a joke. But I seriously do think he acts like one would expect Satan to act. Like a lot of ancient people believed.BEAMSCHARIOTS
I do wonder if the chariots were actual chariots though, or if that was just an analogy/excuse for the real reason they were defeated.
Post by: Calidovi on July 24, 2015, 08:30:21 pm
Iron Chariots OP, pls nerf.God's wrath can't melt iron chariots.I still like the idea that it's cold iron and OT God is a demon or fey.No, it's just that GOD FUEL CANNOT MELT IRON
Okay that's a joke. But I seriously do think he acts like one would expect Satan to act. Like a lot of ancient people believed.BEAMSCHARIOTS
I do wonder if the chariots were actual chariots though, or if that was just an analogy/excuse for the real reason they were defeated.
I take it analogously, as later on YHWH was able to help Barak and Deborah get rid of a bunch of soldiers with iron chariots. Of course, there will be those that argue endlessly of how the bible is completely literal, so take that as you will.
Post by: Helgoland on July 25, 2015, 04:35:20 am
Post by: Graknorke on July 25, 2015, 04:38:05 am
Post by: UXLZ on July 25, 2015, 04:39:12 am
Post by: TD1 on July 25, 2015, 04:42:02 am
Not talking about Bay12 in particular, just a general (and possibly false) assertion.
Post by: scrdest on July 25, 2015, 07:56:27 am
I dunno, the only real biblical literalists here are the hard atheists, aren't they?Nope.
Post by: Helgoland on July 25, 2015, 10:06:46 am
Post by: Calidovi on July 25, 2015, 10:16:42 am
On a slightly detached note, though, I thought it's slightly interesting that many 'holy decrees' are just put forth to stop the common ignoramus from killing themselves. Take, for example, the ban on eating anything with a 'split hoof'. Back then, pigs were filthy creatures that lived in muck, ate muck, and made a lot of muck. Eating them without modern sanitary tools could have easily been a death wish. As for the other examples in the passage, hyraxes and camels, they probably had a reason of their own. I am not knowledgable enough to explain that much.
Post by: Graknorke on July 25, 2015, 10:18:30 am
Post by: Rolan7 on July 25, 2015, 10:27:06 am
Post by: Calidovi on July 25, 2015, 10:28:39 am
Pigs are actually quite clean if you leave them to their own devices. They do get a lot of human-transmissible diseases though, just as a consequence of how similar we are.
It's true that they're clean. But how would that average man at that time know that? Pigs appeared loathsome at best, and the many sicknesses of people at that time probably led to a fear among the more knowledgable that 'the pigs did this (http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/017/995/damn_fb_100790.jpg)'. Or maybe God's prophets just assumed that the consumption of pigs, camels and hyraxes caused every problem of the iron-aged world.
Post by: Helgoland on July 25, 2015, 10:34:20 am
Post by: Calidovi on July 25, 2015, 10:38:05 am
IIRC the reason for pigs not being kosher was the above-average susceptibility of pork to trichinella worms in the middle eastern climate.
That makes a lot of sense, but of course it's easier to conclude that pigs are simply heathen creatures.
Post by: Adragis on July 25, 2015, 10:39:12 am
Post by: Calidovi on July 25, 2015, 10:39:53 am
Well, dogs were more trouble than pigs.
I don't claim to understand the full reasoning behind 'holy' and 'unholy' foods.
Post by: Adragis on July 25, 2015, 10:42:08 am
I think it's your point that people just said 'the pigs did it'.
Pigs weren't vermin, if I remember correctly. Dogs were.
Post by: Calidovi on July 25, 2015, 10:43:31 am
I dunno.
I think it's your point that people just said 'the pigs did it'.
Pigs weren't vermin, if I remember correctly. Dogs were.
I said the full reasoning. I kind of have an assumption for pigs, but everything else is unclear. Dogs are in the unclear zone.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 25, 2015, 10:49:25 am
As an aside, only kosher things can be sacrificed to God.
Post by: Calidovi on July 25, 2015, 10:57:28 am
Reminder that humans aren't kosher, but our blood is (according to some sources from 200AD, there's apparently disagreement nowadays).
As an aside, only kosher things can be sacrificed to God.
That's comforting.
Post by: Adragis on July 25, 2015, 11:27:07 am
Post by: Frumple on July 25, 2015, 11:34:38 am
Who(m?) did I miss?Origamiscienceguy, iirc, and I'm pretty sure someone further back with a name starting with g? Think there was at least one more professed christian that chimed in stating they were a biblical literalist, too. It's not been entirely unrepresented in the thread, anyway.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 25, 2015, 11:42:12 am
I thought blood as a rule wasn't kosher?There's a specific exception for human blood. Not in the Bible itself, but written about the same time as the Old Testaments. Also there is human sacrifice in the Bible, this exception just explains how it's kosher.
Post by: Adragis on July 25, 2015, 11:45:43 am
And the human sacrifice you're thinking of, is it the guy who said he'd give the first thing he saw at his home to God? Because that was more becoming a nun.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2015, 11:47:15 am
Post by: TD1 on July 25, 2015, 11:58:14 am
Cryxis I think would count, too?Who(m?) did I miss?Origamiscienceguy, iirc, and I'm pretty sure someone further back with a name starting with g? Think there was at least one more professed christian that chimed in stating they were a biblical literalist, too. It's not been entirely unrepresented in the thread, anyway.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 25, 2015, 12:59:39 pm
If it isn't in the Bible, or the Torah, or whatever, how is it a valid source?
And the human sacrifice you're thinking of, is it the guy who said he'd give the first thing he saw at his home to God? Because that was more becoming a nun.
Short answer to the first would be "it's in the Talmud".
Long answer is... I *finally* tracked down where exactly this information was coming from, and it doesn't really fit my case. It is in the Talmud... But not the early pre-Christ versions. Best I can tell, it was added during the revisions that were published between 350-500CE. So there's no real basis for human blood being kosher before that time.
And to be fair, they were probably addressing food that you accidentally bleed into (like from mouth cuts).
Possibly related to this ruling, medieval Jews were often accused of capturing Catholics for blood sacrifices. I've never heard that idea supported by serious historians though, so I seriously doubt it.
I'm done defeating my own point now, back on the offensive.
Despite humans not being kosher according to scripture, scripture does describe them being sacrificed to God. The case you mentioned with the guy returning home to his daughter, is Judges 11:30-40. She didn't become a nun-equivalent (which would have meant being a priest's wife or concubine):
The spirit of the Lord came to Jephthah
He specifically promised God a burnt offering
When he got home and saw his daughter, he lamented (also blamed her)
She begged for two months in the mountains first
When she returned, he "did with her according to his vow which he had vowed"
Just to drive it home, daughters in Israel had a custom of lamenting for her fate 4 days out of every year.
So yeah, he sacrificed her to God by burning. God didn't reject it, or release him from the vow (a thing which exists in Jewish law!). It's implied that the spirit of the Lord inspired him to make the vow in the first place, by appearing to him.
2 Samuel 21, God sends a plague because of Saul. David took 7 of Saul's male descendants and "hanged them in the hill before the LORD", and God ended the plague.
1 Kings 13:2, Josiah is prophesied (by God) to sacrifice enemy priests to God.
Quote
And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.2 Chronicles 34, Josiah does exactly that, God is pleased.
There are more examples. It's not kosher, but they did it anyway. Maybe humans are exempt from kosher laws because they aren't considered animals or something.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 25, 2015, 04:01:47 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 25, 2015, 04:03:21 pm
Well, supposedly. I'd argue he was human, but excuse my blasphemy :P
Post by: Rose on July 25, 2015, 04:06:47 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 25, 2015, 04:09:59 pm
He was very much a human.Indeed. The only real difference is that Christians say he was God at the same time.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 25, 2015, 04:10:14 pm
Post by: Rose on July 25, 2015, 04:12:04 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on July 25, 2015, 04:14:51 pm
I kinda count, too. I believe that the Bible is correct but occasionally mistranslated. Members of my faith mostly use a slightly modified KJV.Cryxis I think would count, too?Who(m?) did I miss?Origamiscienceguy, iirc, and I'm pretty sure someone further back with a name starting with g? Think there was at least one more professed christian that chimed in stating they were a biblical literalist, too. It's not been entirely unrepresented in the thread, anyway.
Post by: TD1 on July 25, 2015, 04:22:05 pm
Hence the "in spirit." Whilst his human body died, given the Christian focus on the spirit, I would assume the real "sacrifice" isn't in the flesh but the spirit?He was very much a human.Indeed. The only real difference is that Christians say he was God at the same time.
Then again, why God would have cared about the spirits of chickens and goats for a few thousand years I don't know, given their less-than-human status.
So I just confused myself. What is the purpose of divine sacrifice? Is it the flesh or the soul that's important? Both?
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 25, 2015, 07:12:46 pm
So I just confused myself. What is the purpose of divine sacrifice? Is it the flesh or the soul that's important? Both?The important part is that he received the punishment that would have otherwise been directed to us. That he is divine is largely incidental. Jesus is without sin, not owing anything, and thus paid the debt on behalf of Christians.
Post by: TD1 on July 25, 2015, 07:59:35 pm
Edit: Ah. Presumably that they, also, were innocent and so could pay for our sins. How horrible.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2015, 08:12:35 pm
Judaic sacrifice is a bit different from Christian sacrifice, and the latter tries to rewrite the former.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 25, 2015, 08:12:47 pm
Post by: UXLZ on July 26, 2015, 01:34:11 am
So I just confused myself. What is the purpose of divine sacrifice? Is it the flesh or the soul that's important? Both?The important part is that he received the punishment that would have otherwise been directed to us. That he is divine is largely incidental. Jesus is without sin, not owing anything, and thus paid the debt on behalf of Christians.
And why was he without sin?
Because he was divine.
Either that or sin is inherited through the father.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 26, 2015, 02:12:15 am
Not sinning isn't a uniquely divine trait per se. Adam and Steve didn't sin either, and they enjoyed fellowship with God - at least until Satan turned up.
Post by: Adragis on July 26, 2015, 02:16:09 am
Post by: UXLZ on July 26, 2015, 03:59:38 am
Post by: Helgoland on July 26, 2015, 04:21:21 am
Post by: TD1 on July 26, 2015, 05:48:12 am
If sin may be defined as the doing of bad things, then very arguably God has sinned many times. He has committed war crimes for the Jews at least.
Post by: Graknorke on July 26, 2015, 05:49:05 am
Post by: TD1 on July 26, 2015, 05:51:01 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 26, 2015, 05:53:59 am
Post by: Calidovi on July 26, 2015, 09:41:37 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 26, 2015, 11:49:30 am
Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it 'a den of robbers.'" The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.
Post by: Graknorke on July 26, 2015, 12:00:31 pm
His deaths may be validated by himself, but is sin by hos own definition. I fail.to see how that's not sinning.Because sin is not defined by the act, but by whether God thinks it's okay or not. So whenever he does a thing it's fine. Like how your parents (probably) told you that swearing is wrong; it's not that they think there's anything inherently wrong with swearing, they just want you not to do it.
Post by: UXLZ on July 26, 2015, 12:07:54 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 26, 2015, 12:14:55 pm
Post by: Graknorke on July 26, 2015, 12:16:34 pm
Robots programmed by humans cannot go against human willSure they can, people make mistakes in writing software all the time.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 26, 2015, 01:45:04 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 26, 2015, 01:46:13 pm
His deaths may be validated by himself, but is sin by hos own definition. I fail.to see how that's not sinning.Because sin is not defined by the act, but by whether God thinks it's okay or not. So whenever he does a thing it's fine. Like how your parents (probably) told you that swearing is wrong; it's not that they think there's anything inherently wrong with swearing, they just want you not to do it.
My parents did tell me not to swear, but they also follow their own advice. They don't swear 99.9999% of the time.
God tells us not to kill, and then goes rampant killing entire planets (barring a random family and some animals.) At the very least he's a hypocrite. Very arguably, by his own definition of sin (which isn't "do what I think is right," more "do not do these things, such as murder, because they are inherently wrong. That has been my interpretation, anyway.) he is a sinner.
Post by: Graknorke on July 26, 2015, 01:49:07 pm
This line of arguing runs straight into the euthyphro dilemma.Only if you say that good things are good in themselves. If you just accept that God's word is what's good because he says it then you're clear.
Post by: TD1 on July 26, 2015, 01:54:51 pm
So if God is the guiding point for Christian morals, where do you go when there are no teachings? Where does that "good" come from?
Post by: Graknorke on July 26, 2015, 02:17:49 pm
So if God is the guiding point for Christian morals, where do you go when there are no teachings? Where does that "good" come from?I dunno, pray and listen for voices in your head? I didn't write the book.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 26, 2015, 03:05:35 pm
It was a rhetorical statementRobots programmed by humans cannot go against human willSure they can, people make mistakes in writing software all the time.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 26, 2015, 05:59:58 pm
God tells us not to kill, and then goes rampant killing entire planets (barring a random family and some animals.) At the very least he's a hypocrite. Very arguably, by his own definition of sin (which isn't "do what I think is right," more "do not do these things, such as murder, because they are inherently wrong. That has been my interpretation, anyway.) he is a sinner.God tells us not to murder. Murder is unlawful killing. God has nothing against lawful killing, such as in war, self-defense, or capital punishment. Which is basically what he's doing.
The morality might be blue and orange, but it's not inconsistent.
Post by: Helgoland on July 26, 2015, 06:04:24 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 26, 2015, 06:32:28 pm
Heh, imagine if the tribe of Israel heard that. They wouldn't believe it, it's so against old testament scripture.
Post by: Helgoland on July 26, 2015, 06:40:17 pm
Turning the other cheek != not killing people - although this phrase has been perverted into a pacifist propaganda slogan, it originally referenced the two ways of slapping: The normal and the bitch slap. Turning the other cheek would force your adversary to slap you the normal way, acknowledging you as an equal. This phrase is about countering insults, not countering deadly force.
Forgiving everything != preventing bad things from happening. Forgiveness happens after the fact, not during.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 26, 2015, 07:18:19 pm
People hold up Jesus' sacrifice as the most forigving act imaginable - I might be wrong, but it's a lot easier for me to see that guy teaching limitless forgiveness rather than teaching his followers how to counter-insult effectively. That just seems so petty compared to everything else he did... except maybe his treatment of fig trees. But that was a metaphor.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2015, 07:26:07 pm
Other entries include "if any man asks for your cloak, give them your shirt" and "if a man asks that you carry his burden for a mile, carry it for two" being forms of passive resistance against the Romans, as any Roman solider could demand the former ones but would be punished for abuse of power for the latter ones, even if forced upon them by a "generous" Jew.
There's also the now-popular reversal of "blood is thicker than water" as "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb". This one I know to have no clear source.
Post by: TempAcc on July 27, 2015, 07:58:40 am
Post by: scrdest on July 27, 2015, 10:51:52 am
Probably not completely related to the current discussion, but I found this article to be rather interesting. (http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/religion-for-the-nonreligious.html)Oh jesus fuck (unintended), not this guy again. That stuff reads like MDickie.
Post by: TempAcc on July 27, 2015, 11:17:06 am
Post by: Angle on July 27, 2015, 12:05:28 pm
Probably not completely related to the current discussion, but I found this article to be rather interesting. (http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/religion-for-the-nonreligious.html)Oh jesus fuck (unintended), not this guy again. That stuff reads like MDickie.
What's wrong with his writing? I rather like it.
Why you be hatin, bro? ;)
Post by: Calidovi on July 27, 2015, 12:51:33 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 27, 2015, 01:01:00 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 27, 2015, 01:03:16 pm
Post by: scrdest on July 27, 2015, 01:33:43 pm
The kind of weaseling that only an overworked nihilist bureaucrat could love.That was the point. His opponents were trying to trick him into either inciting rebellion or being seen as a Roman shill.
Post by: Calidovi on July 27, 2015, 05:07:53 pm
Post by: Graknorke on July 27, 2015, 06:16:07 pm
It's very much a non-instruction. It's as good as staying silent. Same as telling someone "your BMI is ideal for someone of your height, age, and body mass." You did say something, but it's completely lacking in any real substance.The kind of weaseling that only an overworked nihilist bureaucrat could love.That was the point. His opponents were trying to trick him into either inciting rebellion or being seen as a Roman shill.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 27, 2015, 06:32:07 pm
Post by: Graknorke on July 27, 2015, 06:33:25 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 28, 2015, 01:36:41 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 28, 2015, 05:01:25 am
No, it says absolutely nothing. BMI is defined by height, age, and body mass. It can't be anything but ideal for those factors.If your BMI says you're hyperobese for your height, age and body mass then you're not ideal
Post by: Graknorke on July 28, 2015, 05:08:09 am
You cannot be hyperobese for your height, age, and body mass. You can be hyperobese, but with a height, age, and bodymass that makes you hyperobese you will only ever be hyperobese.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 28, 2015, 05:52:07 am
Post by: Graknorke on July 28, 2015, 05:56:03 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 28, 2015, 06:02:54 am
Post by: scrdest on July 28, 2015, 06:05:47 am
Again - that was the point. He had to say *something* but any substantial response would have gotten him in trouble. It was a bullet dodge.It's very much a non-instruction. It's as good as staying silent. Same as telling someone "your BMI is ideal for someone of your height, age, and body mass." You did say something, but it's completely lacking in any real substance.The kind of weaseling that only an overworked nihilist bureaucrat could love.That was the point. His opponents were trying to trick him into either inciting rebellion or being seen as a Roman shill.
Post by: Criptfeind on July 28, 2015, 06:08:51 am
Could somebody please come in and end this back-and-forth by explaining what I'm not getting thanks.I dunno, it looks like the original thought was missing the body mass thing, ie, the statement was you have an ideal BMI, which obviously is good and important information. When you returned with a no, I actually meant in the useless way, it quickly dissolved into insanity, although I can't tell how far that was because of continued misunderstanding about the inclusion of bodymass or LW being LW.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 28, 2015, 06:33:36 am
LW being LW.
Post by: Bohandas on July 28, 2015, 08:52:50 am
Hahahaha I don't get it either,
He specified body mass. He said "your BMI is ideal for someone of your ... body mass"
Post by: Calidovi on July 28, 2015, 08:57:54 am
Hahahaha I don't get it either, is this something to do with Caesar?
Your weight and height all play a role in your exact BMI. If you're 200 lbs and 6'4", then you have a BMI of 23.7. There is no way that could be a different number unless you change your weight and height.
Therefore, your BMI can't change if your height and weight don't change. Hope that elaborated.
Hahahaha I don't get it either,
He specified body mass. He said "your BMI is ideal for someone of your ... body mass"
Pre-edit, no.
Post by: Descan on July 28, 2015, 09:50:08 am
Post by: Calidovi on July 28, 2015, 12:56:31 pm
The only way your BMI could not be 'ideal' in that scenario is if you were an eldritch abomination that messes with basic mathematics.
BLACK GEOMETRY
Post by: Bohandas on July 28, 2015, 04:20:37 pm
The only way your BMI could not be 'ideal' in that scenario is if you were an eldritch abomination that messes with basic mathematics.
BLACK GEOMETRY
Is that like Jewish Physics?
Post by: wierd on July 29, 2015, 12:57:12 pm
Our 4 dimensional spacetime reality has "objects" inside it that are cross-sections of objects that exist in higher dimensional spaces. EG, how an MRI scan slice of a brain is. (Our brains are 3D objects, the MRI scan is a 2D slice of that 3D object. The eldritch abominations are similar to the MRI scan slice, except they are a 4D spacetime slice instead of a 2D timeless slice.)
Because of their existence in a higher dimensional spacial context, to them, the shortest distance between any two points may be signficantly shorter than for us, who are bound to our 4D spacetime. EG, the famous "Folding space" metaphor. (Draw two dots on a sheet of paper. What is the shortest distance between them? Well, you can draw a line on the paper between the two points (Shortest 2D distance), or you can make the distance 0, by curling the paper over on itself, so that two dots touch. (Shortest 3D path.)
Attempting to understand (and make use of) this higher dimensional gemoetric understanding of these creatures somehow causes madness in lovecraft's novellas, but that's another story completely. (I've touched on it previously already in other threads. Lovecraft apparently thought people were completely unable to handle such things at all. They go crazy at the smallest thing.)
One interesting feature of such a non-euclidian manifestation would be that it may appear to completely change form/structure, depending on the viewing angle, kinda like a hologram foil cup does, only with real manifestations (to us) instead of mere plays of light.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 29, 2015, 01:03:26 pm
One interesting feature of such a non-euclidian manifestation would be that it may appear to completely change form/structure, depending on the viewing angle, kinda like a hologram foil cup does, only with real manifestations (to us) instead of mere plays of light.
Not that far off quantum spin, then, but macroscale.
Post by: Angle on July 29, 2015, 01:11:01 pm
For example, let's suppose you have a set of beliefs. They make you happy, they explain the universe to your satisfaction, everyone you know shares them. Life is good. Now, let's suppose you encounter something that proves them all false. It shatters them into a million pieces and grinds their remnants into dust. How would you feel about that? For example, you believe that a loving god created humanity, and created the world for human benefit. Then you find proof - proof you can't possibly forget or ignore - that thats all false. The universe is vast and cold and uncaring, humans evolved from monkeys, and the earth has been here for billions of years and we don't matter in the slightest. Worse, that's all dropped on you in an instant and you can't possibly deny it. How would you feel about that?
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 29, 2015, 01:12:37 pm
Post by: scrdest on July 29, 2015, 01:27:31 pm
Well no, theres more to it than that. Remember, Lovecraft lived around the turn of the century, when things like the true age of the earth, the true extent of space, and the true origins of humanity were first being discovered. You know how we have all those creationists and such running around? It was much worse back then. He literally thought people would go insane if they grasped the true magnitude of such things.Oooor, you know, he was a writer who used concepts which were way big and popular at his time and mind-boggling enough for the average reader to evoke a sensation of 'WTF reality, Y U DO DIS?!'.
For example, let's suppose you have a set of beliefs. They make you happy, they explain the universe to your satisfaction, everyone you know shares them. Life is good. Now, let's suppose you encounter something that proves them all false. It shatters them into a million pieces and grinds their remnants into dust. How would you feel about that? For example, you believe that a loving god created humanity, and created the world for human benefit. Then you find proof - proof you can't possibly forget or ignore - that thats all false. The universe is vast and cold and uncaring, humans evolved from monkeys, and the earth has been here for billions of years and we don't matter in the slightest. Worse, that's all dropped on you in an instant and you can't possibly deny it. How would you feel about that?
Same way kooks and sci-fi writers still use quantum everything to evoke bleeding edge scienciness- an average layman knows enough about the concept to know it's apparently a big new science thing which does things but not enough to understand that no, quantum whatever could not possibly make sense.
Post by: Bohandas on July 29, 2015, 01:53:37 pm
Post by: Frumple on July 29, 2015, 01:57:59 pm
All things considered, it probably even happened back in Pythagoras's time. Would not be surprised in the least if the phrase predated christianity :V
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 29, 2015, 02:00:56 pm
Post by: Calidovi on July 29, 2015, 09:05:39 pm
Probably some teenager's bad poetry, really. Almost certainly the first instance, that.
Actually, I think it was poetry.
Post by: MrWillsauce on August 01, 2015, 10:55:17 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 01, 2015, 05:45:26 pm
Hispanic calculusVile hellspawn
Post by: Rolan7 on August 02, 2015, 04:49:10 pm
Post by: Graknorke on August 02, 2015, 04:54:05 pm
Animism is the faith everybody has before they get converted by priests, or abandon faith for scientific testing.Is it? I don't remember having any ideas about things having spirits in them besides those I picked up from media and other people.
Post by: Rolan7 on August 02, 2015, 04:59:16 pm
Shinto is the Japanese belief that natural objects have spirits.
Native Americans worshiped and erected totems to natural forces.
The Europeans whispered about Fey well into medieval times.
African religions were almost the definition of animism.
These ideas developed independently, and I think we all recognize them despite our upbringing. It doesn't mean they're true, just that we have them in common.
Post by: TD1 on August 02, 2015, 04:59:41 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on August 02, 2015, 05:01:47 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 02, 2015, 05:05:02 pm
Post by: Adragis on August 02, 2015, 05:06:44 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 02, 2015, 05:08:52 pm
Quote
Unless you believe otherwise.
Post by: Adragis on August 02, 2015, 05:11:32 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on August 02, 2015, 05:49:50 pm
This is the core of sci-fi about androids. It behaves just like (some of) us, hence we feel that it deserves consideration.
Then look at an ape. They have emotions like we do, thus they're like us.
Then look at a rat. It flees and squeals like we do, thus we feel for it.
We even feel bad about squishing ants for fun. Why? They're nothing more than vermin, worse than vermin, fractions of an actual being. To exterminate them for infesting our house is fine.
But to hunt them down outside and squish them, or burn them under a magnifying glass? We feel that that is wrong. That's the reason some of us do it, and others of us are repulsed. We do care.
The big jump is from life to nonlife, and maybe that's too far. Maybe life itself is special. I would be happy for people to recognize and respect that much.
You can respect something while eating it, lest I be misunderstood. I'm mostly vegetarian, but I do eat living, thinking beings. I just believe they have souls.
Sometimes, I dream of being them. It's a natural process. I'm going to die someday, and I'll probably be wasted in some incinerator. I'm not proud of that.
Post by: Graknorke on August 02, 2015, 06:13:56 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 02, 2015, 06:15:01 pm
What I'm trying to say is that we value our life as being above everything else. The ant does the same. When it dies, it ceases to exist. It is gone. Its universe has been destroyed.
...I think I may have gone on something of a tangent.
Post by: i2amroy on August 02, 2015, 07:05:14 pm
What I'm trying to say is that we value our life as being above everything else. The ant does the same.I'm not sure I'd agree with this. I'd say that ants, bees, and many other hive insects are one of the most gregarious examples of a creature that values something else above its own life, notably the continuation of the hive. There's a reason why some species of ants and bees have developed literal suicide bombers, because in their view the life of the colony is greater than any one of their lives. (Additionally studies have shown that sick hive insects actually pull the whole "walk out into the wasteland alone so as to give everyone else a better chance of survival" fairly regularly instead of staying and consuming resources that could be used to feed other ants).
Post by: TD1 on August 02, 2015, 07:09:12 pm
Post by: i2amroy on August 02, 2015, 07:11:35 pm
Post by: UXLZ on August 02, 2015, 07:48:56 pm
Quote from: Dwarfy
I suppose I'm something of a hypocrite, as I'm not a vegetarian, but I think I would be if I had the option between killing or greens, I'd take the greens.
And yet you say you're not a vegetarian, so what you mean is that you're averse to killing yourself rather than the act of killing as a concept. If someone else does it far away, in a place you never have to think about, who cares, right?
At least, that seems to be the implication. Am I misunderstanding?
Post by: TD1 on August 02, 2015, 08:13:50 pm
I am a living contradiction, I guess. The only way it works is by not thinking about it. Actually personally having to choose between killing the animal and the greens, who would kill the animal? Having to choose a burger on a menu isn't the same thing. So I'm averse to both, but I'm just a terrible person. :(
Post by: Rolan7 on August 02, 2015, 08:19:32 pm
I think "living contradiction" is something we all do, a lot. The human brain thinks soft, not hard. It excels at insight and guesstimation, and fails at particulars.
I'm saying a rabbit has a bit of soul, just like us, and yet it's fine that it dies. We all die. Eating a dead animal can be a sign of respect, if we treat it as such. That's what the Native American animists believed, and I feel like they were right.
Post by: TD1 on August 02, 2015, 08:24:55 pm
Post by: UXLZ on August 02, 2015, 08:51:32 pm
Vegetarianism just comes naturally to me, I guess I'm lucky. I occasionally eat fish, but most meat tastes disgusting to me.
Post by: Rolan7 on August 02, 2015, 08:53:17 pm
@Th4DwArfY1
One answer is consciousness. Something "looking through the viewport". Self-awareness. To lesser and lesser degrees, as you examine more primitive animals. That would be an acceptable answer to "what is a soul".
What I actually believe goes farther, into the ""supernatural"". I believe living and unliving things have a soul, currently outside the detection of science. That living and nonliving phenomena interact in an unknown ("ethereal") way. That a mountain isn't an organism, but it is alive, and can be heard and subtly (and stupidly) react to stimuli. That deep forests thrum with a secret energy. That there are things lurking in the shadows, watching and whispering. Playing their pranks, avoiding detection with... sylvan expertise.
I believe in fey, like my ancestors did. I believe in weather and terrain spirits, as our ancestors did. I believe the hills are alive, in the unscientific sense.
I believe in what we all believed 5000 years ago, and have since denied. It wasn't SCIENCE that changed our minds, it was other faiths. Consolidation of thousands of spirits into pantheons of hundreds, or dozens, then eventually into monotheisms. We STILL feel things whispering to us in the dark. And in the light, looking over a landscape or deep forest. We just tried to name and thus know them, or in rare cases ignore them. But I'm pretty sure we all feel them.
The truth about the natural world doesn't come from mindworms evolved over generations. It comes from actually listening. And as proof, the earliest human art is FOURTY THOUSAND years old. It doesn't support any world religions... It depicts humans and other creatures. Without any indoctrination, *that* is what the first artists observed and were moved to depict.
(None of this runs counter to the scientific method. Intelligent beings with unknown powers could easily avoid us in forests, caves, or the oceans. For all we monitor, there is so much we can't)
Post by: TD1 on August 02, 2015, 08:59:12 pm
Post by: Helgoland on August 02, 2015, 09:08:11 pm
Quote
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.I may be a vegetarian, but fuck animals. Who gives a shit about them? I'd avoid torturing them more than necessary, but they're certainly not significantly different from the plants that I eat or the rocks that we crush to forge our tools.
Post by: Rolan7 on August 02, 2015, 09:15:06 pm
I respect that, most people behave that way. But, is there a line you draw? Monkeys, cats/dogs, parrots?QuoteAnd God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.I may be a vegetarian, but fuck animals. Who gives a shit about them? I'd avoid torturing them more than necessary, but they're certainly not significantly different from the plants that I eat or the rocks that we crush to forge our tools.
To be clear I would eat any of those if I felt like I could do it respectfully. Heck, I don't feel any problem with this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/young-outlawz-admit-smoking-tupac-shakur-ashes-mixed-marijuana-1996-article-1.950906
Since a human can clearly express consent...
Edit: To be honest, I missed the "vegetarian" part. But what I asked still mostly stands, I guess.
Post by: UXLZ on August 02, 2015, 09:22:59 pm
@Rolan: That's the kind of thing I wish I could believe. It's nice, and romantic, but ultimately...
Maybe there are things. Fairies, kobolds, dragons. Hidden away in the deep and the dark places of the earth. But I will never see them, and they will never see me.
Post by: Calidovi on August 02, 2015, 09:39:41 pm
QuoteAnd God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.I may be a vegetarian, but fuck animals. Who gives a shit about them? I'd avoid torturing them more than necessary, but they're certainly not significantly different from the plants that I eat or the rocks that we crush to forge our tools.
While I disagree on the rocks, I'm still don't know how the mere fact that we empathize with creatures that communicate and move (note how I'm not saying life in general) is supposed to define our humanity.
Post by: Helgoland on August 02, 2015, 09:48:44 pm
Fuck dogs, they're smelly and kinda dumb. Monkeys are basically vermin where they occur naturally; and why should parrots be special? Cats I have a certain amount of affection for, but that still doesn't make them special. Why should I draw a line?I respect that, most people behave that way. But, is there a line you draw? Monkeys, cats/dogs, parrots?QuoteAnd God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.I may be a vegetarian, but fuck animals. Who gives a shit about them? I'd avoid torturing them more than necessary, but they're certainly not significantly different from the plants that I eat or the rocks that we crush to forge our tools.
Hell, I have enough of a problem drawing the line when it comes to people.
Post by: Descan on August 02, 2015, 09:50:55 pm
Post by: Bohandas on August 02, 2015, 10:51:19 pm
QuoteAnd God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.I may be a vegetarian, but fuck animals. Who gives a shit about them? I'd avoid torturing them more than necessary, but they're certainly not significantly different from the plants that I eat or the rocks that we crush to forge our tools.
That's true, but really the same can be said of people as well if you really want to look at things objectively.
I respect that, most people behave that way. But, is there a line you draw? Monkeys, cats/dogs, parrots?QuoteAnd God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.I may be a vegetarian, but fuck animals. Who gives a shit about them? I'd avoid torturing them more than necessary, but they're certainly not significantly different from the plants that I eat or the rocks that we crush to forge our tools.
To be clear I would eat any of those if I felt like I could do it respectfully. Heck, I don't feel any problem with this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/young-outlawz-admit-smoking-tupac-shakur-ashes-mixed-marijuana-1996-article-1.950906
Since a human can clearly express consent...
They're just saying that to cover for the fact that there were no ashes because Tupac is alive, and he and Biggie are working on a collaboration album with Elvis Presley :D
Post by: Adragis on August 03, 2015, 12:51:39 am
Just throwing it out there.
Post by: Helgoland on August 03, 2015, 06:14:38 am
Please don't eat me, Helgy.Hey, I'm a vegetarian already! There's no need to worry about eating, unless a session of how gay can you go turns out horribly wrong.
Sure! Why do we consider war not to be immoral in general, but just in most particular instances? Because we're not against killing people if it's done in the right context. We're just against killing people in most cases - much like I'm against killing or torturing animals in most cases as well.QuoteAnd God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.I may be a vegetarian, but fuck animals. Who gives a shit about them? I'd avoid torturing them more than necessary, but they're certainly not significantly different from the plants that I eat or the rocks that we crush to forge our tools.
That's true, but really the same can be said of people as well if you really want to look at things objectively.
The difference is of course quantitative: I care much more for a human being than for a random animal.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 03, 2015, 06:48:59 am
If we're talking about spirits, souls and the like, I always wondered how a soul affects the thought process, which is a series of chemical reactions.We've definitely had this discussion before, but there's no harm in doing it again.
Personally, I don't see any reason to believe that the soul is a thing in the first place. It's not explicitly described in the Bible, and when it is mentioned it's usually better translated as "inmost being" or "heart", or something to that effect, rather than "intangible spirit thingy bobbing along beside you and directing your thoughts".
Most people I've spoken to seem to think that the soul is kind of like a perfect reflection of yourself/your mind, so after you die stuff like brain damage or whatever isn't carried over, but while you're alive the physical processes are still affected by that stuff.
Post by: Rose on August 03, 2015, 07:18:22 am
There's the soul, which is eternal, then there's the subtle body, consisting of the mind, intelligence, and ego, and finally the gross body, which is the physical one you see.
Post by: TempAcc on August 03, 2015, 07:56:06 am
Spiritism/Spiritualism takes this a step further by dividing humans on 4 bodies, which are the physical body, the vital essence, the soul and the mental body. The vital essense is what powers your physical body and keeps your soul tied to it, and dies along with the physical body on death. The vital essence also acts as a limiter, and generally prevents memories of your past lives from affecting your current incarnation. The difference between the soul/spirit and your mind isn't always properly described, but its has been explained that the soul is how your mind interacts with the universe, with your mind being your true self.
Gnosticism defines the soul as one of the sparks of divinity that got trapped in the physical universe by the demiurge.
The brain could be interpreted as the physical interface through which the soul interacts with the body through chemical reactions and electrical impulses.
Regardless of how its described, the concept of souls is old as hell, and may even predate religion. In fact it may have been the very thing that originated many religions (and not the other way around), but this is just speculation.
On animals: I don't know, I respect animals as living beings, but I don't believe animals are somehow magical and exempt from being evil. I'm not the kind of person that believes dogs are completely angelic beings that are only capable of love, or that some animals are inherently noble because they're pretty or such things.
I'm ok with killing insects and other things that trespass into my personal space because, well, that's a natural behavior. I mean, there are animals that will kill things for trespassing into their territory, so why wouldn't I? There are also animals that kill for fun and seem to take pleasure in torture, like dolphins.
I do believe love, empathy and compassion are virtues everyone should aim to have, but I'm omnivorous, and I'll eat meat if it is available to me, and I'll kill things if I'm in a state of need, or to protect myself or things that I want to protect.
Post by: Graknorke on August 03, 2015, 08:17:00 am
I believe in what we all believed 5000 years ago, and have since denied. It wasn't SCIENCE that changed our minds, it was other faiths. Consolidation of thousands of spirits into pantheons of hundreds, or dozens, then eventually into monotheisms. We STILL feel things whispering to us in the dark. And in the light, looking over a landscape or deep forest. We just tried to name and thus know them, or in rare cases ignore them. But I'm pretty sure we all feel them.You can't just push your beliefs onto everybody else :/
And I don't really get how people drawing animals supports what you've said. All it means is that they wanted to draw animals because they're something important.
Post by: BFEL on August 03, 2015, 09:23:59 am
I care much more for a human being than for a random animal.In many cases BFEL is the exact opposite.
Fluffyness is probably the scariest evolutionary mutation other then smarties.
The only reason panda's are still alive now is because they are fluffy and thus we try to fight their suicidal refusal to mate for them.
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2015, 09:26:28 am
Post by: scrdest on August 03, 2015, 09:30:44 am
It's not a suicidal tendency, given they don't try to kill themselves. They just don't make more pandas.I'd think a poet would recognize a non-obvious usage of a word :P
It is a suicidal tendency - on a species level. It's very obviously not one on an individual level; hell, quite the opposite considering the amount of resources an individual must expend to raise a child if the reproductive strategy isn't 'Birth get, gg, now fuck off and survive or whatever'.
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2015, 09:34:41 am
Post by: scrdest on August 03, 2015, 09:38:00 am
Ah, but I'm not a poet. I'm just an aspiring village bumpkin.Funny, I had almost word for word the exact same reaction when called a musician. First rule of the Aspiring Bumpkin Club is we do not talk about not being in the Aspiring Bumpkin Club.
Post by: Bohandas on August 03, 2015, 11:49:14 am
Please don't eat me, Helgy.Hey, I'm a vegetarian already! There's no need to worry about eating, unless a session of how gay can you go turns out horribly wrong.Sure! Why do we consider war not to be immoral in general, but just in most particular instances? Because we're not against killing people if it's done in the right context. We're just against killing people in most cases - much like I'm against killing or torturing animals in most cases as well.QuoteAnd God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.I may be a vegetarian, but fuck animals. Who gives a shit about them? I'd avoid torturing them more than necessary, but they're certainly not significantly different from the plants that I eat or the rocks that we crush to forge our tools.
That's true, but really the same can be said of people as well if you really want to look at things objectively.
The difference is of course quantitative: I care much more for a human being than for a random animal.
I'm actually more against war than most people. I believe that even if it isn't possible to solve something peacefully it's generally at least possible to solve it with assassinations; but people seem to be opposed to assassinations for some reason.
Post by: Helgoland on August 03, 2015, 01:30:56 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2015, 01:39:30 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2015, 01:41:02 pm
Who wants to have a thumb war over Ukraine! Anyone?
Post by: Graknorke on August 03, 2015, 01:50:22 pm
Post by: Bohandas on August 04, 2015, 12:29:10 pm
EDIT:
And the preception of relative fairness is part of the reason why I oppose wars. Because it derives from unneceaasrily risking your own people when you might have wiped out your enemy remotely or clandestinely and spared your people entirely; it derives from poor governance.
Post by: Graknorke on August 04, 2015, 12:40:20 pm
Post by: wierd on August 04, 2015, 12:42:09 pm
The desire to always try to deal oneself an advantage, instead of working toward a mutually, and equally beneficial partnership, has always struck me as one of the most illogical things humans seem wired to undertake.
The prisoner's dilemma can kiss my ass. I am a rational actor, and will seek the ideal solution. What is most beneficial to me is not necessarily the ideal solution. It simply floors me that people even CONSIDER the selfish choice.
(and the argument that choosing the selfish choice is the rational answer, because the other side will choose the selfish answer, is not rational. It is a tautology, predicated on irrational choice making.)
Post by: Tomasque on August 04, 2015, 12:44:29 pm
That, and they are often used as a justification for a war. Franz Ferdinand, anyone?Much agreement.
We'd be better off settling it with some non-lethal competition.A chess match would be so much cooler.
Who wants to have a thumb war over Ukraine! Anyone?
Post by: wierd on August 04, 2015, 12:47:47 pm
That, and they are often used as a justification for a war. Franz Ferdinand, anyone?Much agreement.We'd be better off settling it with some non-lethal competition.A chess match would be so much cooler.
Who wants to have a thumb war over Ukraine! Anyone?
And a child shall lead them? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNk0rpXzpOg)
Post by: Teneb on August 04, 2015, 01:05:41 pm
Post by: Bohandas on August 04, 2015, 01:14:32 pm
Are you one of those people who thinks that assassinating Hitler would have stopped WW2? Because it wouldn't. He didn't get elected because his ideas were outliers. Being upset with the rest of the world, desiring more national power, and hating Jews were all the prevailing opinions.
Killing Hitler preemptively might not have somne much good, but killing him af5er he established his cult of personality might have wrecked Nazi morale. Also, killing Mussolini would definitely have done some good, as his administration was not very popular. Besides, I'm not necessarily talking about individual assassinations; in the WWII example, the aim from the beginning would be to also kill Himmler, Goring, and Goebbels as well; preferably simultaneously if possible (maybe also set some fires in administrative buildings important to infrastructure as well).
EDIT:
The ideal situation would be to if all the enemy leaders were conferring with each other in a single place; you could then drop a blockbuster on that place.
Post by: wierd on August 04, 2015, 01:14:41 pm
Post by: wierd on August 04, 2015, 01:19:11 pm
Are you one of those people who thinks that assassinating Hitler would have stopped WW2? Because it wouldn't. He didn't get elected because his ideas were outliers. Being upset with the rest of the world, desiring more national power, and hating Jews were all the prevailing opinions.
Killing Hitler preemptively might not have somne much good, but killing him af5er he established his cult of personality might have wrecked Nazi morale. Also, killing Mussolini would definitely have done some good, as his administration was not very popular. Besides, I'm not necessarily talking about individual assassinations; in the WWII example, the aim from the beginning would be to also kill Himmler, Goring, and Goebbels as well; preferably simultaneously if possible (maybe also set some fires in administrative buildings important to infrastructure as well).
With a headquarters that look like this--
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
That edifice just screams "OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!" (even though it actually says Yes Yes Yes instead) what with that giant stone face with its glaring expression and all. All it needs are giant clenched fists in red, and guards with tanks out front.
Post by: Conradine on August 04, 2015, 01:31:26 pm
Post by: Arx on August 04, 2015, 02:11:02 pm
Theistic satanism ( chaos magick custom belief system ).
How do you view Satan?
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 04, 2015, 03:36:07 pm
how can you possibly think it would EVER be popular?It'd be popular among people who look like Mussolini.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 04, 2015, 03:39:46 pm
Are you one of those people who thinks that assassinating Hitler would have stopped WW2? Because it wouldn't. He didn't get elected because his ideas were outliers. Being upset with the rest of the world, desiring more national power, and hating Jews were all the prevailing opinions.
Killing Hitler preemptively might not have somne much good, but killing him af5er he established his cult of personality might have wrecked Nazi morale. Also, killing Mussolini would definitely have done some good, as his administration was not very popular. Besides, I'm not necessarily talking about individual assassinations; in the WWII example, the aim from the beginning would be to also kill Himmler, Goring, and Goebbels as well; preferably simultaneously if possible (maybe also set some fires in administrative buildings important to infrastructure as well).
EDIT:
The ideal situation would be to if all the enemy leaders were conferring with each other in a single place; you could then drop a blockbuster on that place.
IIRC, when it became apparent to the Allies that Hitler had a tendency to overrule his skilled generals with massive tactical and strategic blunders, they chose to leave him alive lest someone more militarily competent took the reigns.
The trouble with such acts as you propose is in actually pulling them off. You could take down one high profile figure, maybe 2 if you were lucky, then security apparatus would go into panic mode and you would have little to no chance of getting subsequent hits. Doubly so if you rolled some sabotage into the mix. If they go wrong (as attempts did for Hitler, and notably Castro), it provides much propaganda to further reinforce a cult of personality.
Let us also not forget that the victims of assassination turn into martyrs for a cause, and it often is only good for their image, or cause they stood for. Look at the example set by Lincoln or JFK, for example.
Post by: Helgoland on August 04, 2015, 04:54:02 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 04, 2015, 05:03:02 pm
Theistic satanism ( chaos magick custom belief system ).
How do you view Satan?
Through a looking glass :P
Post by: Bohandas on August 04, 2015, 11:13:36 pm
Also he's implicitly calling drone strikes the only acceptable method of applying political violence. Not a popular opinion these days.
I also support ICBMs, cruise missiles, snipers, stealth bombers, poison, sabotage, submarine warfare, time bombs, car bombs, and the atomic bomb. I just don't like needless risk, or reckless valor, or any aspect whatsoever of martial culture. If it were possible I would like to see the military completely automated; we don't have everything we need to do that yet but we're slowly getting there.
Post by: i2amroy on August 05, 2015, 01:19:31 am
Post by: Graknorke on August 05, 2015, 01:50:16 am
To be honest it doesn't sound a great deal better.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 05, 2015, 02:09:55 am
Post by: Adragis on August 05, 2015, 02:58:43 am
Post by: i2amroy on August 05, 2015, 03:43:16 am
I mean we could have drones all over that could instantly kill those who disagreed with us, but that doesn't mean we have to actually use them to do so.
Post by: Bohandas on August 05, 2015, 09:37:40 am
Also he's implicitly calling drone strikes the only acceptable method of applying political violence. Not a popular opinion these days.
I also support ICBMs, cruise missiles, snipers, stealth bombers, poison, sabotage, submarine warfare, time bombs, car bombs, and the atomic bomb. I just don't like needless risk, or reckless valor, or any aspect whatsoever of martial culture. If it were possible I would like to see the military completely automated; we don't have everything we need to do that yet but we're slowly getting there.
I'm always fascinated by your posts. You suggest anti-corporation actions while also suggesting stuff almost right out of 1984, yet never on the same topic. You have an anti-TPP petition in your signature while offering your opinion on creating an automated military complex that would just bomb dissidents.
No, I'm concerned more about bombing enemy nations, enemy leaders and foreign terrorist organizations. And also making sure that the draft never comes back.
Also, if even the ostensibly positive depictions I've seen are even similar to reality the culture in the military is every bit as toxic as the culture in corporate america.
Post by: Helgoland on August 05, 2015, 09:41:00 am
Post by: Conradine on August 05, 2015, 12:16:04 pm
Quote
Quote from: Conradine on August 04, 2015, 01:31:26 pm
Theistic satanism ( chaos magick custom belief system ).
How do you view Satan?
Archetipical concept, eggregora created by collective thought AND personal thought-form.
The un-holy trinity.
Post by: Arx on August 05, 2015, 12:41:58 pm
QuoteQuote from: Conradine on August 04, 2015, 01:31:26 pm
Theistic satanism ( chaos magick custom belief system ).
How do you view Satan?
Archetipical concept, eggregora created by collective thought AND personal thought-form.
The un-holy trinity.
Interesting. Which archetypical concept? And what are the tenets of your belief? (If it's not obvious, I know nearly nothing about this.)
Post by: Conradine on August 05, 2015, 04:32:43 pm
Quote
Interesting. Which archetypical concept? And what are the tenets of your belief? (If it's not obvious, I know nearly nothing about this.)
For Laveyan satanists ( also called "rationalists" , although not every rationalist is a laveyan ), Satan embodies the archetypical concepts of self determination, the pursue of personal freedom, gratification and developement of potential. Chaos Magick system is used in many new age / gnostic movements and is, essentially, the notion that the power of belief is real and can shape ( and be shaped ) by the world. Laveyan focus on custom, pragmatical rituality to achieve whatever personal goals they pursue.
Tenets vary from branch to branch. Personally, I follow the teaching of my spiritual father...
well, he's also my biological dad ^^
His master was an university professor, that learned from our founder, an ex theravada monk from Siam that travelled to Europe, lived for seven years in the UK were he studied ermetism and ceremonial magic, then established in my country. He was a great scholar of occult, but I doubt he was merely a man.
Post by: Adragis on August 05, 2015, 04:35:00 pm
Post by: Conradine on August 05, 2015, 04:41:28 pm
Post by: Adragis on August 05, 2015, 04:48:36 pm
I lol'd.
Post by: Conradine on August 05, 2015, 08:13:03 pm
Every gate requires more dedication, effort and costance of mind, body and heart to be opened.
The First Gate of Hell:
This is the Textament of Belphegor, Duke of Sloth.
The Acolyte ought to constantly strive to rid himself of whatever qualities he recognize as wrong and harmful, shaking off laziness and apathy. He understands and accepts that actions will produce results and effects that correspond with the nature of that action, and take responsibility for his behiavour.
The Second Gate of Hell:
This is the Textament of Asmodeus, Duke of Lust.
The Acolyte ought to constantly strive to rid himself of whatever qualities he recognize as wrong and harmful. He rejects disordinate passions and sexual misconduit, keeping is body clean and pure.
The Third Gate of Hell:
This is the Textament of Baalzebul, Duke of Gluttony.
The Acolyte ought to constantly keep his minds alert to phenomena that could negatively affect the body and mind. He should be mindful and deliberate, making sure not to act or speak due to inattention or forgetfulness, and avoid any kind of intoxicating substance.
The Fourth Gate of Hell:
This is the Textament of Amon, Duke of Wrath.
The Acolyte ougth to never act impulsively and out of rage; he train himself to be rational, cautious and reasonable, not acting in ways that would be corrupt or bring harm to oneself or to others.
The Fifth Gate of Hell:
This is the Textament of Mammon, Duke of Greed.
The Acolyte ought not to gain profit from occupations which, either directly or indirectly, result in harm for other living beings. Forbidden trades are all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing, slave trading, prostitution, breeding animals for slaughter, manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs, producing or trading in any kind of poison or a toxic product designed to harm.
The Sixth Gate of Hell:
This is the Textament of Leviathan, Duke of Envy.
The Acolyte ought to abstain from lying, from divisive and abusive speech and to every form of deception. When he speaks, it must be true, beneficial and appropriate. If he can't benefit others with honest words, he stay silent.
The Seventh Gate of Hell:
This is the Textament of Lucifer, Duke of Pride.
The Acolyte adopt detached, non-judgemental way of seeing. He ought to be resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness; he must give up egoism, narcisistical habits and the desire of recognition.
The Golden Gate of Hell:
This is the Textament of Satan, Lord of the Darkness.
To fully embrace the inner darkness and become one with Hell, the Acolyte fully give up the notion of ambition, purifying the soul from the taint of desire and reliance on external goods and pleasures; he becomes a source of light on his own, finally achieving freedom from suffering and death.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 05, 2015, 10:32:03 pm
Post by: Adragis on August 05, 2015, 11:48:29 pm
Post by: Arx on August 06, 2015, 12:01:30 am
Next questions:
a) what body of knowledge is this drawn from? Is it all the Siamese monkns teaching, or influenced by LaVey, or what?
b) Do you believe in God (since clearly you believe in hell)?
c) Why do you refer to Satan as 'unholy', given that the goals you strive for fall exactly in line with the Western (and Christian) concept of goodness, holiness, and/or purity?
Post by: Bohandas on August 06, 2015, 12:03:09 am
Post by: Frumple on August 06, 2015, 12:33:53 am
Except that those have very little to do with Biblical (and fanfiction) Satan, apart from the self-determination thing.Well, fanfiction no, but biblical... well, do remember the bible doesn't really say much about satan, other than it (assuming the biblical satan is even a singular being) occasionally trying to tempt people away from its pappy. Those are about as in line with that as anything. The fanfiction is significantly more explicit, for what it's worth.
Quote
c) Why do you refer to Satan as 'unholy', given that the goals you strive for fall exactly in line with the western (and christian) concept of goodness, holiness, and/or purity?The devil (heh) is in the details, arx. Each of those gates have something in them that, while broadly speaking in line with what western traditions may consider good, are explicitly contrary to what many western traditions -- especially christianity -- consider holy. And there's often a helluva' difference between those two.
As the example, christianity has a strong message disdaining personal responsibility to any fundamental degree (forgiveness, god's will), encourages what satanism (so far as I'm aware) would consider disordinate passions (such as holy fervor), barely gives a damn about intoxicating substances (alcohol, in particular, is broadly speaking A-Okay), is perfectly okay with harming others under many conditions, encourages or allows many of the forbidden occupations (particularly the animal slaughter bit), encourages divisive speech (proselytizing), has desire for (god's) recognition as what amounts to a core tenant of its beliefs, and considers the ultimate goal to be the acquiring of an external good (god's blessing/salvation, which cannot come from the self). Many other western traditions are... well, of a similar nature. The gates are considered unholy because they're contrary to what is considered holy, more or less, so far as I understand things.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 06, 2015, 12:45:56 am
Post by: Conradine on August 06, 2015, 02:54:52 am
Quote
Next questions:
a) what body of knowledge is this drawn from? Is it all the Siamese monkns teaching, or influenced by LaVey, or what?
b) Do you believe in God (since clearly you believe in hell)?
c) Why do you refer to Satan as 'unholy', given that the goals you strive for fall exactly in line with the Western (and Christian) concept of goodness, holiness, and/or purity?
It's a long and weird, although inspirating, story. Our founder brought much of the Theravada teachings with him when he left Siam, but his life philosphy different significantly in several crucial aspect. One of them is that we don't think at the world as an illusion or projection, neither approve a passive acceptation of suffering. Instead, we focus a lot on preventing the suffering, using every tool that science, technology, spirituality and experience could gave us.
We do not believe in any kind of creative or omnipotent deity; also, for us, Hell is a state of mind ( that we try to achieve ).
We do not try to achieve a state of holyness; quite the opposite, we strive to give up the notion that humans are superior to animals, or that an human being can reach a condition of spiritual superiority toward another human being, or another living being at all. The enlightened darkness brings cessation of sufference and inner serenity, it's not an excuse to put oneself on a pedestal.
Also, a big difference with western christianity is that we believe that animals has the same right to live as us. Althought we admit self defense ( to not defend your life is to disrespect it ).
About question c, there are really many difference between our goals and those of a christian, but it could be resumed in one concept: personal responsability. In christianity, the burden of sin and the work of spiritual purification is shifted to the Savior; in the Path of Eight Gates, both work and consequences are upon the Acolyte.
Post by: Adragis on August 06, 2015, 03:07:12 am
Post by: TempAcc on August 06, 2015, 07:24:30 am
Post by: Bohandas on August 06, 2015, 08:59:19 am
Post by: Arx on August 06, 2015, 01:40:15 pm
Well, fanfiction no, but biblical... well, do remember the bible doesn't really say much about satan, other than it (assuming the biblical satan is even a singular being) occasionally trying to tempt people away from its pappy.
And being aligned with the demons, which basically don't seem to do anything except make life as terrible as possible for some poor sods. It's also kind of implied in 1 John that he/she/it is the embodiment of everything wrong with the world, not in the sense of teh gayz, but in the sense of bone cancer in six year olds. Which is part of why I'm quizzing Conradine like this, because presumably they don't worship Satan as represented in the Bible, because I doubt any reasonable person likes cancer in kids.
The devil (heh) is in the details, arx. Each of those gates have something in them that, while broadly speaking in line with what western traditions may consider good, are explicitly contrary to what many western traditions -- especially christianity -- consider holy.
As the example, christianity has a strong message disdaining personal responsibility to any fundamental degree (forgiveness, god's will),
"For faith without deeds is dead."
"It would be better for a millstone to be tied around their neck and for them to be thrown into the sea than for them to cause the least of these little ones to stumble."
Sort of. The thing most people forget about is that if you're not doing your absolute level best to not sin, you're screwing up on a slightly more abstract faith-based level.
Quote
encourages what satanism (so far as I'm aware) would consider disordinate passions (such as holy fervor)
I guess? It's not one of the defining features of Christianity, though - frothing is generally a better indicator of doing something wrong than right.
Quote
barely gives a damn about intoxicating substances (alcohol, in particular, is broadly speaking A-Okay)
Just because Satanism requires more asceticism doesn't mean it can't align with Christian values.
Quote
is perfectly okay with harming others under many conditions
I've probably made myself clear on this point before, but it's entirely possible to interpret Christianity such that the only time it is ever remotely acceptable to harm a believer or non-believer is when leaving them unharmed would have a definite negative effect on other believers or non-believers, in which case you can make the same argument under Satanism for non-pacifism.
Quote
encourages or allows many of the forbidden occupations (particularly the animal slaughter bit)
The only ones you can really interpret Christianity as supporting are the ones about the arms industry (if you take a slightly contorted approach) and the slaughtering industry. But again, just because it's more ascetic doesn't take it out of line.
Quote
encourages divisive speech (proselytizing)
You can make a strong case that if your proselytism is divisive you're doing it wrong, but I'll concede that point.
Quote
has desire for (god's) recognition as what amounts to a core tenant of its beliefs
But completely rejects egoism and narcissistic habits, and requires that you keep your good deeds completely concealed. To a certain extent though, yeah.
Quote
and considers the ultimate goal to be the acquiring of an external good (god's blessing/salvation, which cannot come from the self).
Fair point.
Quote
Many other western traditions are... well, of a similar nature. The gates are considered unholy because they're contrary to what is considered holy, more or less, so far as I understand things.
The only actual contrary thing is the ultimate goal being from within/without, though. Asceticism is pretty commonly a holy goal, and that's basically what the gates are, just progressively.
It's a long and weird, although inspirating, story. Our founder brought much of the Theravada teachings with him when he left Siam, but his life philosphy different significantly in several crucial aspect. One of them is that we don't think at the world as an illusion or projection, neither approve a passive acceptation of suffering. Instead, we focus a lot on preventing the suffering, using every tool that science, technology, spirituality and experience could gave us.
Is that life philosophy actually recorded somewhere, though? I assume it must be, since I doubt you keep the text of the eight gates (point of respect: would you rather I capitalised those? Wouldn't like to offend) exactly memorised.
Quote
We do not believe in any kind of creative or omnipotent deity; also, for us, Hell is a state of mind ( that we try to achieve ).
...so this actually has nothing to do with Satan except in name?
Quote
We do not try to achieve a state of holyness; quite the opposite, we strive to give up the notion that humans are superior to animals, or that an human being can reach a condition of spiritual superiority toward another human being, or another living being at all. The enlightened darkness brings cessation of sufference and inner serenity, it's not an excuse to put oneself on a pedestal.
Apart from the part about animals, this is more ore less what Christians believe, though. It's mentioned more than once that unless you are literally the Second Coming of the Christ you are in no position to judge anyone.
Quote
Also, a big difference with western christianity is that we believe that animals has the same right to live as us. Althought we admit self defense ( to not defend your life is to disrespect it ).
Interesting. I kind of expected that second distinction, but less so the first.
Quote
About question c, there are really many difference between our goals and those of a christian, but it could be resumed in one concept: personal responsability. In christianity, the burden of sin and the work of spiritual purification is shifted to the Savior; in the Path of Eight Gates, both work and consequences are upon the Acolyte.
I see. That makes sense, although I think people tend to remember the grace in Christianity and forget the faith and its implications.
Post by: Conradine on August 06, 2015, 04:54:07 pm
Quote
because I doubt any reasonable person likes cancer in kids
Well, not even in adults.
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 06, 2015, 04:55:42 pm
Seems like a fairly legit and groovy set of philosophies, just associated with, y'know, Satan.Pft, they're not sacrificing hobos in detroit - they're not legit Satanists. No true Satanist.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 06, 2015, 05:01:36 pm
It is, however, acceptable in babies and the elderly.Quotebecause I doubt any reasonable person likes cancer in kidsWell, not even in adults.
Post by: Conradine on August 06, 2015, 05:18:44 pm
Mabye, one hundred years from now, someone will take the confused and sometimes contradictory notes we put down and patch them together in an holy book, who knows.
The concise exposition of the Eight Gates is memorized, yes. ^^
But I also wrote it down.
Quote
...so this actually has nothing to do with Satan except in name?
The idea of Satan as archetipe of rejection of holiness and self-determination in achieving freedom comes from Aleister Crowley and Anton LaVey's philosphy. Our notion of freedom, although, is quite different. It's freedom from suffering, not freedom to indulge in passion ( that is not real freedom because it comes with pain ).
About biblical satan? Well, in the bible, "satan" means simply "adversary" and it's not a name, but a role that is played by several actors. The idea of Satan as a personal temptator appear only in the New Textament - and it's extremely vague, with no clear mention to a fallen angel or heavenly rebellion ( the hints to the "Morning star" attributed to Satan are, quite clearly, the mocking of an humane babylonian king ). In the medieval ages, Satan was ridiculed as a stupid, goat faced villain and not taken really seriously untill the Reform. I can say that the modern picture of Satan is not older than 4-5 centuries.
Also our picture of Satan is a construct. If it's not clear, we are basically atheists. The rituality is a pragmatical use of mental pratices. Demons do not really exist as phisical ( or even immaterial ) entities.
Post by: Bohandas on August 06, 2015, 10:42:34 pm
and it's extremely vague, with no clear mention to a fallen angel or heavenly rebellion ( the hints to the "Morning star" attributed to Satan are, quite clearly, the mocking of an humane babylonian king ). In the medieval ages, Satan was ridiculed as a stupid, goat faced villain and not taken really seriously untill the Reform.
What about the Book of Revelation?
Post by: TempAcc on August 06, 2015, 11:07:23 pm
"Morning Star" IE "luficer" is a name/word thats actualy used with some frequency in the bible. Hell, Jesus himself refers to himself as this in some translations in the book of revelations. I actualy need to find the exact quote, though. The only specifically attributed use of satan to refer a being happens exactly once in the bible, in Isaiah 14:12 (King James), and its done in a poetic way, making a comparison to babylon's impending fall. Then there's Job 38 (revised standard catholic) in which the term is used yet again, but apparently not referring to any being in particular.
Satan is never actualy equated to Luficer in the bible, thats a post biblical interpretation thats shady at best. The interpretation that lucifer was satan's name/title before his fall is, again, a post biblical interpretation that stuck on.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 06, 2015, 11:08:54 pm
And... Genesis.and it's extremely vague, with no clear mention to a fallen angel or heavenly rebellion ( the hints to the "Morning star" attributed to Satan are, quite clearly, the mocking of an humane babylonian king ). In the medieval ages, Satan was ridiculed as a stupid, goat faced villain and not taken really seriously untill the Reform.What about the Book of Revelation?
Post by: Bohandas on August 06, 2015, 11:16:19 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on August 06, 2015, 11:21:11 pm
and it's extremely vague, with no clear mention to a fallen angel or heavenly rebellion ( the hints to the "Morning star" attributed to Satan are, quite clearly, the mocking of an humane babylonian king ). In the medieval ages, Satan was ridiculed as a stupid, goat faced villain and not taken really seriously untill the Reform.
What about the Book of Revelation?
Revelation, even among Christians, is dubiously canon[Apocryphal is probably the exact right word here]. Essentially,this one guy around Jesus' time says God revealed stuff to him in the form of some weird acid trip thing. I wouldn't use it as a citation. Not that this is a Biblically unprecedented format, but I'd take it with a pillar of salt.
Most mentions of what we would call "Satan" in the Bible speak of a tempter, a twister of words. The dragon in the Garden of Eden, the temptation of Jesus in the desert and his appearance in Job mostly adhere to the same character: A voice that incites division and hatred, but does not act. Whether this entity is even an entity or is merely an symbol of temptation and such is ambiguous. The Apocrypha, from my limited knowledge of them, have a more explicit Adversary figure named Aza-somethingorother. Since this is[Obviously], an apocryphal source with which I'm mostly unfamiliar, I have no idea of the character or motivations of Azawhatsit at all.
Post by: Bohandas on August 06, 2015, 11:35:22 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 07, 2015, 01:16:06 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 07, 2015, 04:59:39 am
Post by: Conradine on August 07, 2015, 06:14:30 am
Quote
What about the Book of Revelation?
New textament. I said that the idea of personal Satan is missing in the Old textament.
Quote
And there's also the Book Of Job, in which Satan, though not depicted as being opposed to god, is still nonetheless depicted as an enormous asshole
In the Book of Job, the word "satan" is used as title /role that means "accuser / prosecutor". "angel" means "instrument of YHWH", and is used to indicate both people and events. No trace of a personal devil here.
Post by: Bohandas on August 07, 2015, 04:58:48 pm
Te "end times"/second coming certainly is, but as to wat form tat takes most people just srug and say "dunno, we're not told, but I like to tink it's X".
I meant "The Apocalypse" as in "The Book of Revelations". The book goes by both titles.
Post by: Salsacookies on August 09, 2015, 01:34:15 am
I believe vegetables get a way worse fate than animals ever will. They are living creatures, like animals, but they can't move and have limited responses to stimuli. When we decide to grow veggies, and harvest them, what we generally do is Amputate pieces of a living creature and wait until it grows more, then we amputate more parts. Repeat about twice a month, and we are pretty much torturing a defenseless piece of greenery that can do nothing to defend itself, all because we can't see it reacting negatively because it cannot do anything but stand there and grow.
I just don't see a way to live without killing another thing. Everything else kills each other, and even herbivores eat meat when convenient. We aren't being cruel by trying to live, it's just how nature works unfortunately. As omnivores, we can eat however we want. Either way, something's being hurt, however. There's no pain free option.
Post by: Frumple on August 09, 2015, 02:00:36 am
And hell, if it's really a problem for yeh, just stick to plants (or I guess animals, since there are... some. Generally stuff our systems don't react to well to hosting, though, beyond the bacterial level of things) that require being eaten to reproduce. Then you're just helping them along.
Post by: Adragis on August 09, 2015, 02:03:20 am
Post by: Salsacookies on August 09, 2015, 02:11:21 am
Post by: Frumple on August 09, 2015, 02:33:46 am
Still, it mostly depends on how you define harm. It's certainly painless (for the plants -- less so for the animals that end up dead to clear farmland et al), because (any known, anyway) plants are incapable of feeling pain, just like most insects, certain sea-dwelling macro-organisms, etc., etc. Pain is a fairly well defined phenomena from a physiological perspective, last I paid attention to that sort of thing.
And it's hard to say damage is really a fair qualifier -- there's plants that have to catch fire to continue their lifecycle, and many that have being eaten (sometimes to the death, iirc) in a similar position. Plus there's plenty of cases where damage is not harm -- see human exercise, ferex. Even straight up individual plant destruction is somewhat difficult to support as being substantially harmful -- plants that aren't kept to a stable population can and will end up driving themselves to extinction, and often times killing specific (diseased, ferex) plants is both relatively good for the plant itself (less net damage, same end results), and substantially good for every other of its kind in the vicinity.
Unthinking, short-sighted vegetarianism -- the sort that ends up driving animals and plants to extinction (aka agriculture :P) -- can definitely be harmful, though. Rub to that is that that's not really saying much. Unthinking, short-sighted just-about-anything can be harmful, heh. On the other hand, you could almost certainly run a vegetarian system that's a full on net good (i.e. net reduction of harm compared to an undisturbed system, by the heuristic being used), for the people subsisting off it, for the general plant population involved, for most individual plants included, for the associated fauna biosphere, and so on, and so forth. Might even be possible to manage that with a non-vegetarian food production system, if difficult and sub-par -- the right kind of suffering makes the meat taste better ♫
---
As for the 3D printing, obviously the resources for it are going to have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is almost certainly going to be reached by climbing over the corpses of mass populations of animals and plants. I'd almost wager that reliable, fully effective, non-animal replacements for meat will be the last death knell for most of the animal world. When we don't even care enough to keep them around to eat, we're going to expend significantly less effort keeping many (or any) of them around :V
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 09, 2015, 06:40:36 am
Until recently, it was the scientific consensus that crustaceans couldn't feel pain. Newer research suggests that was probably incorrect, but we aren't completely sure. We don't have a definite answer here, and when we thought we had one, we were wrong. Knowing that, how can we be so sure plants don't suffer when harmed? Their experience of the world is even more alien and incomprehensible to us.
Post by: TD1 on August 09, 2015, 06:47:32 am
Post by: Grim Portent on August 09, 2015, 06:51:12 am
They have a localised reaction to the damage, e.g. secreting sap, etc. However, this is most likely all - they don't have a central processor where they can feel the pain, and even if they did no communication channels to get it there.
Actually many plants secrete hormones into the air to alert nearby plants that they are being eaten or harmed, it prompts the others to begin producing protective substances like poisons that make them taste bitter, so the response isn't strictly localized.
Post by: TD1 on August 09, 2015, 07:00:59 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 09, 2015, 07:16:02 am
Post by: TD1 on August 09, 2015, 07:25:11 am
Post by: scrdest on August 09, 2015, 07:53:23 am
But lobsters still have nervous systems, and ganglia, hence why there's a possibility they feel pain, despite not having a centralised brain. Plants don't have nervous systems/cells, as far as my understanding of Biology goes.Nervous cells are, for the most part, regular-ass cells with a specialization in relaying signals; plants definitely have ways of systemic reactions to stimuli.
Post by: Sheb on August 09, 2015, 07:56:24 am
There is also a fairly good argument that plants dont feel pain because they have no need for it. The capacity to feel pains is an evolutionary mechanism. Its a signal for an animal that something is wrong and he should get the fuck out. Plants cant move to avoid painful stimuli anyway, so there is no reason for them to evolve nociception.
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 09, 2015, 08:37:06 am
Post by: Sheb on August 09, 2015, 08:39:24 am
Post by: TD1 on August 09, 2015, 09:25:05 am
Post by: Helgoland on August 09, 2015, 09:33:31 am
That makes sense, but it could also be that pain is a signal for an organism that something is wrong and it needs to react. Mobile organisms move away because that's the easiest response for them, but plants don't have that option so they react differently.So itching is a form of pain? What about the feeling of cold?
Post by: scrdest on August 09, 2015, 09:51:13 am
Frostbite is a thing. That hurts. You cannot really escape from the cold, strictly speaking.That makes sense, but it could also be that pain is a signal for an organism that something is wrong and it needs to react. Mobile organisms move away because that's the easiest response for them, but plants don't have that option so they react differently.So itching is a form of pain? What about the feeling of cold?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 09, 2015, 10:00:37 am
Post by: Adragis on August 09, 2015, 10:16:30 am
Post by: Rose on August 09, 2015, 10:17:22 am
Personally, I'm a vegetarian because meat's freaking gross.
Post by: Helgoland on August 09, 2015, 11:04:48 am
Sure, but the feeling of cold that I get when running through the streets of my city naked on a crisp January night is very much distinct from the feeling of pain, but still is signalling me that something is wrong.Frostbite is a thing. That hurts. You cannot really escape from the cold, strictly speaking.That makes sense, but it could also be that pain is a signal for an organism that something is wrong and it needs to react. Mobile organisms move away because that's the easiest response for them, but plants don't have that option so they react differently.So itching is a form of pain? What about the feeling of cold?
Come to think of it, the same is true for emotional distress.
Post by: scrdest on August 09, 2015, 11:13:00 am
Should have clarified - quite clearly, some kinds of pain, like, say, random headaches, do not fit into the model of pain as a cue for flight. As they cannot be escaped, they seem to be an organism's red flag for physiological disturbance - and the same kinda deal could be said of plant damage response signalling.Sure, but the feeling of cold that I get when running through the streets of my city naked on a crisp January night is very much distinct from the feeling of pain, but still is signalling me that something is wrong.Frostbite is a thing. That hurts. You cannot really escape from the cold, strictly speaking.That makes sense, but it could also be that pain is a signal for an organism that something is wrong and it needs to react. Mobile organisms move away because that's the easiest response for them, but plants don't have that option so they react differently.So itching is a form of pain? What about the feeling of cold?
Come to think of it, the same is true for emotional distress.
Post by: wierd on August 09, 2015, 12:38:47 pm
That makes sense, but it could also be that pain is a signal for an organism that something is wrong and it needs to react. Mobile organisms move away because that's the easiest response for them, but plants don't have that option so they react differently.So itching is a form of pain? What about the feeling of cold?
Bad analog there helgo.
Itching really IS related to pain. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2014/10/30/scratching-an-itch-really-does-make-it-worse-and-now-we-know-why/
Both of your interjections there use the same basic pathways to get to the brain, but originate in different cell site receptor proteins on the sensory nerve cell itself. It's just specialization for a kind of stimulous.
Also, plants move to avoid or approach sources of stimulus all the time. So do slime molds.
Post by: Helgoland on August 09, 2015, 12:45:40 pm
Bad analog there helgo.Yeah, I know - they're still distinct though.
Itching really IS related to pain.
Post by: Sheb on August 09, 2015, 12:55:26 pm
Post by: wierd on August 09, 2015, 12:59:35 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2677858/Bad-news-vegetarians-Plants-hear-eaten.html
It's both daily fail, AND on topic!
Post by: Adragis on August 09, 2015, 01:08:17 pm
it's not biased in any way
Post by: Bohandas on August 09, 2015, 01:38:35 pm
Or if your reasons for being a vegetarian are moral ones.
Personally, I'm a vegetarian because meat's freaking gross.
All foods are gross if you think about them too hard. That's how I stopped eating mushrooms.
Let's liven this up with some really bad source material!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2677858/Bad-news-vegetarians-Plants-hear-eaten.html
It's both daily fail, AND on topic!
I'm surprised. When I saw that headline I thought it was gonna be something about that polygraph crackpot from the 60's
So what happens when we can 3D-print meat efficiently?
Hypothetically it should result in both vegetarianism and the consumption of normal meat being abandoned by everyone but natural-living cranks and possibly, depending on the relative cost of production, the very poor. This will not happen anything even close to immediately after the technology is perfected however, due to ludditeism in the general population and sabotage by the now-obsolete ranching industry.
Also, plants move to avoid or approach sources of stimulus all the time.
Yes, but snapping leaves shut around a hapless insect or rotating to face the sun is a long way off from dodging or fleeing.
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 09, 2015, 03:16:18 pm
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Mimosa_Pudica.gif)
Post by: Grim Portent on August 09, 2015, 03:21:44 pm
This is pretty similar to flinching or wincing though:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Mimosa_Pudica.gif)
It's essentially a mechanical response to danger. But then that's all our responses to pain really are as well, ours are just more complex.
Post by: Sheb on August 09, 2015, 03:54:32 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 09, 2015, 04:35:15 pm
Blasphemy! All of those foods are delicious! And even more so when they're together...If you don't eat mushrooms for that reason, I'd be amazed if you still ate cheese. Half-digested sugars by bacteria where the flavour comes from their faecal matter; very appetizing.Personally, I'm a vegetarian because meat's freaking gross.All foods are gross if you think about them too hard. That's how I stopped eating mushrooms.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 09, 2015, 04:40:40 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 09, 2015, 05:06:13 pm
This is pretty similar to flinching or wincing though:There's a plant like that in Hawaii. Don't step on them.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Mimosa_Pudica.gif)
The leaves fold up like that accept faster and a small needle like thing pops out of the middle. Hurts quite a bit when stepped on
Post by: TempAcc on August 10, 2015, 09:40:41 am
I personally love me some cured meats, which are basically lean pieces of flesh that has been dried by adding tons of salt or other chemical substances to draw the moisture out of it, including bacteria, which slows their growth. Its basically old dried flesh with immature and dead bacteria on it, that happens to be delishus :vBlasphemy! All of those foods are delicious! And even more so when they're together...If you don't eat mushrooms for that reason, I'd be amazed if you still ate cheese. Half-digested sugars by bacteria where the flavour comes from their faecal matter; very appetizing.Personally, I'm a vegetarian because meat's freaking gross.All foods are gross if you think about them too hard. That's how I stopped eating mushrooms.
Post by: Rolan7 on August 10, 2015, 09:50:40 am
Post by: Descan on August 10, 2015, 10:14:29 am
Dried meat! Dried meat! Dried meat!
Post by: Adragis on August 10, 2015, 10:16:11 am
I personally prefer biltong.With you there.
Dried meat! Dried meat! Dried meat!
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 10, 2015, 04:22:30 pm
Although this isn't the food thread, so let's try and rerail ourselves a little.
Post by: Frumple on August 10, 2015, 04:29:42 pm
Post by: Helgoland on August 10, 2015, 05:04:11 pm
Post by: Frumple on August 10, 2015, 05:06:19 pm
Anyone know if folks have figured out anything new in the interim?
Post by: Bohandas on August 10, 2015, 05:35:11 pm
Soma, I believe. More of a drug than a foodstuff though.
You're confusing the Hindu drink with the similarly named drug from Brave New World. IIRC the soma talked about i Hinduism is roughly equivalent to the nectat and ambrosia of greco-roman paganism
Post by: Helgoland on August 11, 2015, 04:35:42 am
Post by: Bohandas on August 11, 2015, 06:46:02 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 11, 2015, 04:02:22 pm
Crane crash in Mecca kills about 80 people
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 11, 2015, 04:51:54 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34226003
Crane crash in Mecca kills about 80 people
Heh, on September the 11th, of all days.
Disturbing irony bonus - the crane was an asset belonging to a construction company owned by the Bin Laden family, and was hit by lightning.
The tin foil hat brigade are going to fucking love this one.
Post by: Rolan7 on September 11, 2015, 04:52:52 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on September 11, 2015, 05:00:15 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 11, 2015, 05:06:52 pm
At least it wasn't during the Hajj. You'd see ten times that number.That's not the best consolation
Post by: Orange Wizard on September 11, 2015, 05:17:05 pm
Post by: Adragis on September 11, 2015, 05:18:57 pm
Post by: Frumple on September 11, 2015, 05:21:22 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on September 11, 2015, 05:23:32 pm
Post by: Adragis on September 11, 2015, 05:27:23 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on September 11, 2015, 05:29:14 pm
But yes Frumple you've pointed out the major fridge-logic of Christianity. I don't blame you, because most people don't seem to get it.
Those who get it, and stay Christian, are fucking terrifying. They mean well, but they live a horror.
Post by: Frumple on September 11, 2015, 05:30:36 pm
A good one would involve a chicken and three crates of whiskey, not sudden crane death.Well. It can involve sudden crane death, so long as it's the crane that's dying. Presumably the chicken ate it, the ravenous little dinosaur bastards.
e:VVV That's the joke, yes. Bird crane not giant metal crane.
Post by: Adragis on September 11, 2015, 05:33:29 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on September 15, 2015, 04:22:28 pm
Post by: Bohandas on September 15, 2015, 11:48:47 pm
You know, OW, I only just now noticed you wondering about that quote in the OP. I originally posted it (though I don't remember where), but I'm about 95% certain it was deleted. RedKing (IIRC) had it in his sig, paraphrased for the sake of length, for a while, but not any more. I regret to inform you that it's lost to the annals of history, but the good news is that it's not much of a loss -- it was eminently unremarkable, just a metaphor with a bonfire, gasoline cans, and people. :P
If you can point me to a file search program that can search inside of .mht and .maff files I might be able to find it.
Post by: TD1 on September 16, 2015, 08:05:32 am
To sum it up in his words:
Quote
Many worlds might have been botched and bungled throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out: much labour lost: many fruitless trials made: and a slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world-making
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 25, 2015, 10:04:48 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 26, 2015, 04:11:42 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on September 26, 2015, 04:13:05 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 26, 2015, 04:27:55 am
Also Prince Khaled al-Faisal blamed African muslims for the crush whilst just about everyone else said it was more to do with authorities not doing anything smart (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11890212/Mecca-stampede-Witnesses-blame-Saudi-officials-for-hajj-horror-and-describe-seeing-dead-bodies.html).
Crushes are weird things, people don't die because it's a stampede, they die because the cumulative force of thousands of people pressing forwards means that the people in the front of the crush have forces strong enough to bend steel (not exaggerating) on their abdomens - all under the Saudi sun. You can't breathe under that. Only way to stop it is to make sure it never happens with strong crowd control and clear paths ensuring safe entry and exit; I wonder why the Saudis haven't taken this more seriously as thousands have died already and thousands more will die needlessly until they do so
A lot of these things happen in Saudi Arabia around choke points like tunnels and bridges or events like the stoning of the devil; their worst event alone killed 1,400 people after they got stuck in a tunnel with no ventilation
Of all the ways to go this is not the best one; honestly it boggles me the sheer scale of death - I would've expected 70 killed not 700
Post by: Bohandas on September 26, 2015, 09:21:21 am
Speaking of which, for the few who haven't heard there was a crush in Mecca that killed 700 people. It's like our Football crush but on crack, apparently these things happen every few years since it's not as safe as it could be
Also Prince Khaled al-Faisal blamed African muslims for the crush whilst just about everyone else said it was more to do with authorities not doing anything smart (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11890212/Mecca-stampede-Witnesses-blame-Saudi-officials-for-hajj-horror-and-describe-seeing-dead-bodies.html).
Crushes are weird things, people don't die because it's a stampede, they die because the cumulative force of thousands of people pressing forwards means that the people in the front of the crush have forces strong enough to bend steel (not exaggerating) on their abdomens - all under the Saudi sun. You can't breathe under that. Only way to stop it is to make sure it never happens with strong crowd control and clear paths ensuring safe entry and exit; I wonder why the Saudis haven't taken this more seriously as thousands have died already and thousands more will die needlessly until they do so
A lot of these things happen in Saudi Arabia around choke points like tunnels and bridges or events like the stoning of the devil; their worst event alone killed 1,400 people after they got stuck in a tunnel with no ventilation
And yet they keep going there. This tells you pretty much all you need to know about western religion
Post by: SirQuiamus on September 26, 2015, 09:28:41 am
Post by: TD1 on September 26, 2015, 10:50:54 am
Saudi authorities not to blame for tragedy: "All complaints should be addressed to God." (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34368387)
So, in other words, that priest is saying that it's not his/the religion's fault that so many people died attending something to do with the religion, but it's fate and therefore nothing can be done?
Well that's stupid. Another case of religion trying to hold back advancement (in this case, safety,) though mainly just so they can save face.
Post by: Teneb on September 26, 2015, 12:15:03 pm
I'd say it's not even religion, just shitty administration.Saudi authorities not to blame for tragedy: "All complaints should be addressed to God." (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34368387)
So, in other words, that priest is saying that it's not his/the religion's fault that so many people died attending something to do with the religion, but it's fate and therefore nothing can be done?
Well that's stupid. Another case of religion trying to hold back advancement (in this case, safety,) though mainly just so they can save face.
Post by: TD1 on September 26, 2015, 12:23:57 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on September 26, 2015, 12:24:01 pm
that has nothing to do with religion at all, just people not wanting to take blame and face consequences for their ineptitude by shifting blame. in other words everyone ever. welcome to humanity.Saudi authorities not to blame for tragedy: "All complaints should be addressed to God." (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34368387)
So, in other words, that priest is saying that it's not his/the religion's fault that so many people died attending something to do with the religion, but it's fate and therefore nothing can be done?
Well that's stupid. Another case of religion trying to hold back advancement (in this case, safety,) though mainly just so they can save face.
Post by: TD1 on September 26, 2015, 12:26:22 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on September 26, 2015, 04:43:37 pm
Post by: Bohandas on September 27, 2015, 07:26:44 pm
that has nothing to do with religion at all, just people not wanting to take blame and face consequences for their ineptitude by shifting blame.Saudi authorities not to blame for tragedy: "All complaints should be addressed to God." (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34368387)
So, in other words, that priest is saying that it's not his/the religion's fault that so many people died attending something to do with the religion, but it's fate and therefore nothing can be done?
Well that's stupid. Another case of religion trying to hold back advancement (in this case, safety,) though mainly just so they can save face.
That's religion
Post by: Helgoland on September 27, 2015, 07:32:16 pm
No.
Post by: Rolan7 on September 27, 2015, 07:37:12 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 27, 2015, 07:48:00 pm
@Rolan, makes sense don't it? You always credit your leader with what you've done and when you fuck up your leader takes responsibility. Well, ideally anyways. If you believe in a divine leader then it stands to reason that you expect your divine leader to take responsibility for good and bad.
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 27, 2015, 08:03:38 pm
I have seen signs that something great is happening. Take TomorrowWorld, a huge electronic dance music festival happening this weekend in Georgia. The acts tonight were planned around the blood moon - clearly organized by the Devil. From the beginning the festival was assaulted by rain and floods, as God himself tried to turn people away from this celebration of dark hedonism. He was victorious and the last day (today) was cancelled - who knows what the Antichrist planned for those people? God won the battle, but let's hope He's winning the war.
I am heading out into the countryside soon to see the blood moon. Anything could happen. There have been a lot of theories about this past week that were wrong - who knew the ones about tonight were right? Whether the world is torn apart by earthquakes or some of us ascend to a new level of existence or everything changes radically in a way nobody notices, see you guys later.
Post by: Bohandas on September 27, 2015, 08:04:40 pm
@Helgo, sounds like religion.
@Rolan, makes sense don't it? You always credit your leader with what you've done and when you fuck up your leader takes responsibility. Well, ideally anyways. If you believe in a divine leader then it stands to reason that you expect your divine leader to take responsibility for good and bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPriOQkKd6k
All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot
Each little snake that poisons
Each little wasp that stings
He made their brutish venom
He made their horrid wings
All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous
The Lord God made them all
Each nasty little hornet
Each beastly little squid
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did
All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all
Amen
Post by: Rolan7 on September 27, 2015, 08:30:01 pm
@Helgo, sounds like religion.Gosh that sure would make sense. That's not how many modern, Biblically-illiterate Christians treat God though. Everything good is His grace, everything bad is Satan or inexplicable or teh gays. Or "somehow a good thing", we just don't understand how.
@Rolan, makes sense don't it? You always credit your leader with what you've done and when you fuck up your leader takes responsibility. Well, ideally anyways. If you believe in a divine leader then it stands to reason that you expect your divine leader to take responsibility for good and bad.
I had my brother over recently and I'd just like to reiterate... Religions evolve like organisms. Specifically symbiotes. This is especially true of religions without central governing bodies. Eventually, for some people, Catholicism wasn't evolving fast enough. So Protestantism broke off as an absurdly mutagenic, adaptable... thing.
Now we've got Christians who aren't sure that Jesus actually, like, existed... But they totally agree with his teachings! He was all about kindness, acceptance, forgiveness...
Blissfully unaware of the actual story of Jesus, at least the Biblical version. Jesus is literally an abuser making a show of "hurting" himself to shame his victims into compliance. Along with a threat of literally infinite punishment. As if life on Earth wasn't already abuse enough...
Even the God of the Old Testament allowed people to end! The New Testament is WORSE than all the explicit racism and sexism. Systematic-rape sexism. The New Testament goes even farther.
For many Christians, the religion has moved into a cyst stage where they believe basically nothing of substance. But they're still definitely Christians, just waiting to be radicalized. Whether it take years, or even generations.
Edit: I said "symbiotes" because religions do help people cope with life...
But I think that, arguably, religions are a parasite on spirituality. Spirituality gives the benefit.
Post by: Helgoland on September 27, 2015, 08:34:28 pm
Now we've got Christians who aren't sure that Jesus actually, like, existed... But they totally agree with his teachings! He was all about kindness, acceptance, forgiveness...That description of the New Testament's content is \stunningly accurate\.
Blissfully unaware of the actual story of Jesus, at least the Biblical version. Jesus is literally an abuser making a show of "hurting" himself to shame his victims into compliance. Along with a threat of literally infinite punishment. As if life on Earth wasn't already abuse enough...
Even the God of the Old Testament allowed people to end! The New Testament is WORSE than all the explicit racism and sexism. Systematic-rape sexism. The New Testament goes even farther.
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 27, 2015, 08:36:11 pm
Rolan I don't think Jesus was really concerned with privacy when he was nailed to a stick for some cheeky Roman-Judaean bants
Post by: Rolan7 on September 27, 2015, 08:50:08 pm
Anyway sorry about the edginess, discussion with my brother tends to bring out stronger opinions from me. We get intense.
Ironically he's a more sure atheist than I am, but sees modern religion as somewhat less of a threat than I do. Whereas I like to think that faeries are based on real phenomena, and kinda think that objects have spiritual essence, and I'm absolutely afraid of organized religion.
I see it as a perversion of a useful instinct towards spirituality. I'm also a lot more bi, though, so it's hard to have much sympathy for the watered-down creeds which are so commonly used as an excuse to hate and, until recently, disenfranchise me.
Post by: Helgoland on September 27, 2015, 09:22:32 pm
Ironically he's a more sure atheist than I am, but sees modern religion as somewhat less of a threat than I do. Whereas I like to think that faeries are based on real phenomena, and kinda think that objects have spiritual essence, and I'm absolutely afraid of organized religion.The only thing more dangerous than organized religion is unorganized religion. Sure, the Church does some bad shit, but it's nothing compared to the evangelical crazies in the US. Or, to take a more historical example, compare the Puritans and the Anglican High Church. Or, to take an even more historical example: The Church originally was one of the bulwarks against witch hunts...
Post by: Orange Wizard on September 27, 2015, 09:24:00 pm
It's the old traditional churches that are actually kinda scary. We're the ones who say God doesn't actually do that much loving, comparatively speaking, and bad things happen because he wants them to.
Of course, there aren't very many of us left, which means the real terror (and thing thing you're actually complaining about) is...
American conservatism! The thing that's only incidentally religious, and consists mainly of old people and noisy idiots in positions of power. Which is a problem on both ends of your one-dimensional political spectrum, not just the right.
E: Wow, that sounds really antagonistic. You should probably picture my voice as deadpan and uninterested.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 27, 2015, 09:29:28 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on September 27, 2015, 09:31:39 pm
I don't honestly know how it is in other churches, particularly the less evangelical ones.
@Helgoland, I see what you mean and I think it's partly what I was saying. Christians who have lost the imposed order of the Catholic Church have all the adaptability of being free, while also having (or being open to) the prejudices so common in the faith. It's a killer combo.
Basic primal spirituality, formed on an individual basis, doesn't have those prejudices. It could be as bad as the individual's own prejudices, but it's not so systematic and social. IE, you don't have regular meetings with a bunch of other people who reaffirm those prejudices and form a major part of one's social life.
Rolan, you are leaving out several parts of Jesus' teachings and his life in your description of Jesus.I'm correctly describing his core teachings, in my opinion. Please, feel free to mention how he healed some beggars. Or better yet, explain how he wasn't inducing guilt through an absolutely meaningless sacrifice, and threatening us with the NEW concept of eternal damnation.
Post by: redwallzyl on September 27, 2015, 09:37:47 pm
Quote
you don't have regular meetings with a bunch of other people who reaffirm those prejudicesthat's basically the internet :P
Post by: Frumple on September 27, 2015, 09:40:09 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 27, 2015, 09:40:14 pm
(That is what I believe anyways.)
Post by: Rolan7 on September 27, 2015, 09:47:27 pm
Only if you absurdly misuse it :PQuoteyou don't have regular meetings with a bunch of other people who reaffirm those prejudicesthat's basically the internet :P
The internet is probably the single greatest tool for getting exposed to alternate viewpoints, ever. So far!
Maybe because he was exactly who he said he was? The son of God? It's just a possibility.Okay going to assume you're talking to me, and thought that refuted anything I said...
(That is what I believe anyways.)
yeah, assuming the Bible is metaphorically true...
He's the son of God. He "died", but came back to life no worse for wear. He's also literally God, at the same time, paradoxically.
So he's God, who died meaninglessly, and brought a new message of everlasting suffering for nonbelievers.
So conveniently he boosted the
Damnation for non-belief was introduced by your supposed "prince of peace". It makes perfect sense from the perspective of an infectious dogma. A mutation of an existing, race-centric deity which allowed the faith to cover the globe.
Post by: That Wolf on September 27, 2015, 10:54:52 pm
God us not what you think, its not static
But sure keep your ancient science text that doesnt have any relevance to modern life.
Its key points are common sense so it has nothing to offer.
While hindi texts have so many PROVEN methods of enlightenment.
Stop wasting your time
Post by: Orange Wizard on September 27, 2015, 11:04:22 pm
infectious dogmaYou're kinda exaggerating/misrepresenting things here. Just a little bit.
...
keep your ancient science textWait, did you just call the Bible science?
I, uh, heh. Heheheh.
Also:
While hindi texts have so many PROVEN methods of enlightenment.
While christian texts have so many PROVEN methods of enlightenment.
While zoroastrian texts have so many PROVEN methods of enlightenment.
While islamic texts have so many PROVEN methods of enlightenment.
While norse texts have so many PROVEN methods of enlightenment.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 27, 2015, 11:15:10 pm
The way you see Jesus' death is different from the way every christian I know see it. We see it as a sacrifice to allow us a way into heaven. If you read the Disciples accounts and Paul's teaching, you do not get any hints towards the monster you are making Jesus seem like. Why would most of the Disciples also willingly decide to die terrible deaths for a person who only promised suffering? Why would they spread the news? They describe the news of Jesus as a wonderful thing.
So he's God, who died meaninglessly, and brought a new message of everlasting suffering for nonbelievers.
So conveniently he boosted theJewishfaith by allowing, even morally forcing people to believe or be damned.
Damnation for non-belief was introduced by your supposed "prince of peace". It makes perfect sense from the perspective of an infectious dogma. A mutation of an existing, race-centric deity which allowed the faith to cover the globe.
Also, what do you mean race-centric?
Post by: Telgin on September 27, 2015, 11:48:56 pm
Anyway, the argument was that if Jesus and the new testament never came around, then the concept of going to heaven or Hell for humans never would have either. Before that, you just died, or if you were one of a very few exceptional people you got called up to heaven. There was no eternal suffering for doing the wrong thing: you just died. With the new testament, you suffer forever if you do something wrong.
As for why the disciples didn't see it that way... well, they were on His good side I guess, so they didn't see it as a problem.
Quote from: Orange Wizard
It's the old traditional churches that are actually kinda scary. We're the ones who say God doesn't actually do that much loving, comparatively speaking, and bad things happen because he wants them to.
Oh, yes. The church I still go to (mostly unwillingly) is of this variety. God kills babies to keep them away from abusive parents, for example. Oh, and the problems Joe Biden has had with his family's illnesses and such? Yeah, he shouldn't have been a liberal or that probably wouldn't have happened. Also, the Pope is going to bring about the new world order and make us all worship Islam, and gay people are stealing babies from straight couples. There's also murmurings of FEMA camps out in Texas that Obama is going to send people to, and 30,000 guillotines being bought by the government to behead dissenters.
I wish I was making that up. I'll also stop before I derail the thread on that, since I know that's not representative of Christians as a whole. It's just amusing.
Post by: Reelya on September 27, 2015, 11:54:37 pm
<snip> I wish I was making that up. I'll also stop before I derail the thread on that, since I know that's not representative of Christians as a whole. It's just amusing.A long time ago, I had an argument with a room full of religious folks once who thought nuclear weapons didn't exist and that they were all part of a global conspiracy. Again, not representative of anything except that group of people.
EDIT ... Not really related but I was just browsing the relevant websites and some claim that nuclear power doesn't even exist.
Post by: Bohandas on September 27, 2015, 11:59:35 pm
The way you see Jesus' death is different from the way every christian I know see it. We see it as a sacrifice to allow us a way into heaven.
So he's God, who died meaninglessly, and brought a new message of everlasting suffering for nonbelievers.
So conveniently he boosted theJewishfaith by allowing, even morally forcing people to believe or be damned.
Damnation for non-belief was introduced by your supposed "prince of peace". It makes perfect sense from the perspective of an infectious dogma. A mutation of an existing, race-centric deity which allowed the faith to cover the globe.
The more valid issue here is that if he was truly omnipotent he wouldn't need some farcical blood sacrifice to forgive everybody's sins, he could just declare them forgiven.
If you read the Disciples accounts and Paul's teaching, you do not get any hints towards the monster you are making Jesus seem like. Why would most of the Disciples also willingly decide to die terrible deaths for a person who only promised suffering? Why would they spread the news? They describe the news of Jesus as a wonderful thing.
I believe that was in reference to the new testament being the first part of the bible to deal extensively with the concept of hell and damnation, and he's inferring from this that the concepts were made up by Jesus and/or the early christians.
This seems flawed to me however, as it seems quite plausible to me that the ideas were already part of the zeitgeist of the time.
Furhermore the term "Gehenna" (one of the words translated as "Hell" in many biblical translations) originally referred literally not to some twisted otherworld but to a specific earthly location which had a reputation for being haunted. Furthermore, its genericized sense of any place of suffering after death is apparently used in Jewish religious writings as well, so - going back to my previous point - the concept of suffering after death for sinners was not necessarily something we got from Jesus.
Also, what do you mean race-centric?
Much of the old testament paints the jewish people (as in the race/ethnicity as well as the religion) as a master race destined to take over the world.
<snip> I wish I was making that up. I'll also stop before I derail the thread on that, since I know that's not representative of Christians as a whole. It's just amusing.A long time ago, I had an argument with a room full of religious folks once who thought nuclear weapons didn't exist and that they were all part of a global conspiracy. Again, not representative of anything except that group of people.
EDIT ... Not really related but I was just browsing the relevant websites and some claim that nuclear power doesn't even exist.
Christian religious folks? Because I can't see how denying the existence of nuclear weapons could tie into Christianity (I can, however, see how it could tie into Shinto)
Whereas I like to think that faeries are based on real phenomena,
Sentient phenomena? Or relatively simple natural lights like ignis fatuous or st.erasmus' fire?
EDIT:
Or possibly the result of someone encountering a dragonfly after consuming the right kind of mushroom, cactus, vine, or spoiled bread product.
Post by: Telgin on September 28, 2015, 12:08:36 am
Post by: Reelya on September 28, 2015, 12:12:06 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on September 28, 2015, 12:12:51 am
One could ask the question of why God thought it was necessary to sacrifice His son anyway, since He could just make the new rules take effect. So it all comes down to the question of why He had a son at all, or why He does anything he does really, I guess.The usual idea is that God the Father has to punish sin, as being intrinsic to his being.
The more valid issue here is that if he was truly omnipotent he wouldn't need some farcical blood sacrifice to forgive everybody's sins, he could just declare them forgiven.Exactly. God is supremely powerful, but he's still bound by rules. The word usually translated as all-powerful is probably more accurately all-controlling.
An omnipotent and omnibenevolent god would never allow a world like ours to exist. There is also no real evidence to suggest the Christian God is either, and in the case of omnibenevolence, a fair bit of evidence to the contrary.
...
Anyway, the argument was that if Jesus and the new testament never came around, then the concept of going to heaven or Hell for humans never would have either. Before that, you just died, or if you were one of a very few exceptional people you got called up to heaven. There was no eternal suffering for doing the wrong thing: you just died. With the new testament, you suffer forever if you do something wrong.A fairly popular interpretation is that Hell is eternal but the souls sent there are destroyed rather than tortured indefinitely.
As a side note, the whole afterlife thing is vaguely present in the OT. Because it's not a major theme, it's hard to say if it's actually meant like that, but it's worth noting that heaven/hell are not unique to Jesus' teachings in the Bible.
...
Christian religious folks? Because I can't see how denying the existence of nuclear weapons could tie into Christianity (I can, however, see how it could tie into Shinto)Pretty sure the point is that they're bonkers, rather than anything explicitly religious.
Post by: Reelya on September 28, 2015, 12:14:46 am
Post by: Adragis on September 28, 2015, 01:07:27 am
I think the common thread is the general distrust of science. When you're saying evolution is a global conspiracy orchestrated by satan himself, it's not a huge stretch to lump other "science" stuff as part of the same conspiracy.Remember:
Evolution is bad.
Evolution is science.
Biology is science.
The human lung has been studied in biology.
Human lungs are evil.
can't you see that flawless logic
Post by: Orange Wizard on September 28, 2015, 01:51:11 am
can't you see that flawless logicREMOVE LUNG remove lung
lungs are libetarian satanist conspiracy to make EVERYONE THE HOMOSEX
Post by: Adragis on September 28, 2015, 01:54:02 am
Post by: Arx on September 28, 2015, 02:11:07 am
Blissfully unaware of the actual story of Jesus, at least the Biblical version. Jesus is literally an abuser making a show of "hurting" himself to shame his victims into compliance.
Far-out claims like this are always interesting, but I'm going to ask you for a source on them.
Quote
Along with a threat of literally infinite punishment. As if life on Earth wasn't already abuse enough...
Even the God of the Old Testament allowed people to end!
Quote
Or better yet, explain how he wasn't inducing guilt through an absolutely meaningless sacrifice, and threatening us with the NEW concept of eternal damnation.
Note: your first point seems to be predicated on your second. Clarify?
Sheol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol) was basically the Fields of Asphodel except possibly with a side of torture, depending on who you believe, and the Old Testament is thick with references to it. Jesus provided a way out that wasn't there before (even by living a righteous life).
Quote
The New Testament is WORSE than all the explicit racism and sexism. Systematic-rape sexism. The New Testament goes even farther.
Whilst I'm willing to take this at face value, I'd still like to see a source (I'm pretty sure you have one).
Well, the church I was brought up in was Southern Baptist...
I don't honestly know how it is in other churches, particularly the less evangelical ones.
As far as I can tell, if Westboro Baptist Church is a fair representation of Southern Baptists (which could be entirely untrue, I don't know), it's possible to construct a strong Biblical argument that they're grosser sinners than homosexuals, etc.
Only if you absurdly misuse it :PQuoteyou don't have regular meetings with a bunch of other people who reaffirm those prejudicesthat's basically the internet :P
damn b12 is now an absurd misuse of the internet
Post by: scrdest on September 28, 2015, 04:31:20 am
FTFY. You forgot the arch. You can't have a proper mention of a belief system in a conspiracy theory without the arches. Conspiracy theories are the cathedrals of interwebz crazy, yo.can't you see that flawless logicREMOVE LUNG remove lung
lungs are arch-libetarian arch-satanist conspiracy to make EVERYONE THE HOMOSEX
Post by: SirQuiamus on September 28, 2015, 04:43:32 am
NOT MY LUNGS NOT MY LUNGS NOT MY LUNGScan't you see that flawless logicREMOVE LUNG remove lung
lungs are libetarian satanist conspiracy to make EVERYONE THE HOMOSEX
MODERN MEDICINE IS HITLER THOU SHALT NOT MUTILATE GOD'S HOLY TABERNACLE WITH SATANIC SURGERY EVERY ALVEOLUS IS SACRED PULMONARY CYSTS ARE GOD'S OWN HANDIWORK BURN DOWN HOSPITALS RESCUE INNOCENT LUMPS OF TISSUE FROM NAZI VIOLENCE
Post by: Adragis on September 28, 2015, 04:48:54 am
amen brotherNOT MY LUNGS NOT MY LUNGS NOT MY LUNGScan't you see that flawless logicREMOVE LUNG remove lung
lungs are libetarian satanist conspiracy to make EVERYONE THE HOMOSEX
MODERN MEDICINE IS HITLER THOU SHALT NOT MUTILATE GOD'S HOLY TABERNACLE WITH SATANIC SURGERY EVERY ALVEOLUS IS SACRED PULMONARY CYSTS ARE GOD'S OWN HANDIWORK BURN DOWN HOSPITALS RESCUE INNOCENT LUMPS OF TISSUE FROM NAZI VIOLENCE
Post by: Helgoland on September 28, 2015, 05:01:45 am
Post by: Adragis on September 28, 2015, 05:02:47 am
Because that wasn't really my intention.
Post by: Reelya on September 28, 2015, 05:25:53 am
This was my contribution for the record:
Quote
A long time ago, I had an argument with a room full of religious folks once who thought nuclear weapons didn't exist and that they were all part of a global conspiracy. Again, not representative of anything except that group of people.
How do you get "bashing Christians" from that?
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 28, 2015, 06:29:41 am
One could ask the question of why God thought it was necessary to sacrifice His son anyway, since He could just make the new rules take effect. So it all comes down to the question of why He had a son at all, or why He does anything he does really, I guess.Cos he sent prophets before him and they all got gibbed by humans, no one would listen without a sacrifice
Post by: Helgoland on September 28, 2015, 06:33:35 am
We're just as likely to be talking shit about Wiccans here as we are about Christians.Empirically, no. Also, I wasn't necessarily talking about you... I'm as much against the evangelicals and zealots the US is so plagued with as the next guy, but the second the argument shifts from those guys to Christians in general - which, as you might have guessed, includes yours truly - I tend to get miffed.
Post by: Adragis on September 28, 2015, 06:47:09 am
Ani-science peopleaniseed ball development teams
Post by: TempAcc on September 28, 2015, 07:43:08 am
We're just as likely to be talking shit about Wiccans here as we are about Christians.Empirically, no. Also, I wasn't necessarily talking about you... I'm as much against the evangelicals and zealots the US is so plagued with as the next guy, but the second the argument shifts from those guys to Christians in general - which, as you might have guessed, includes yours truly - I tend to get miffed.
Eh, pretty much this. While vocal atheists tend to complain they often get pictured as fedora wearing neckbeards, its kinda hard to complain about generalization when they always depict christians as the local born again christian evangelical pastor that believes the earth is flat and wants to stone homosexuals :v
Mostly an issue of North Americans thinking everything else in the world is like North America, though. Mostly. Not like there aren't crazy tier christians elsewhere, its just NA seems to house most of them.
Post by: Adragis on September 28, 2015, 07:55:04 am
Genuine curiosity here, when did anyone say that within the last ten years?
Post by: TempAcc on September 28, 2015, 07:59:51 am
Also a few Islamic religions leaders (of the more insane kind) tend to be flat earth adherents, like the leader of Boko Haram.
Post by: Adragis on September 28, 2015, 08:11:42 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 28, 2015, 08:18:20 am
Sheol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol) was basically the Fields of Asphodel except possibly with a side of torture, depending on who you believe, and the Old Testament is thick with references to it. Jesus provided a way out that wasn't there before (even by living a righteous life).
That is not completely accurate. I have talked to some bible scholars, and they told me sheol literally means "the grave" the whole "Hades" and "hell" were metaphors created later.
One could ask the question of why God thought it was necessary to sacrifice His son anyway, since He could just make the new rules take effect. So it all comes down to the question of why He had a son at all, or why He does anything he does really, I guess.God gave humans and Angels free will. The ability to make our own choices. He created us for his own Glory and Pleasure. He knew that we would sin, so he made the way out of sin AS EASY AS IT COULD POSSIBLY BE. He sent Jesus to die so that we wouldn't have to. But then, he raised him back from the dead. All we have to do is believe that.
Anyway, the argument was that if Jesus and the new testament never came around, then the concept of going to heaven or Hell for humans never would have either. Before that, you just died, or if you were one of a very few exceptional people you got called up to heaven. There was no eternal suffering for doing the wrong thing: you just died. With the new testament, you suffer forever if you do something wrong.
As for why the disciples didn't see it that way... well, they were on His good side I guess, so they didn't see it as a problem.
I think the common thread is the general distrust of science. When you're saying evolution is a global conspiracy orchestrated by satan himself, it's not a huge stretch to lump other "science" stuff as part of the same conspiracy.You are finding the absolute extreme examples of Christians. The bible says nothing about evolution being wrong. Just as you could say, "some Christians say the moon doesn't exist" There are probably just as many atheists who believe the moon doesn't exist. So please stop trying to generalize Christians with examples of the few.
Post by: Arx on September 28, 2015, 08:31:47 am
Sheol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol) was basically the Fields of Asphodel except possibly with a side of torture, depending on who you believe, and the Old Testament is thick with references to it. Jesus provided a way out that wasn't there before (even by living a righteous life).
That is not completely accurate. I have talked to some bible scholars, and they told me sheol literally means "the grave" the whole "Hades" and "hell" were metaphors created later.
Unless you can provide sources more concrete than 'some bible scholars', I'm going to have to disagree. Additional sources: 1 (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13563-sheol) 2 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/sheol.html) 3 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/sheol-hades-in-the-bible-meaning/)
Interpreting it as literally 'the grave' contextually makes little sense. It'd be more accurate to say that it's just another term for death, but that begs the question of why the Bible refers to 'going down to Sheol'.
You are finding the absolute extreme examples of Christians. The bible says nothing about evolution being wrong. Just as you could say, "some Christians say the moon doesn't exist" There are probably just as many atheists who believe the moon doesn't exist. So please stop trying to generalize Christians with examples of the few.
Reelya's not doing any generalising. He's just saying there are people who believe that.
Post by: Telgin on September 28, 2015, 08:50:04 am
God gave humans and Angels free will. The ability to make our own choices. He created us for his own Glory and Pleasure. He knew that we would sin, so he made the way out of sin AS EASY AS IT COULD POSSIBLY BE. He sent Jesus to die so that we wouldn't have to. But then, he raised him back from the dead. All we have to do is believe that.
Well... I could point you back a hundred pages to how I describe that I don't believe in any kind of meaningful free will at all, but I'll just leave it at that: I don't believe in free will. It doesn't follow from natural laws so far as I can see. It's entirely illusory.
And regardless, it still begs the question of why God wanted to create us if he knew we would continuously make Him mad and screw things up. I know it's been discussed a lot throughout the thread, but it really paints Him in a very dim light. At best He's not omnipotent (can't prevent the world from being awful), not omniscient (He didn't know we'd screw things up) or He's a pretty evil being. Or I guess you could say that logic to Him is entirely alien to our notions of it, but that feels kind of like a copout to me.
I think the general consensus among some of the posters here at least is that God really isn't completely omnipotent or omniscient. If He was omnipotent then He wouldn't be bound by any laws, even His own. He might be omniscient, but if so that means He's pretty awful since He creates people He knows will go to Hell.
Interestingly, the pastor I mentioned earlier believes that God really is just mean sometimes, but is omnipotent and omniscient.
Post by: Bohandas on September 28, 2015, 09:00:22 am
We're just as likely to be talking shit about Wiccans here as we are about Christians.Empirically, no. Also, I wasn't necessarily talking about you... I'm as much against the evangelicals and zealots the US is so plagued with as the next guy, but the second the argument shifts from those guys to Christians in general - which, as you might have guessed, includes yours truly - I tend to get miffed.
Eh, pretty much this. While vocal atheists tend to complain they often get pictured as fedora wearing neckbeards, its kinda hard to complain about generalization when they always depict christians as the local born again christian evangelical pastor that believes the earth is flat and wants to stone homosexuals :v
Mostly an issue of North Americans thinking everything else in the world is like North America, though. Mostly. Not like there aren't crazy tier christians elsewhere, its just NA seems to house most of them.
It was my undwrstanding that Africa is infested with them as well.
Post by: Graknorke on September 28, 2015, 11:10:40 am
Let me put it as clearly and succinctly as I can:Dude what? Religion is all about taking normal stuff and blaming it on the divine.
No.
W-wait, believes the earth is flat?Well the Bible does describe the Earth as a flat circle at the centre of the universe a bunch of times. So... probably?
Genuine curiosity here, when did anyone say that within the last ten years?
Post by: Sheb on September 28, 2015, 11:17:00 am
Dude what? Religion is all about taking normal stuff and blaming it on the divine.
What? Religions is about plenty of stuff. About organizing societies, maintaining communities, providing moral codes...
Sure, providing explanation for stuff happening is also a role religion can play, but it is far from the only one, or even the main one for most modern denominations.
Post by: Graknorke on September 28, 2015, 11:23:13 am
Post by: Bohandas on September 28, 2015, 11:35:54 am
You are finding the absolute extreme examples of Christians. The bible says nothing about evolution being wrong.
The bible explicitly states that the world and all life on it were created in seven days
Post by: TempAcc on September 28, 2015, 11:45:45 am
Of course, there will always be those people that insist that anything but literal interpretation is wrong, but those people are usualy the kind of people who wants to put people to death for adultery and disobeying their parents.
Post by: Frumple on September 28, 2015, 11:49:29 am
... mind you, unless they've changed their mind while they were out, osg does believe other parts of the bible invalidates evolutionary theory, but the initial creation myth doesn't meaningfully import anything about it. Initial creation myth honestly doesn't meaningfully import much at all, especially considering there's two of them and they're at least partially contradictory.
Post by: i2amroy on September 28, 2015, 02:33:42 pm
Metaphorical language is a thing.This conflict over interpretation has caused so many problems that I'm thinking the bible would have been much better off with [metaphorical][/metaphorical] tags liberal distributed throughout. :P
Of course, there will always be those people that insist that anything but literal interpretation is wrong, but those people are usualy the kind of people who wants to put people to death for adultery and disobeying their parents.
Post by: redwallzyl on September 28, 2015, 02:34:22 pm
Post by: Graknorke on September 28, 2015, 02:40:43 pm
Quote
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
Besides, your definition would make some branches of science a religion.
Post by: Frumple on September 28, 2015, 02:46:15 pm
Post by: Graknorke on September 28, 2015, 02:48:33 pm
Post by: i2amroy on September 28, 2015, 02:50:31 pm
Here's the total list of definitions from dictionary.com:
Quote
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
Post by: Frumple on September 28, 2015, 02:57:15 pm
What about the whole thing with reincarnation, and also the mystic force Karma that judges your actions and gives you consequences for them later? That sounds both pretty superhuman and controlling to me.They're both more akin to the laws of physics than anything else. Karma doesn't so much 'judge and gives you consequences' as it is the word for the consequences of your actions later on in the cycle, which is itself not really anything but the way existence is structured.* There's no agency or whatev' behind it all, nor anything superhuman or controlling,** it's just the nature of how things work. No more mystical than cause and effect, basically, going by some of the buddhist conceptualizations of the subject.
*Much like the whole die, become worm food, fuel something else's life thing good ol' physical reality has.
**Unless you consider something like, say, a riverbank to be controlling the river -- I wouldn't, myself, since controlling tends to imply some sort of intent. You can probably word it that way, but I don't think most people would unless the bank's been artificially constructed.
Post by: Reelya on September 28, 2015, 03:20:19 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 28, 2015, 03:24:03 pm
Post by: Bohandas on September 28, 2015, 03:59:59 pm
What about the whole thing with reincarnation, and also the mystic force Karma that judges your actions and gives you consequences for them later? That sounds both pretty superhuman and controlling to me.
I think there's a couple buddhist denominations that don't believe in literal reincarnation either
Post by: Antioch on October 04, 2015, 06:55:07 am
An infinite randomness is more powerful than any god put forth by mainstream religions.
Post by: Sheb on October 04, 2015, 07:42:08 am
Post by: wobbly on October 04, 2015, 07:48:15 am
What about the whole thing with reincarnation, and also the mystic force Karma that judges your actions and gives you consequences for them later? That sounds both pretty superhuman and controlling to me.
I think there's a couple buddhist denominations that don't believe in literal reincarnation either
The problem or good thing with buddhism though is that if you select the right school & the right interpretation you can make it say just about anything.
Post by: Antioch on October 04, 2015, 08:44:45 am
How can randomness be powerful in any meaningful sense of the word?
In the sense that it will create everything that can possibly exist.
Post by: Arx on October 04, 2015, 08:53:46 am
How can randomness be powerful in any meaningful sense of the word?
In the sense that it will create everything that can possibly exist.
The problem is that it's very difficult to tell what you mean by 'an infinite randomness'. The weather is a chaotic system, which makes it infinitely random, but it's clear that a discussion about weather being god-like in power would be a non-starter.
Post by: Frumple on October 04, 2015, 08:55:01 am
How can randomness be powerful in any meaningful sense of the word?Capability of action? Pretty sure they're talking about the whole infinite possible worlds thing, without limit to stuff such as physical laws or logic or whatev'. That would indeed be more powerful than anything posited by mainstream religions, as those things would be explicitly capable of spawning an infinite number of beings infinitely more powerful than the noted posits (and things more powerful than them, and things more powerful than them, and...). They would also just have a jackton of beings equivalent to the mainstream divinities floating around... a genuinely infinite randomness would diminish deities by its very existence, because it would perforce render them no longer unique.
Though ant, you probably want to add "and everything that can't" to that. Theologians have long solved the problem of dealing with a unique deity in a multiverse of infinite possibilities-- it's actually something that some proofs/arguments for the existence of gods predicate themselves on. Mostly, they just propose a limit to what is possible. Generally, "nothing can be more powerful than god" is held as an axiomatic truth that cannot have a disproving example, ever, no matter how many possibilities are generated and tested. It's just held to not be in the achievable realm of possibilities, no matter how many goes you have at it. If you literally cannot, under any circumstances, make a circle (being more powerful than) a square (god), it doesn't matter how infinite your randomness is -- the circle will never be made a square.
... also weather isn't an infinitely random system. It's just beyond our currently capability to know in full. Probably argue a bit on whether it being a god-like power is a nonstarter, too. By and large, weather has literally shaped the world (primary influence on what formed the atmosphere, shaped geological formation, etc., etc.), is a key component to what made life, and has destructive and constructive powers on par or greater than those attributed to pretty much any god (hell, a lot of the times those powers of weather are attributed to gods). Weather, taken as a whole, is as god-like in power as pretty much any god. Made the world, made life, freakishly and capriciously destructive... it fits pretty much all the check boxes for an abrahamic deity.
Post by: TD1 on October 04, 2015, 09:18:16 am
How can randomness be powerful in any meaningful sense of the word?
In the sense that it will create everything that can possibly exist.
The problem is that it's very difficult to tell what you mean by 'an infinite randomness'. The weather is a chaotic system, which makes it infinitely random, but it's clear that a discussion about weather being god-like in power would be a non-starter.
Actually, for those who are in animistic religions the power of the weather and its infinite variety could, and most likely are, reasons to think it is god-like in power.
Post by: Arx on October 04, 2015, 09:50:48 am
Weather, taken as a whole, is as god-like in power as pretty much any god. Made the world, made life, freakishly and capriciously destructive... it fits pretty much all the check boxes for an abrahamic deity.
Earth's weather did not create the sun, nor the rest of the stars. As such, it's pretty clearly not on a par with God in the Abrahamic tradition.
Post by: Frumple on October 04, 2015, 09:57:48 am
And earth's is an extension of that. Sooooo...
E: Critter also does that once, behind the curtains, and never seems to do it again. Everything else is pretty much in line with weather. I'd call it as on par as taking the cop out of noting stellar phenomena :P
Post by: TD1 on October 04, 2015, 09:58:30 am
Besides, Jesus as a representative of God didn't create suns or stars while he was about on earth, and presumably couldn't in a human state. Is he not on par with God in the Abrahamic tradition? He had limitations based on the flesh, which God didn't.
Post by: Arx on October 04, 2015, 10:07:35 am
Stellar weather definitely did, though :V
From nothing? Hard vacuum? I don't think that's likely.
(The same applies to
Weather is a creator though)
Quote
And earth's is an extension of that. Sooooo...
Quote from: Merriam-Webster
Weather is the state of the atmosphere, to the degree that it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy.
I mean, you can argue that everything is related to everything else, but it's ridiculous to say that any given cloud is able to create the sun, from nothing. And yet we cannot predict where exactly that cloud will move.
presumably couldn't in a human state.
There's nothing to suggest that, as far as I am aware.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 04, 2015, 10:14:55 am
Of course we could ask where the nebulae came from. Or hopefully, what caused the Big Bang. But then we'd also have to ask what caused God, and I don't think we can answer either question yet.
Post by: TD1 on October 04, 2015, 10:16:01 am
Regardless of whether or not my presumption is correct, Jesus was still limited. He was a human, born of a woman. He needed food, needed water. He was physical, corporeal. He couldn't physically do some things.
Is such limitation, or the local scale in which Jesus operated, somehow an indication of his lack of godhood? Weather doesn't create out of nothing, it uses objects already there. I don't recall Jesus ever making something out of nothing. Water to wine uses an original object and changes it. Fish and bread requires a source - someone brought fish and bread for lunch - and he increased from there.
Post by: Reelya on October 04, 2015, 01:03:08 pm
Ok I have a religiously themed statement for discussion:
An infinite randomness is more powerful than any god put forth by mainstream religions.
Greg Egan's novel Permutation City covers this, although I'm heavily simplifying the ideas here.
An infinite amount of random static that never repeats would contain every possible pattern that could exist. Consciousness can be interpreted as a pattern of energy that exists within the framework of the universe. The idea is that it's the energy relationships, not the matter, which creates the pattern of consciousness. Therefore the infinite randomness also contains all possible consciousness's, and thus all possible experiential universes. So yeah, infinite randomness contains every possible thing that could exist, including all gods. At the very least, it will contain an infinite number of divine consciousnesses who believe they are god, and the pattern each one inhabits would also be 100% in line with this belief.
Post by: Sergarr on October 04, 2015, 01:27:11 pm
which is basically bonkers given that current math successfully describes the literally indescribable things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indescribable_cardinal).
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 04, 2015, 04:35:34 pm
I say presumably, because Jesus never actually did anything on a cosmic scale. It was always localised to him - parlour tricks in comparison.Jesus himself gave the reason for this in Mark 4:12. He spoke in parables and didn't perform cosmic miracles, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."
Post by: Graknorke on October 04, 2015, 05:40:28 pm
Could you explain what that one means when it's not in riddles?I say presumably, because Jesus never actually did anything on a cosmic scale. It was always localised to him - parlour tricks in comparison.Jesus himself gave the reason for this in Mark 4:12. He spoke in parables and didn't perform cosmic miracles, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."
Post by: BFEL on October 04, 2015, 05:54:13 pm
Sounds to me like "don't wanna give them any ideas about anything really big"Could you explain what that one means when it's not in riddles?I say presumably, because Jesus never actually did anything on a cosmic scale. It was always localised to him - parlour tricks in comparison.Jesus himself gave the reason for this in Mark 4:12. He spoke in parables and didn't perform cosmic miracles, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 04, 2015, 05:58:34 pm
Oops.Could you explain what that one means when it's not in riddles?I say presumably, because Jesus never actually did anything on a cosmic scale. It was always localised to him - parlour tricks in comparison.Jesus himself gave the reason for this in Mark 4:12. He spoke in parables and didn't perform cosmic miracles, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."
Basically means "I'm not going to make it clear that I'm the son of God because if I did, many people would understand their predicament and ask the Father for forgiveness when they're not supposed to".
Post by: BFEL on October 04, 2015, 06:18:23 pm
Oops.Could you explain what that one means when it's not in riddles?I say presumably, because Jesus never actually did anything on a cosmic scale. It was always localised to him - parlour tricks in comparison.Jesus himself gave the reason for this in Mark 4:12. He spoke in parables and didn't perform cosmic miracles, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."
Basically means "I'm not going to make it clear that I'm the son of God because if I did, many people would understand their predicament and ask the Father for forgiveness when they're not supposed to".
So because Jesus has a phobia of offering any proof towards anything
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 04, 2015, 07:34:26 pm
So because Jesus has a phobia of offering any proof towards anything... I suppose you could phrase it like that if you so wished.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 04, 2015, 07:57:45 pm
Post by: Graknorke on October 04, 2015, 08:02:44 pm
Plus most of them weren't even anything particularly spectacular. Derren Brown could pull a bunch of that shit.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 04, 2015, 08:15:11 pm
But how many people can see one of those? A few thousand with a really intent crowd?Well, he fed a crown of over 5000 men (not including women) with a boy's lunch. Let's say a meal is .5 kilograms per person. That makes 2,500 kilograms of food. I don't think it would be possible to inconspicuously drag 2.5 megagrams of food to the edge of a lake.
Plus most of them weren't even anything particularly spectacular. Derren Brown could pull a bunch of that shit.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 04, 2015, 08:19:45 pm
The Bible certainly has Jesus, and prophets, performing impressive miracles. The part I don't get is why we don't get to see them. I understand that some people believe in local, unverifiable miracles... But these miracles were performed before crowds to convince people. Why not perform a verifiable miracle today, and convince most of the scientific world?
Post by: Graknorke on October 04, 2015, 08:26:51 pm
And we don't get miracles nowadays because letting people make informed decisions based on overwhelming evidence is a violation of free will.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 04, 2015, 08:32:50 pm
Also, Christians are told to live by faith. (faith means to believe in something that cannot be proven. If you want me to explain further, just ask.) God created us to love us, and for his Glory. If he didn't give humans free will to choose what to believe, then we would be like robots. (Like if you told you printer to print 5000 copies of the words "I love you")
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 04, 2015, 08:39:30 pm
Also, yeah, free will. Not much Biblical precedent for it really. You can make a bit of an argument for it (mostly around "God wants us to love him of our own volition", though that's not really Biblical either) but it doesn't hold much water IMO. Not much scientific precedent for free will either, unless you want to say it's tied into quantum physics somehow.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 04, 2015, 08:39:53 pm
Which is the weird part, he seemed to be trying to impress people at that point. Through performing flashy miracles and saying interesting seditious things.
I mean, one of my favorite verses is Matthew 11:21
Quote
Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."Me-dammit, what does it take to convince these jokers?"
Ninja'd by Origami. But I still don't understand. He did these miracles in front of people then, so why not now? If it would destroy faith now, why not then?
I respectfully disagree about scientists not being convinced, by the way. "Christians believe got created the universe and our existence itself" is not a verifiable miracle. Changing pi to a repeating ascii message of "I'm YAHWEH, hi" would convince practically every scientist of the existence of *some* higher power. Many might consider it a trick by a powerful yet mischievous power, maybe aliens... So wouldn't free will still be intact?
And again, if such a display would break free will now, why not back then?
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 04, 2015, 08:40:43 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 04, 2015, 08:42:42 pm
Matthew 14:15-16 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”
Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 04, 2015, 08:46:36 pm
Ninja'd by Origami. But I still don't understand. He did these miracles in front of people then, so why not now?Basically, history is divided into chunks where different beings of God are interacting with Earth. In the OT, most interaction is with God the Father, with all the smiting and fire and pillars of salt. In the NT, we have Jesus (mostly) in charge, with literal tonnes of food, healing, wine, and dead figs. After the NT we have the Holy Spirit in charge, and he doesn't really do anything particularly flashy.
...
Right before Jesus died "darkness came over the whole land" for like three hours. Then there was a huge earthquake and a mass resurrection. Not a lot of subtlety there, or respect for anyone in the area's right to find God on their own.Yeah but that was all metaphorical
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 04, 2015, 08:50:01 pm
There are several parts of the Bible where the three persons of God interacted with each other. So this can't be the case.Ninja'd by Origami. But I still don't understand. He did these miracles in front of people then, so why not now?Basically, history is divided into chunks where different beings of God are interacting with Earth. In the OT, most interaction is with God the Father, with all the smiting and fire and pillars of salt. In the NT, we have Jesus (mostly) in charge, with literal tonnes of food, healing, wine, and dead figs. After the NT we have the Holy Spirit in charge, and he doesn't really do anything particularly flashy.
How do you know?Right before Jesus died "darkness came over the whole land" for like three hours. Then there was a huge earthquake and a mass resurrection. Not a lot of subtlety there, or respect for anyone in the area's right to find God on their own.Yeah but that was all metaphorical
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 04, 2015, 08:52:39 pm
Yeah but that was all metaphorical
That's a respectable answer, but I think a lot of people would disagree. There's a good bit of Christian astronomy based around trying to link various historical eclipses to the Crucifixion.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 04, 2015, 08:54:32 pm
Since Passover happens at a full moon, a solar eclipse cannot be the answer. I believe that it was a miracle that caused it.Yeah but that was all metaphorical
That's a respectable answer, but I think a lot of people would disagree. There's a good bit of Christian astronomy based around trying to link various historical eclipses to the Crucifixion.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 04, 2015, 08:55:47 pm
I sorta like this sort of thing. It seems very Gnostic to me, though. It recognizes that the Father and Son have very different natures. Maybe... aren't even literally the same entity?Ninja'd by Origami. But I still don't understand. He did these miracles in front of people then, so why not now?Basically, history is divided into chunks where different beings of God are interacting with Earth. In the OT, most interaction is with God the Father, with all the smiting and fire and pillars of salt. In the NT, we have Jesus (mostly) in charge, with literal tonnes of food, healing, wine, and dead figs. After the NT we have the Holy Spirit in charge, and he doesn't really do anything particularly flashy.
Perhaps the God of the old Testament is actually a baddie?
Really though, it's a big deal that Jesus is still alive, even though he's in Heaven now. I'm still not sure why his campaign of providing mortals with evidence would end.
Well, the reason Jesus fed them all was not to show his power, but to keep them listening to him longer because they wouldn't have to dispece and find food fo themselves.That's a very valid interpretation of that event, good point. But, he did perform many showy miracles in front of crowds. He even complained that certain people remained unconvinced.
Matthew 14:15-16 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”
Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 04, 2015, 08:57:48 pm
Can you give references? Most of the miracles I remember, Jesus specifically asks people not to tell everyone about it.
That's a very valid interpretation of that event, good point. But, he did perform many showy miracles in front of crowds. He even complained that certain people remained unconvinced.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 04, 2015, 09:04:32 pm
Quote
Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
Somewhat related, Mark 16. Before ascending, he gives grants certain divine powers to all that believe, and then commands those present to prosyletize.
Quote
16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.Technically he's only empowering believers (implying the disciples, but technically all believers) with the ability to perform convincing miracles. Then telling them to convince people.
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 04, 2015, 09:05:56 pm
There are several parts of the Bible where the three persons of God interacted with each other. So this can't be the case.It's more of a vague general guideline for explaining why God doesn't nuke the gays any more rather than a hard rule. I didn't mean that the persons of God can't interact, just that it's rare to see them doing stuff on Earth at the same time.
...
It probably wasn't an eclipse AFAIK but that answer was mostly sarcastic. I don't have any answers re: supernatural shenanigans around Jesus' death/resurrection. All bets are off when it comes to something of that magnitude.Yeah but that was all metaphoricalThat's a respectable answer, but I think a lot of people would disagree. There's a good bit of Christian astronomy based around trying to link various historical eclipses to the Crucifixion.
...
I sorta like this sort of thing. It seems very Gnostic to me, though. It recognizes that the Father and Son have very different natures. Maybe... aren't even literally the same entity?It's possible that the Father wanted him to stop. Jesus remarks that his power comes from the Father, and that he does his Father's will. It explains the inconsistency quite neatly but brings a weird element of disagreement into the Trinity. I'm not really sure what to make of it.
Perhaps the God of the old Testament is actually a baddie?
Really though, it's a big deal that Jesus is still alive, even though he's in Heaven now. I'm still not sure why his campaign of providing mortals with evidence would end.
Also:
Perhaps the God of the old Testament is actually a baddie?What made you think he wasn't?
Post by: Rolan7 on October 04, 2015, 09:13:57 pm
Quote
2:9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroomHonestly I don't feel like I'm doing a good job showing this. But I'm still convinced that I'm right, haha... I've always heard that Jesus went around performing miracles before crowds, I'm just having trouble proving it.
...
2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
:P Mostly the fact that so many Christians don't arrive at that conclusion, basically. Or who maintain that the Trinity act with one purpose.Perhaps the God of the old Testament is actually a baddie?What made you think he wasn't?
... I'm still not sure what the Holy Ghost even *is*.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 04, 2015, 09:49:53 pm
Acts 2:1-4 When the day of Pentecost came, they [the disciples] were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
As for Jesus wanting to keep his miracles quiet, I have a few examples on the top of my head.
Mark 1:41-45 has Jesus healing a leper, Jesus telly him to keep quiet so that he could continue his ministry. Unfortunately, the leper told everyone and their grandmother, so Jesus left the town.
Mark 5:43 after Jesus raised a dead girl from the dead, he gave a "strict order" to not tell anyone.
Post by: Frumple on October 04, 2015, 09:53:52 pm
:P Mostly the fact that so many Christians don't arrive at that conclusion, basically. Or who maintain that the Trinity act with one purpose.Eh. Many christians wouldn't really know chunks of the bible from a hole in the ground, and draw hugely from the fanfiction anyway. Or deliberately ignore swaths of it (sometimes for the better, heh). Lots of 'em not coming to the conclusion that the christian god is a viciously malicious jackass doesn't mean too much.
... I'm still not sure what the Holy Ghost even *is*.
And that's not getting into the tautological stuff where the thing could be the most incredibly and unilaterally evil thing in existence and still be considered not a baddie by christians, strictly because of definition. God is Good, even when God is blatantly evil.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 04, 2015, 10:06:20 pm
Roland, the holy spirit it what God the father sends down to earth to be with every believer. It gives discretion and wisdom. It can also perform miracles.Thanks for the explanation! I guess I had a very vague understanding, but it's good to hear clarification from an actual believer.
Acts 2:1-4 When the day of Pentecost came, they [the disciples] were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
As for speaking in tongues, in Mark 16:17 Jesus does say that all believers will have that power. He doesn't mention the holy ghost, but there's no contradiction there.
In Mark 16:18 Jesus also promises
Quote
16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.Which I think is more problematic
I mean, I can speak in tongues. So can babies, arguably. Even believers can't drink arsenic and live though.
As for Jesus wanting to keep his miracles quiet, I have a few examples on the top of my head.Those are solid examples of Jesus trying to perform miracles secretly. Keep in mind, he was pretty much an enemy of the state.
Mark 1:41-45 has Jesus healing a leper, Jesus telly him to keep quiet so that he could continue his ministry. Unfortunately, the leper told everyone and their grandmother, so Jesus left the town.
Mark 5:43 after Jesus raised a dead girl from the dead, he gave a "strict order" to not tell anyone.
But, he is also said to have performed miracles to convince groups of people. Why else would he have converted the water to wine?
And besides that, having "signs" follow the apostles and prove their words. (Also something about... Sorry, sleepy... 70(?) men being granted similar powers and sent out to prosyletize with miracles)
Post by: Arcvasti on October 04, 2015, 10:58:27 pm
Quote from: Matthew 13:58
And He did not do many miracles there[In Nazereth, Jesus' hometown, for context] because of their unbelief.
This plus the above heavily implies J-man didn't flaunt the miracles too much and didn't use them to directly convince people of their divinity.
re: Holy Ghost
Basically, anytime mystical wind or fire is in the Bible, that's Holy Ghost stuff. Wind across the formless chaos, pillar of fire in the desert, tongues of flame at Pentecost, etc.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 04, 2015, 11:09:49 pm
John 2:4 Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.
So it sounds like he doesn't have a particular desire to turn the water into wine. It sounds like he does it for his mother.
Post by: Rose on October 05, 2015, 12:15:16 am
Of course Jesus wasn't god. Was he a religious leader? Sure. Did he have a connection with god? Probably. Was he, himself, God? No, of course not.
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 05, 2015, 12:51:41 am
Post by: Bohandas on October 05, 2015, 01:48:38 am
Oops.Could you explain what that one means when it's not in riddles?I say presumably, because Jesus never actually did anything on a cosmic scale. It was always localised to him - parlour tricks in comparison.Jesus himself gave the reason for this in Mark 4:12. He spoke in parables and didn't perform cosmic miracles, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."
Basically means "I'm not going to make it clear that I'm the son of God because if I did, many people would understand their predicament and ask the Father for forgiveness when they're not supposed to".
So because Jesus has a phobia of offering any proof towards anything
I always interpreted it as meaning that he want's people to burn in hell.
Post by: Bohandas on October 05, 2015, 01:51:10 am
Post by: Bohandas on October 05, 2015, 02:01:42 am
Ok I have a religiously themed statement for discussion:
An infinite randomness is more powerful than any god put forth by mainstream religions.
What about Fortuna? (or do defunct/former mainstream religions not count?)
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 05, 2015, 02:25:53 am
Post by: Adragis on October 05, 2015, 02:27:25 am
That's much too vulgar a display of power KarrasGentleman Jesus has no time for your vulgarities.
Post by: TD1 on October 05, 2015, 03:56:42 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 08:19:26 am
As somebody who wasn't raised Christian, this conversation is bewildering.Have you read Revalations?
Of course Jesus wasn't god. Was he a religious leader? Sure. Did he have a connection with god? Probably. Was he, himself, God? No, of course not.
Revalation 19:11-16 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
This is talking about the second coming of Jesus. I don't think a spiritual leader could manage any of this. (Also, reading this, you begin to understand why people were afraid of angels.)
On the topic of miracles, I recall a famous one in which Jesus was healing people as they came, and some people crawled in through the roof. This seems rather public/well known about.Again, Jesus didn't heal him because he wanted to have Glory, he was doing ministry, and Jesus even used the faith of the man and his fiends as a teaching moment for the pharisees. Other times, the Bible describes Jesus as healing people because he had pity for them or because he could use their faith to teach people.
Post by: scrdest on October 05, 2015, 08:27:44 am
Says you. And-slash-or traditional exegesis. Jesus is not mentioned by name anywhere here. Revelations is in general cryptic and circumlocutory enough that even self-styled literalists, as much as they'd hate to admit that, treat it like a metaphor; the difference is in the interpretation.As somebody who wasn't raised Christian, this conversation is bewildering.Have you read Revalations?
Of course Jesus wasn't god. Was he a religious leader? Sure. Did he have a connection with god? Probably. Was he, himself, God? No, of course not.
Revalation 19:11-16 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
This is talking about the second coming of Jesus. I don't think a spiritual leader could manage any of this. (Also, reading this, you begin to understand why people were afraid of angels.)
Post by: TempAcc on October 05, 2015, 08:37:46 am
Even the whole deal of Jesus claiming to be the son of God is a bit shady, and may have been added later. Jesus only called God "father", and technically, God is everyone's father. If anything, Jesus was closer to God than anyone else, but never claimed to be God or a part of God even.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 08:37:58 am
If you read earlier, Revelation says:Says you. And-slash-or traditional exegesis. Jesus is not mentioned by name anywhere here. Revelations is in general cryptic and circumlocutory enough that even self-styled literalists, as much as they'd hate to admit that, treat it like a metaphor; the difference is in the interpretation.As somebody who wasn't raised Christian, this conversation is bewildering.Have you read Revalations?
Of course Jesus wasn't god. Was he a religious leader? Sure. Did he have a connection with god? Probably. Was he, himself, God? No, of course not.
Revalation 19:11-16 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
This is talking about the second coming of Jesus. I don't think a spiritual leader could manage any of this. (Also, reading this, you begin to understand why people were afraid of angels.)
Revelation 19:9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.”
At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.
This is an angel talking to John saying that both of them will bear testimony to Jesus, right after this, the white rider comes. Jesus also says alot in the Gospels that he is coming back.
How can you tell say this is a metaphor? It hasn't even happened yet!
Post by: Adragis on October 05, 2015, 09:22:49 am
Post by: That Wolf on October 05, 2015, 09:29:28 am
The oldest text in the world says so.
Dont believe me tho. Im a crazy sexy mfer.
But its true. The me being sexy part
Post by: TD1 on October 05, 2015, 09:37:43 am
Post by: That Wolf on October 05, 2015, 09:46:40 am
Meditation and yoga work so alot of eastern ideas are actually proven to work in the scientific community.
While praying to a god who reads ur thoughts seems backward and acheives no results.
True gods demand blood
Post by: TD1 on October 05, 2015, 09:53:28 am
Meditation and prayer both work in similar ways. The serve to focus the mind. This does not need to be done in a religious context - whether you pray for kindness from the universe or God, the effect is the same. So yes, Eastern meditative practices work, but that in no way adds to the validity of any religion.
Post by: Adragis on October 05, 2015, 09:54:48 am
FAKEDIT: Above poster said the same kinda thing.
Post by: Descan on October 05, 2015, 10:33:21 am
As somebody who wasn't raised Christian, this conversation is bewildering.Meanwhile I'm sitting here just humming "Can't prove the bible with the bible."
Of course Jesus wasn't god. Was he a religious leader? Sure. Did he have a connection with god? Probably. Was he, himself, God? No, of course not.
Post by: MaximumZero on October 05, 2015, 10:38:11 am
I got kicked out of this conversation for that.As somebody who wasn't raised Christian, this conversation is bewildering.Meanwhile I'm sitting here just humming "Can't prove the bible with the bible."
Of course Jesus wasn't god. Was he a religious leader? Sure. Did he have a connection with god? Probably. Was he, himself, God? No, of course not.
Post by: TD1 on October 05, 2015, 10:40:02 am
Post by: Rolan7 on October 05, 2015, 11:07:31 am
A prophet says "X is true!" and people are like "Well how do you know?" and the prophet's like "Behold, I'll predict Y!"
A scientist says "X is probably true!" and people are like "Well how do you know?" and the scientist's like "Behold, if anyone follows these steps then Y happens a statistical amount of the time! X is a possible explanation as to whY."
Skeptics just go with the more verifiable prophecies :P
Post by: Bohandas on October 05, 2015, 11:53:55 am
That part of the revelation was only later associated with Jesus. There's no canon source pointing to the first horseman being Jesus. That and the revelations are supposed to be mostly symbolic, unlike earlier prophecies made by Jesus, like the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, which happened decades after his death.
You're thinking of a different Revelations passage. Different white horse.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 02:14:04 pm
you can't prove that the big bang happened.As somebody who wasn't raised Christian, this conversation is bewildering.Meanwhile I'm sitting here just humming "Can't prove the bible with the bible."
Of course Jesus wasn't god. Was he a religious leader? Sure. Did he have a connection with god? Probably. Was he, himself, God? No, of course not.
You can't prove the age of the earth
You can't prove that your chair will be able to support your weight the next time you sit in it.
It's all faith based
Post by: TempAcc on October 05, 2015, 02:22:29 pm
Which prob means I'm God, by that logic :v
Brb, founding Tempaccism.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 02:24:44 pm
I can prove my chair will support my weight when I sit on it, though.but there is no way to prove that the next time you sit on it, it will hold your weight. Until you sit on it of course. But, in order to sit yourself on the chair, you have to have faith that your chair will hold your weight. You probably don't even think about it because you have faith.
Which prob means I'm God, by that logic :v
Brb, founding Tempaccism.
Post by: Frumple on October 05, 2015, 02:27:46 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 02:29:02 pm
You... don't have to have faith the chair will hold your weight to sit in it. I often don't, because I've sat in a lot of chairs that didn't. Just have to accept the risk that the chair may break.If you knew that the chair would break, would you bother sitting in it?
Post by: TD1 on October 05, 2015, 02:29:12 pm
So you can say if the chair will hold your weight the next time. No faith.
Post by: cerapa on October 05, 2015, 02:29:25 pm
you can't prove that the big bang happened.
You can't prove the age of the earth
You can't prove that your chair will be able to support your weight the next time you sit in it.
It's all faith based
Solipsism is fun indeed, but it's quite useless as a world view, and even more useless when you start redefining words.
Post by: Frumple on October 05, 2015, 02:34:15 pm
If you knew that the chair would break, would you bother sitting in it?Where did I say I knew it would break?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 02:39:17 pm
I was just making a point.If you knew that the chair would break, would you bother sitting in it?Where did I say I knew it would break?
Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. If you sit in your chair, you are believing that it will hold your weight, because you cannot prove that it will hold your weight. So you have faith in your chair. If you don't believe that your chair will hold your weight, you probably won't bother sitting in it, since you don't have faith. While you can gather evidence that the chair will hold your weight, it can't be proven.
It is the same with the Bible. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.
Post by: Adragis on October 05, 2015, 02:42:08 pm
But in practice it's sort of irrelevant for gravity and chairs :P
Post by: TD1 on October 05, 2015, 02:44:51 pm
Theoretically there's a point there: there is always a possibility that everything we ever knew is wrong and gravity does not exist or some such madness.Yea. We can make assertions based on chairs and gravity, but I could use your logic origami to argue that we are living in a muggle world, as the Holy Texts of the Harry Potter Books show. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.
But in practice it's sort of irrelevant for gravity and chairs :P
Post by: cerapa on October 05, 2015, 02:45:04 pm
Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. If you sit in your chair, you are believing that it will hold your weight, because you cannot prove that it will hold your weight. So you have faith in your chair. If you don't believe that your chair will hold your weight, you probably won't bother sitting in it, since you don't have faith. While you can gather evidence that the chair will hold your weight, it can't be proven.
It is the same with the Bible. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.
So, since everything is unknowable, therefore evidence is unprovable and therefore the Bible is true because evidence is irrevelant?
By the exact same logic you could justify believing literally anything. It's basically a meaningless statement, since it holds true for everything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 02:46:41 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 05, 2015, 02:48:41 pm
I was just making a point.If you knew that the chair would break, would you bother sitting in it?Where did I say I knew it would break?
Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. If you sit in your chair, you are believing that it will hold your weight, because you cannot prove that it will hold your weight. So you have faith in your chair. If you don't believe that your chair will hold your weight, you probably won't bother sitting in it, since you don't have faith. While you can gather evidence that the chair will hold your weight, it can't be proven.
It is the same with the Bible. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.
What silliness. Of course one can prove a chair will hold a given weight. It is a trivial element of mechanics and material science. Heck, you could even base it on a body of prior experience - in that case, there was only ever one single act of "faith" in the initial sitting. Religious faith is a different sort of faith to holding confidence in a body of knowledge, as it is not and can not be based on such observations.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 02:50:13 pm
Not necessarily. While you can run as many tests on the chair as you want, there is always a minuscule chance that this time, something in the structure will be off and the chair will break.I was just making a point.If you knew that the chair would break, would you bother sitting in it?Where did I say I knew it would break?
Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. If you sit in your chair, you are believing that it will hold your weight, because you cannot prove that it will hold your weight. So you have faith in your chair. If you don't believe that your chair will hold your weight, you probably won't bother sitting in it, since you don't have faith. While you can gather evidence that the chair will hold your weight, it can't be proven.
It is the same with the Bible. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.
What silliness. Of course one can prove a chair will hold a given weight. It is a trivial element of mechanics and material science. Heck, you could even base it on a body of prior experience - in that case, there was only ever one single act of "faith" in the initial sitting. Religious faith is a different sort of faith to holding confidence in a body of knowledge, as it is not based on such observations.
Post by: TD1 on October 05, 2015, 02:51:51 pm
But there is equipment we could use to study the chair down to the minutiae of its being. We can use evidence to show that this chair will or won't break.Not necessarily. While you can run as many tests on the chair as you want, there is always a minuscule chance that this time, something in the structure will be off and the chair will break.I was just making a point.If you knew that the chair would break, would you bother sitting in it?Where did I say I knew it would break?
Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. If you sit in your chair, you are believing that it will hold your weight, because you cannot prove that it will hold your weight. So you have faith in your chair. If you don't believe that your chair will hold your weight, you probably won't bother sitting in it, since you don't have faith. While you can gather evidence that the chair will hold your weight, it can't be proven.
It is the same with the Bible. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.
What silliness. Of course one can prove a chair will hold a given weight. It is a trivial element of mechanics and material science. Heck, you could even base it on a body of prior experience - in that case, there was only ever one single act of "faith" in the initial sitting. Religious faith is a different sort of faith to holding confidence in a body of knowledge, as it is not based on such observations.
Even applying the argument to God is pointless, since if you hold it true for everything, then it doesn't add or take anything away from the argument for existence of god.
Post by: Teneb on October 05, 2015, 02:52:58 pm
I can prove my chair will support my weight when I sit on it, though.There is no God but TempAcc, and He is His own Prophet.
Which prob means I'm God, by that logic :v
Brb, founding Tempaccism.
The thing about this quote is that Descan wasn't saying the Bible can't be proven. He said the Bible can't prove the Bible, but you could, theoretically, prove the Bible right through other means.you can't prove that the big bang happened.As somebody who wasn't raised Christian, this conversation is bewildering.Meanwhile I'm sitting here just humming "Can't prove the bible with the bible."
Of course Jesus wasn't god. Was he a religious leader? Sure. Did he have a connection with god? Probably. Was he, himself, God? No, of course not.
You can't prove the age of the earth
You can't prove that your chair will be able to support your weight the next time you sit in it.
It's all faith based
And you can most certainly prove that the chair won't break by sitting on it. Also different kind of faith and all that. But I was ninja'd on those things.
Not necessarily. While you can run as many tests on the chair as you want, there is always a minuscule chance that this time, something in the structure will be off and the chair will break.Still not the same kind of faith. My chair has no religious implications. There is no higher power behind whether or not my chair breaks. But the more times the chair has withstood your weight before, the more we can be sure it will continue to be so if it's not modified in any way.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 02:57:19 pm
Post by: TD1 on October 05, 2015, 02:58:43 pm
What you were trying to say is that your form of faith is as valid as scientific faith, which it isn't.
Post by: Graknorke on October 05, 2015, 02:58:50 pm
you can't prove that the big bang happened.But you can get empirical evidence that supports those things.
You can't prove the age of the earth
You can't prove that your chair will be able to support your weight the next time you sit in it.
It's all faith based
For the big bang you've got the expansion of the universe and the CMBR.
For the age of the Earth we've got radiometric dating.
For chairs you can just test it by sitting on it and then assuming that neither your weight nor the chair's strength have changed significantly since last time. It's not as concrete as doing proper measurements but it's also very easy.
And none of those require you to believe they're true before you can see the evidence.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 03:00:25 pm
We know what faith is. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence.there can be evidence, but not proof.
What you were trying to say is that your form of faith is as valid as scientific faith, which it isn't.
I was trying to show that you have faith in many of your beliefs, to show that having faith in the bible is not a ludicrous action.
Post by: Teneb on October 05, 2015, 03:03:54 pm
How is evidence different from proof? What would be the difference in me saying "there is evidence water is wet" to "there is proof water is wet"?We know what faith is. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence.there can be evidence, but not proof.
What you were trying to say is that your form of faith is as valid as scientific faith, which it isn't.
I was trying to show that you have faith in many of your beliefs, to show that having faith in the bible is not a ludicrous action.
Post by: Graknorke on October 05, 2015, 03:04:50 pm
Post by: Adragis on October 05, 2015, 03:06:07 pm
Admittedly, science (as in, the thing itself) is not on the side of religion, so it tends to turn up more evidence against the former. There are a few bits of evidence for biblical things, but not as many by far.
Plus, there are no absolutes, if you want to be all philosophical about it.
Post by: Graknorke on October 05, 2015, 03:07:22 pm
Plus, there are no absolutes, if you want to be all philosophical about it.There's maths. We created the system and it definitely works the same every time, caused entirely by factors that you know. That's why you can prove things.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 03:09:07 pm
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Post by: Adragis on October 05, 2015, 03:10:07 pm
Post by: TempAcc on October 05, 2015, 04:17:45 pm
Of course, I'm far from being the best person at properly demonstrating this.
I'm a religious person myself, in many ways, but I do not superimpose my beliefs into what can and has been verified by science, which is easy for me, since I believe science can be a way to improve religion, to bring it closer to its real purpose, which is, again, the improvement of mankind.
I can prove my chair will support my weight when I sit on it, though.There is no God but TempAcc, and He is His own Prophet.
Which prob means I'm God, by that logic :v
Brb, founding Tempaccism.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Frumple on October 05, 2015, 05:06:37 pm
Math is a way to portraying reality... no? It is one of the means we use to attempt to describe reality, but math itself is... pretty much entirely divorced from reality. And certainly not intended to do the job. A lot like logic, really. It's about axioms and their interactions... that parts happen to be applicable (sometimes quite poorly) to reality is more happy coincidence than anything else...
Post by: TD1 on October 05, 2015, 05:54:07 pm
You don't have faith in Homer, or Gilgamesh. Neither do I. I just add the Bible to that list of ancient fairy tales.I'd actually like an answer as to why the Bible is taken as being reliable (by believers) in nearly everything it says, but Homer isn't. The Bible tells a story of God (gods if you include Jesus as a separate entity) and their interaction with humanity, and so does Homer. Homer tells the story as if it is true, just like Homer does. And if you're taking age into consideration, the Old Testament can be dated to around about the 12 Century BC, whereas the Iliad can be brought back to the 8 Century BC - in their written forms. Homer's works at least are well known to have been handed down as part of an oral tradition.
If you justify faith in one, why not the other? Is it just your culture? Is it whimsy? Is it because God specifically speaks to you?
Post by: scrdest on October 05, 2015, 05:56:32 pm
Dictionary.comIn a discussion, you're usually on your own side of the argument, not your opponents'.
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Even still, the non-italicized part points to the simple fact that even going by your line of argument, a body of evidence is a proof.
Yes, there's a one in a jillion chance the next time you sit on it, the chair will in fact break. Or anything non-standard happens. That is an assumption that any self-respecting scientist makes during data analysis and is explicitly included in said analysis numerically in good ones.
The standard is that for not terribly important matters a conclusion that's true in 9995 out of 10000 observations is terribly unlikely to be a result of 9995 mistakes; for DO NOT MESS THAT UP cases like clinical tests it's 9999 out of 10000.
The second part of it is a more philosophical assumption that reality is consistent with itself. It's an entirely groundless assumption, for which there is absolutely zero evidence and zero proof. And yet it's still made - because it can be otherwise summed up as 'knowledge exists'.
It could absolutely be true! Except then we would have to more or less instantly revert to less than cavemen once we realized that. If how the world works, the fundamental laws of physics, can change on a whim then you cannot know anything - what worked as a chair yesterday may be a high explosive today, because someone cranked the cosmic dial on the free energy of wood.
Otherwise, you know fairly reliably that wooden chairs are a decent seating and won't break or vaporize from underneath you if they are the exact same as the chairs you tested and any breaking chairs are breaking due to hidden factors like material damage that you didn't test for but which will also reliably cause the same issue if you do test.
All of the things you claimed cannot be proved have been proposed in the first place by looking at the evidence then proposing a reasonable explanation then looking at more evidence turning up and checking if it, um, checks out. The age of the Earth would have no impact on radiometric dating or whatever else was used to gather evidence on that method; they don't use the age of the Earth as a reference point at all. Even if the age of Earth or Big Bang were false the evidence that was used for them would still be true; it would just point to another explanation.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 08:24:10 pm
My point is not about chairs. I am trying to explain my faith in the Bible, but I clealy chose the wrong example. I wanted something that everyone could elate to.Dictionary.comIn a discussion, you're usually on your own side of the argument, not your opponents'.
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Even still, the non-italicized part points to the simple fact that even going by your line of argument, a body of evidence is a proof.
Yes, there's a one in a jillion chance the next time you sit on it, the chair will in fact break. Or anything non-standard happens. That is an assumption that any self-respecting scientist makes during data analysis and is explicitly included in said analysis numerically in good ones.
The standard is that for not terribly important matters a conclusion that's true in 9995 out of 10000 observations is terribly unlikely to be a result of 9995 mistakes; for DO NOT MESS THAT UP cases like clinical tests it's 9999 out of 10000.
The second part of it is a more philosophical assumption that reality is consistent with itself. It's an entirely groundless assumption, for which there is absolutely zero evidence and zero proof. And yet it's still made - because it can be otherwise summed up as 'knowledge exists'.
It could absolutely be true! Except then we would have to more or less instantly revert to less than cavemen once we realized that. If how the world works, the fundamental laws of physics, can change on a whim then you cannot know anything - what worked as a chair yesterday may be a high explosive today, because someone cranked the cosmic dial on the free energy of wood.
Otherwise, you know fairly reliably that wooden chairs are a decent seating and won't break or vaporize from underneath you if they are the exact same as the chairs you tested and any breaking chairs are breaking due to hidden factors like material damage that you didn't test for but which will also reliably cause the same issue if you do test.
All of the things you claimed cannot be proved have been proposed in the first place by looking at the evidence then proposing a reasonable explanation then looking at more evidence turning up and checking if it, um, checks out. The age of the Earth would have no impact on radiometric dating or whatever else was used to gather evidence on that method; they don't use the age of the Earth as a reference point at all. Even if the age of Earth or Big Bang were false the evidence that was used for them would still be true; it would just point to another explanation.
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 05, 2015, 08:39:37 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 05, 2015, 08:44:23 pm
The closest real-life comparison to faith that I can think of is getting a random email with antivirus.exe attached. You can be rational and cast it aside, or you can have faith that the program is what it claims to be and open it - quietly hoping that it doesn't get into your porn folder.
Orange Wizard, you should change the thread title to something about chairs :)
Post by: Frumple on October 05, 2015, 08:46:04 pm
And even irrationality doesn't necessarily imply imbecility...
Post by: Rolan7 on October 05, 2015, 08:56:56 pm
"What happens after we die?" "Maybe a series of rewards/punishments similar to our common moral framework (or that of ancient desert people)"
"Why are we here?" "Because a supremely powerful being cares about us a whole lot, so we don't need to feel insignificant"
Or, for me...
"What's in the dark?" "Fascinating, alien beings who delight in our happiness and suffering"
"Are we part of something greater?" "The Earth is a super-organism"
This is entirely natural, people have to work with insufficient data all the time. It's only a problem when these hypotheses get disproven by observable evidence... But aren't discarded. Only then does it become dishonest and dangerous.
Post by: Arcvasti on October 05, 2015, 09:19:27 pm
The closest real-life comparison to faith that I can think of is getting a random email with antivirus.exe attached. You can be rational and cast it aside, or you can have faith that the program is what it claims to be and open it - quietly hoping that it doesn't get into your porn folder.
Orange Wizard, you should change the thread title to something about chairs :)
Quote from: New Religion Thread Title
Religion and Spirituality Discussion: God-Proof Chairiots Edition
Already done.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 05, 2015, 09:23:28 pm
Oh nevermind, it's iron. Safe from Yahweh and fairies both!
... What do you mean "cold iron" isn't just iron that's cold? *suspicious death*
Post by: Graknorke on October 05, 2015, 09:24:28 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 05, 2015, 09:28:46 pm
... 'cept that's not just faith, it's also blinding stupidity.True, but I'm having trouble deciding which side of the argument I'm supposed to be on.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 05, 2015, 09:51:07 pm
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/08/04/the-ongoing-saga
Post by: Rose on October 05, 2015, 11:13:19 pm
Post by: Adragis on October 05, 2015, 11:52:10 pm
It also contradicts modern science, as the Bible also does.
Pretty much all the religions contradict, because different gods.
You don't even have to be so specific.
Although by that logic modern science is also wrong.
Post by: Frumple on October 05, 2015, 11:58:13 pm
Still, should try the vedas and whatnot. They got some neat stuff in 'em about zappy bits, iirc.
Post by: Adragis on October 06, 2015, 12:03:49 am
Post by: Frumple on October 06, 2015, 12:14:20 am
Lot of times it's not so much outright disproving as refinement and improvement, but it amounts to about the same thing. Science has gotten fundamental things wrong often enough in the past most of it is self-aware enough to realize we've probably got it wrong now, somehow, and we'll likely get it wrong again in the future. Just less so. Is a lot of the beauty of it, really.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 06, 2015, 12:16:48 am
Science provides hypotheses which survive peer review. But, seemingly inevitably, new hypotheses arise which are even more precise.
Sure, Newton was wrong, but his model of physics was incredibly useful and reliable. At the tiny speeds one observes on Earth's surface.
Post by: Descan on October 06, 2015, 12:35:04 am
Yeeeep.The thing about this quote is that Descan wasn't saying the Bible can't be proven. He said the Bible can't prove the Bible, but you could, theoretically, prove the Bible right through other means.you can't prove that the big bang happened.As somebody who wasn't raised Christian, this conversation is bewildering.Meanwhile I'm sitting here just humming "Can't prove the bible with the bible."
Of course Jesus wasn't god. Was he a religious leader? Sure. Did he have a connection with god? Probably. Was he, himself, God? No, of course not.
You can't prove the age of the earth
You can't prove that your chair will be able to support your weight the next time you sit in it.
It's all faith based
Post by: Adragis on October 06, 2015, 12:39:47 am
Post by: Descan on October 06, 2015, 12:40:34 am
Post by: i2amroy on October 06, 2015, 01:13:57 am
Science doesn't prove, though. Only provides overwhelming evidence in support.Indeed. The only things in the realm of science that you can actually "prove" are those in the more theoretical based sciences like math and computer science, and that's only because those particular fields are based solely on rules that we made up ourselves (thus letting us know all of the "base" rules to their full extent), unlike things like physics where we only know some of the "base" rules, and those that we do know we only know to a limited degree of precision. As scientists work more and more on a given theory they are able to refine those laws to a higher and higher degree of precision, but AFAIK at this point it is actually impossible for us to ever reach the point of actually being able to "prove" something based on the physical world since everything we've done so far seems to indicate that many of the constants that it is based on are infinitely precise (like pi), meaning that you will always be able to calculate any given answer to "one more decimal point".
Which isn't to say, of course, that it is impossible that a base theorem like the world being a sphere could be overturned. It just means that anything that replaces it is going to have to give identical answers to what a sphere would in 99.99999999% of the time, since we have huge mountains of evidence pointing towards the Earth being a sphere. Quantum mechanics is actually a great place to see this in action right now, since we have about 10 different readily accepted theories floating around at the moment, all of which give the exact same results for every single experiment we've ever done. The only places that they differ is in experiments that we haven't done, since all of them, by definition, have to at least provide matching results for every single experiment already performed in order to have any chance at all of being closer to the "true" answer than the current ones are.
Post by: i2amroy on October 06, 2015, 01:32:42 am
Ooh, that brings up a good question- do we invent math, or do we discover it?My university asks this at every math faculty interview (of which the department does 1 every Friday as part of their weekly faculty/student research presentations :P). The best answer I've heard so far went something like this:
Quote
I think that it's kinda both. We create the basic rules of the system, you know, define what a determinant is or what converting a graph into a matrix entails, but then we discover all of the cool facts and implications of those rules, like the Four Color Theorem. So in that way it's both created and discovered, because we are creating the lowest level of the rules on our own, but then we are discovering all of the neat implications that we didn't think of when we were creating the lowest levels of the system.
Post by: scrdest on October 06, 2015, 02:26:02 am
Ooh, that brings up a good question- do we invent math, or do we discover it?Yes. :P
Post by: TD1 on October 06, 2015, 08:14:37 am
You don't have faith in Homer, or Gilgamesh. Neither do I. I just add the Bible to that list of ancient fairy tales.I'd actually like an answer as to why the Bible is taken as being reliable (by believers) in nearly everything it says, but Homer isn't. The Bible tells a story of God (gods if you include Jesus as a separate entity) and their interaction with humanity, and so does Homer. Homer tells the story as if it is true, just like Homer does. And if you're taking age into consideration, the Old Testament can be dated to around about the 12 Century BC, whereas the Iliad can be brought back to the 8 Century BC - in their written forms. Homer's works at least are well known to have been handed down as part of an oral tradition.
If you justify faith in one, why not the other? Is it just your culture? Is it whimsy? Is it because God specifically speaks to you?
Post by: Helgoland on October 06, 2015, 08:21:36 am
I'd actually like an answer as to why the Bible is taken as being reliable (by believers) in nearly everything it saysDude, not everyone has this literalism fetish that you share with the more hardcore protestants. Even the pope will happily tell you that the bible is wrong in many places - though he'll use another word, of course -, since it was written down by fallible men who were only inspired by God.
TL;DR: You're operating on a false premise.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 06, 2015, 08:23:43 am
I just realized that the bible talks about unicorns:
Job 39:9 will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
It's too bad we don't call rhinoceroses unicorns anymore.
Spoiler: UNOCORN!! (click to show/hide)
Post by: Adragis on October 06, 2015, 08:24:44 am
Post by: TD1 on October 06, 2015, 08:25:35 am
I didn't say that the Bible is absolutely correct. I said they believe it. The spirit of it, if you will. The message.I'd actually like an answer as to why the Bible is taken as being reliable (by believers) in nearly everything it saysDude, not everyone has this literalism fetish that you share with the more hardcore protestants. Even the pope will happily tell you that the bible is wrong in many places - though he'll use another word, of course -, since it was written down by fallible men who were only inspired by God.
TL;DR: You're operating on a false premise.
The same cannot be said of Homer.
Also, literalism is probably the only way to justify religion. Not that it's much of an excuse, mind, but if your religion is relative then it's not really convincing. But that's a debate already had many times.
Many of those have similar stories to stories in the bible. Just with differences which leads me to believe that they were stories passed down through word of mouth and written down later, after they had changed.\
I just realized that the bible talks about unicorns:
Job 39:9 will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
It's too bad we don't call rhinoceroses unicorns anymore.Spoiler: UNOCORN!! (click to show/hide)
You do know that the Bible was written down sometimes generations after the life of Jesus? And that the Old Testament almost certainly circulated through an oral tradition before it was written down. It has more inconsistencies than the Odyssey or Iliad do.
Edit. Unless you mean that the stories in Homer stemmed from the Bible events? Where is there correlation between the two tales to justify this?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 06, 2015, 08:34:33 am
We keep finding manuscripts closer and closer to the life of Jesus. here (http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century/) for example. There are some parts about the old testament that could not have come from anybody but God (creation for example) which means that God must have spoken to the writer about it.I didn't say that the Bible is absolutely correct. I said they believe it. The spirit of it, if you will. The message.I'd actually like an answer as to why the Bible is taken as being reliable (by believers) in nearly everything it saysDude, not everyone has this literalism fetish that you share with the more hardcore protestants. Even the pope will happily tell you that the bible is wrong in many places - though he'll use another word, of course -, since it was written down by fallible men who were only inspired by God.
TL;DR: You're operating on a false premise.
The same cannot be said of Homer.
Also, literalism is probably the only way to justify religion. Not that it's much of an excuse, mind, but if your religion is relative then it's not really convincing. But that's a debate already had many times.Many of those have similar stories to stories in the bible. Just with differences which leads me to believe that they were stories passed down through word of mouth and written down later, after they had changed.\
I just realized that the bible talks about unicorns:
Job 39:9 will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
It's too bad we don't call rhinoceroses unicorns anymore.Spoiler: UNOCORN!! (click to show/hide)
You do know that the Bible was written down sometimes generations after the life of Jesus? And that the Old Testament almost certainly circulated through an oral tradition before it was written down. It has more inconsistencies than the Odyssey or Iliad do.
Edit. Unless you mean that the stories in Homer stemmed from the Bible events? Where is there correlation between the two tales to justify this?
I don't know anything about homer, I was mainly talking about Giglamesh.
Post by: TD1 on October 06, 2015, 08:37:46 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 06, 2015, 09:15:11 am
I didn't say that the Bible is absolutely correct. I said they believe it. The spirit of it, if you will. The message.People believe it because other people say they believe it. No-one believes in Christ Homer, so to speak, so no-one else believes in him either.
The same cannot be said of Homer.
Post by: Frumple on October 06, 2015, 09:31:45 am
There are some parts about the old testament that could not have come from anybody but God (creation for example) which means that God must have spoken to the writer about it.... no? Those parts could have come from anybody, and says nothing about the writer(s) except they wrote it. We make creation stories and fantastic tales literally for fun, and have since pretty much as far back as we can trace. Fiction is a thing, and it doesn't require a god speaking to someone to make it.
Post by: Flying Dice on October 06, 2015, 10:26:10 am
You could even invert it and phrase it thus: Science does not prove, science disproves. When science repeatably and consistently fails to disprove something, you've begun to describe an empirical fact; additional attempts to disprove it will either do so or further refine the degree to which it is understood. With enough refining an empirical fact which continues to resist being disproved long enough can be sufficiently well-documented and understood to serve as the basis for attempts to disprove other ideas. Bam, science, described (poorly) in plain English.Science doesn't prove, though. Only provides overwhelming evidence in support.Indeed. The only things in the realm of science that you can actually "prove" are those in the more theoretical based sciences like math and computer science, and that's only because those particular fields are based solely on rules that we made up ourselves (thus letting us know all of the "base" rules to their full extent), unlike things like physics where we only know some of the "base" rules, and those that we do know we only know to a limited degree of precision. As scientists work more and more on a given theory they are able to refine those laws to a higher and higher degree of precision, but AFAIK at this point it is actually impossible for us to ever reach the point of actually being able to "prove" something based on the physical world since everything we've done so far seems to indicate that many of the constants that it is based on are infinitely precise (like pi), meaning that you will always be able to calculate any given answer to "one more decimal point".
Which isn't to say, of course, that it is impossible that a base theorem like the world being a sphere could be overturned. It just means that anything that replaces it is going to have to give identical answers to what a sphere would in 99.99999999% of the time, since we have huge mountains of evidence pointing towards the Earth being a sphere. Quantum mechanics is actually a great place to see this in action right now, since we have about 10 different readily accepted theories floating around at the moment, all of which give the exact same results for every single experiment we've ever done. The only places that they differ is in experiments that we haven't done, since all of them, by definition, have to at least provide matching results for every single experiment already performed in order to have any chance at all of being closer to the "true" answer than the current ones are.
Post by: Bohandas on October 06, 2015, 11:53:34 am
I was just making a point.If you knew that the chair would break, would you bother sitting in it?Where did I say I knew it would break?
Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. If you sit in your chair, you are believing that it will hold your weight, because you cannot prove that it will hold your weight. So you have faith in your chair. If you don't believe that your chair will hold your weight, you probably won't bother sitting in it, since you don't have faith. While you can gather evidence that the chair will hold your weight, it can't be proven.
It is the same with the Bible. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.
What silliness. Of course one can prove a chair will hold a given weight. It is a trivial element of mechanics and material science. Heck, you could even base it on a body of prior experience - in that case, there was only ever one single act of "faith" in the initial sitting.
I think the idea here is that you could have been hallucinating, or the prior sitting could be a confabulation or false memory.
Post by: Bohandas on October 06, 2015, 12:01:11 pm
We know what faith is. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence.there can be evidence, but not proof.
What you were trying to say is that your form of faith is as valid as scientific faith, which it isn't.
As anecdotal hearsay however the bible is inadmissible as evidence to both scientific inquiry and legal proceedings
Post by: i2amroy on October 06, 2015, 12:19:37 pm
Alright. What are the correlations with Gilgamesh, then?I'd say a lot of the reason why people widespread believe in one and not the other is because a large portion of the bible is aimed at laying down a moral code and a codified way of life. On the other hand while the epic of Gilgamesh has some morals that get stated over the course of it, the majority of the story is simply that, a story.
Quote from: The 48 Laws of Power
Law 27: Play on people's need to believe to create a cult like following.There's a reason why this exists; by giving a list of rules and various morals over its course, the bible is much better at "capturing" converts than the epic of Gilgamesh is. This ensures that even though some people may leave the religion, it can sustain itself by converting people from other religions.
In a lot of ways the study of memes and religions is very similar to that of evolution, funnily enough. :P Those religions that are best at "spreading" through converts, are good at "surviving" by keeping those that join them present in the religion, and are good at "evolving" by having flexible enough moral codes to allow them to change over time to fit modern values are going to be those that survive the best in a given area, just as how the organisms that are best at spreading, surviving, and evolving are going to be the most widespread ones in biology.
As anecdotal hearsay however the bible is inadmissible as evidence to both scientific inquiry and legal proceedingsHonestly I'd say the biggest problem the bible has from a scientific point of view is a lack of both repeatability (from an experimental point of view) and a lack of supporting evidence (from a historical one). Compared to something like say, ice melting at 100 degrees, the miracles in the bible can't be recreated by people. And compared to something like say, the migration of people over the land bridge from Siberia over into the Americas, which has large amounts of physical evidence supporting it, something like the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, which has absolutely no physical supporting evidence, is lacking from a historical point of view.
From both sides it fails requirements to be able to be looked at either scientifically or historically on multiple counts. (Of course this says nothing about its philosophical or moral value, which can be taken seriously for discussion if needed).
Post by: Rolan7 on October 06, 2015, 12:30:43 pm
Post by: Bohandas on October 06, 2015, 01:11:05 pm
RE: Science and wrongness: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Or to put it more briefly
"“The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set some limit on infinite error" -Bertolt Brecht
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 06, 2015, 01:52:35 pm
Post by: TD1 on October 06, 2015, 02:24:57 pm
I must admit I know little of Gilgamesh, simply adding it as an epic as Homer's works are epics. So, for the example of the Odyssey and Iliad, there is a strong moral message throughout on how to act, and how to honour the gods. Alexander the Great is said to have read a page a day in order to become more virtuous. If the Greeks had a Bible, this would be it.Alright. What are the correlations with Gilgamesh, then?I'd say a lot of the reason why people widespread believe in one and not the other is because a large portion of the bible is aimed at laying down a moral code and a codified way of life. On the other hand while the epic of Gilgamesh has some morals that get stated over the course of it, the majority of the story is simply that, a story.Quote from: The 48 Laws of PowerLaw 27: Play on people's need to believe to create a cult like following.There's a reason why this exists; by giving a list of rules and various morals over its course, the bible is much better at "capturing" converts than the epic of Gilgamesh is. This ensures that even though some people may leave the religion, it can sustain itself by converting people from other religions.
Quote
In a lot of ways the study of memes and religions is very similar to that of evolution, funnily enough. :POh, hi Dawkins. Didn't see you walk in there :P
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 06, 2015, 06:37:01 pm
That's how the old testament was. However, nobody could ever keep all the laws, so as time went by, the only solution seemed to be MOAR LAWS! Then Jesus came and told everybody that the reason God gave them the law was to prove that they needed a savior because they all couldn't keep the law.Alright. What are the correlations with Gilgamesh, then?I'd say a lot of the reason why people widespread believe in one and not the other is because a large portion of the bible is aimed at laying down a moral code and a codified way of life.
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 06, 2015, 06:46:24 pm
In a lot of ways the study of memes and religions is very similar to that of evolution, funnily enough. :P Those religions that are best at "spreading" through converts, are good at "surviving" by keeping those that join them present in the religion, and are good at "evolving" by having flexible enough moral codes to allow them to change over time to fit modern values are going to be those that survive the best in a given area, just as how the organisms that are best at spreading, surviving, and evolving are going to be the most widespread ones in biology.Christianity is pretty fascinating in that regard. The OT's moral code is anything but flexible, but people still find ways to wiggle it like a pen to make it appear flexible.
something like the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, which has absolutely no physical supporting evidence, is lacking from a historical point of view.Didn't someone find a copper sword or something in the Red Sea? Pretty sure that counts as evidence.
Post by: Graknorke on October 06, 2015, 07:08:53 pm
Didn't someone find a copper sword or something in the Red Sea? Pretty sure that counts as evidence....does it? It's not as though swords were particularly rare, and neither would they be too easy to find the origin of nowadays.
Post by: redwallzyl on October 06, 2015, 09:54:18 pm
speaking as a marine archaeologist in training that could have gotten their about a million different ways and have gotten there anywhere from old kingdom Egypt to Ptolemaic Egypt or beyond. the red sea was a major trade corridor and i could imagine may different scenarios for that i would believe before the bible story and I'm a christian! best way to determine age would probably be measuring concretion or comparing styles with already dated examples. a sample of copper could be traced to mines in Sinai or other copper producing regions. that kind of stuff is well documented.Didn't someone find a copper sword or something in the Red Sea? Pretty sure that counts as evidence....does it? It's not as though swords were particularly rare, and neither would they be too easy to find the origin of nowadays.
did i ramble a bit? sorry. i like this kind of stuff a lot.
Post by: Flying Dice on October 06, 2015, 10:17:10 pm
speaking as a marine archaeologist in training that could have gotten their about a million different ways and have gotten there anywhere from old kingdom Egypt to Ptolemaic Egypt or beyond. the red sea was a major trade corridor and i could imagine may different scenarios for that i would believe before the bible story and I'm a christian! best way to determine age would probably be measuring concretion or comparing styles with already dated examples. a sample of copper could be traced to mines in Sinai or other copper producing regions. that kind of stuff is well documented.Didn't someone find a copper sword or something in the Red Sea? Pretty sure that counts as evidence....does it? It's not as though swords were particularly rare, and neither would they be too easy to find the origin of nowadays.
did i ramble a bit? sorry. i like this kind of stuff a lot.
Nah, being passionate about your field is a good thing.
Post by: Rose on October 06, 2015, 11:00:25 pm
Post by: i2amroy on October 06, 2015, 11:33:41 pm
Yay, quote time!something like the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, which has absolutely no physical supporting evidence, is lacking from a historical point of view.Didn't someone find a copper sword or something in the Red Sea? Pretty sure that counts as evidence.
Quote from: Exodus, Carol Meyers
After more than a century of research and the massive efforts of generations of archaeologists and Egyptologists, nothing has been recovered that relates directly to the account in Exodus of an Egyptian sojourn and escape or of a large-scale migration through Sinai.
Quote from: Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, William Denver
There was not so much as a potshard from the 13th-12th centuries B.C., the time frame required, as we have seen, for the Exodus.
Quote from: Ze'ev Herzog, Israeli archaeologist
The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.Modern archaeology pretty much agrees that the Israelites never had Egyptian origins, but instead arose from the local areas of Canaan. In fact, if you look at the archaeological evidence of the earliest of Israelite settlements, their cult objects are of the Canaanite god, their pottery is made in the local Canaanite way, and their early alphabet very closely matches the early Canaanite one. They are so much alike, in fact, that really the only outlier is that the Israelite encampments are pig bone free, while the early Canaanite ones are not.
This also lines up with the fact that whole tale of Exodus is chock full of anachronisms. There are tons of mentions of places that never existed, places that were only occupied later, places that were occupied by the Egyptians instead of the Israelites but were ruins by the time much of the bible was being written, and so forth. To put it bluntly, the Exodus never happened, and it so much never happened that even the modern Israelite scientists who have made their careers looking into it are agreeing that it never happened. :P
Post by: Reelya on October 06, 2015, 11:45:25 pm
There are a bunch of parallels to the bible.
For example, the Hyksos capital of Avaris happens to be directly in the center of the "land of goshen" where Joseph supposedly settled the israelites. This could possibly relate to Hyksos leaders inviting in fellow canaanites as additional settlers during the Hyksos period. Such resettlement is well-established historic fact of the period: the Hyksos didn't all come at once, they conquered cities, gradually expanded and a steady flow of settlers from the canaan region joined them.
Also if you read about Josephs actions in Egypt, it amounts to (in black and white unambiguous terms) (1) hoard all the food (2) starve the people to get them to cough up all their gold (3) appopriate all the cattle (4) herd the native population into cities thus depriving them of productive land (5) give the left over land to settlers from your home country. It's plausible because that's precisely how colonialist invasions work in practice. It sounds like a verbatim description of what's happened in Gaza, the Boer War, or the Vietnam War. So, my money is on the fact that there's a grain of truth in exodus, but it's putting a positive spin on the 17th century BC when canaanites invaded Egypt and enslaved everyone, then tried to control them by removing them from the farmland.
Also, I think it's in Genesis 39 "Thus he left all that he had in Joseph's hand, and he did not know what he had except for the bread which he ate." basically, it's saying the Pharaoh lost all control of the country, but still existed as a figurehead. "Puppet emperor under house arrest" is what that sounds like to me (think Pizarro and emperor Atahualpa, who was also seen as a living God, and who's capture thus forced servitude from the natives). The whole thing reads like a "how to subjugate other countries" manual. Perhaps the stories were educational back in a barbaric time of how to invade people. And the last act listed by the Israelites was looting all the gold and silver from the remaining citizens before they fled. Of course this was "magical god-powered looting", like we believe that. So it doesn't count under "thou shalt not steal". lol. But it does sound plausible if an uprising is forcing your people out of the conquered country that the last thing you do is mass looting. It's plausible because that's exactly what would happen in that situation.
Post by: germanyfrance on October 11, 2015, 01:26:59 pm
Post by: Graknorke on October 11, 2015, 01:33:59 pm
Post by: Arx on October 11, 2015, 01:43:49 pm
Post by: Adragis on October 11, 2015, 01:59:39 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 11, 2015, 02:01:14 pm
So I was watching a friend play binding of Issac on the DS. And he said that it was based off of a story of Abraham and Issac in the bible. If the game is anything close to the real story, than Abraham is a terrible father. Is the game leaving out important details or something?The game does leave out several details that make the story make more sense. (i've only really seen the intro cutscene, but I think that is what you are referring to) When taken out of context, Abraham looks like a terrible father, but you have to look at the entire story.
God promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great many people. And that they would come through Issac.
Genesis 15:5 He [God] took him [Abram] outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
Genesis 17:5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
Abraham had faith that God would keep his promise to have many descendants through Issac. Which could obviously not happen if Issac was dead. So when God commanded Abraham to: "Take your son, your only son, Issac, whom you love, and...Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering.." Abraham came to the conclusion that God would Raise Issac back from the dead.
Hebrews 11:19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
So Abraham was going to go through with the sacrifice because he believed that God would raise him back from the dead. Instead, God gave a Ram to be sacrificed instead. You are probably asking why God did this if he already knew what was going to happen. The reason is that God was pointing to another event where someone would give his son, his only son, whom he loved. Jesus.
Post by: Cthulhu on October 11, 2015, 02:16:00 pm
That sounds more like a Pascal's Wager kind of thing which reduces God to a counting machine and removes his agency and ability to tell between a moral person and somebody pulling shenanigans. Having a post hoc justification in Hebrews doesn't really improve it in my eyes.
Post by: Adragis on October 11, 2015, 02:19:00 pm
Post by: Bohandas on October 11, 2015, 03:29:10 pm
Hebrews 11:19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
If that's the closest God can do at raising the dead I am not impressed. Any random dictator or mafia kingpin can do that.
Post by: Antioch on October 11, 2015, 03:41:51 pm
If asked for my convictions I would say that I am a freethinker.
A quote by William Kingdon Clifford is often cited as a short summary of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
How do you guys identify with the principles of freethought?
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 11, 2015, 03:42:24 pm
I think he was responding to orgasmicscienceguy actually.
Post by: TD1 on October 11, 2015, 03:59:55 pm
Why would it need to be through Isaac? Was Abraham sterile, that he couldn't have other children/wives/dalliances?So I was watching a friend play binding of Issac on the DS. And he said that it was based off of a story of Abraham and Issac in the bible. If the game is anything close to the real story, than Abraham is a terrible father. Is the game leaving out important details or something?The game does leave out several details that make the story make more sense. (i've only really seen the intro cutscene, but I think that is what you are referring to) When taken out of context, Abraham looks like a terrible father, but you have to look at the entire story.
God promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great many people. And that they would come through Issac.
Genesis 15:5 He [God] took him [Abram] outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
Genesis 17:5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
Abraham had faith that God would keep his promise to have many descendants through Issac. Which could obviously not happen if Issac was dead. So when God commanded Abraham to: "Take your son, your only son, Issac, whom you love, and...Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering.." Abraham came to the conclusion that God would Raise Issac back from the dead.
Hebrews 11:19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
So Abraham was going to go through with the sacrifice because he believed that God would raise him back from the dead. Instead, God gave a Ram to be sacrificed instead. You are probably asking why God did this if he already knew what was going to happen. The reason is that God was pointing to another event where someone would give his son, his only son, whom he loved. Jesus.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 11, 2015, 04:01:58 pm
It's not the closest God can do. This is what Abraham was thinking and why he was confident enough in God to sacrifice his son.Hebrews 11:19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
If that's the closest God can do at raising the dead I am not impressed. Any random dictator or mafia kingpin can do that.
Post by: TD1 on October 11, 2015, 04:05:37 pm
Post by: Helgoland on October 11, 2015, 04:17:54 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 11, 2015, 04:44:11 pm
I was wondering that as well, actually.
If you could answer my question, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to know why it's specifically Isaac that Abraham's children must come from. Is there a relevant verse?When God made the covenant with Abraham, Abraham asked God, "O Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless...You have given me no children so a servant in my household will be my heir. Then the word of the Lord came to him: "...A son coming from your body will be your heir." (Genesis 15:2-3)
Later, after Ismael was born, God cam again and said "I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers. (Genesis 17:2) Right after that, three men came and God spoke, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son." So God's promise of an heir was for Issac, not Ishmael. Those were the only sons Abraham had so it really couldn't have been anybody else really. You have to remember that Sarah was like ninety-something by this time.
Post by: TD1 on October 11, 2015, 04:56:54 pm
Quote
16 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.
When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.”
6 “Your slave is in your hands,” Abram said. “Do with her whatever you think best.” Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.
7 The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. 8 And he said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?”
“I’m running away from my mistress Sarai,” she answered.
9 Then the angel of the Lord told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” 10 The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.”
11 The angel of the Lord also said to her:
“You are now pregnant
and you will give birth to a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,[a]
for the Lord has heard of your misery.
12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers.”
Post by: Frumple on October 11, 2015, 05:13:21 pm
Are we actually trying to defend this guy's character or something? Because I'm not exactly seeing arguments to the positive. Dude was a slave owner (or at least married to one, and condoning the abuse and effective murder of slaves, which is at least as bad), a rapist, and willing to throw his child's mother out into the goddamn desert, apparently to die. Whether the dude actually intended to kill another kid is kinda' irrelevant at that point. Pretty much hit full bastard before that. He already explicitly let his wife try to kill the first one.
Honestly, looking at that, it seems a lot more likely to me the guy did intend to kill isaac. Fellow pretty obviously does not give a single solitary shit about his kids.
Post by: That Wolf on October 11, 2015, 05:13:52 pm
Wow.
I beleive in a deity but I dont praise it.
All gods comments in the scripture sounds like satan.
"Seeing me will kill you, so hide in this rock and I will pass over you and you will feel it"
"Kill this thing for me... dont worry its an animal, it has no soul"
"Im only strong if you believe"
Just look at Israel and you will see where religious zealots take us.
Oh yeah the reason Abram got tricked by god was because he didnt count the stars, mainly because of his vision problems
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Graknorke on October 11, 2015, 05:17:19 pm
Post by: That Wolf on October 11, 2015, 05:23:57 pm
yes I would, I would obey.
Seeing as god has never approached me or bothered me I will continue to live as I do.
Post by: TD1 on October 11, 2015, 06:23:31 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 11, 2015, 08:20:45 pm
... so abra(ha)m is... apparently a rapist and willing to stand aside while his wife tries to murder the pregnant mother of his bastard child. That. That's great, I guess. I think I can see why I forgot details of that particular story.Where does it say he was a rapist? Back then it was not uncommon for men to have multiple wives.
Are we actually trying to defend this guy's character or something? Because I'm not exactly seeing arguments to the positive. Dude was a slave owner (or at least married to one, and condoning the abuse and effective murder of slaves, which is at least as bad), a rapist, and willing to throw his child's mother out into the goddamn desert, apparently to die. Whether the dude actually intended to kill another kid is kinda' irrelevant at that point. Pretty much hit full bastard before that. He already explicitly let his wife try to kill the first one.
Honestly, looking at that, it seems a lot more likely to me the guy did intend to kill isaac. Fellow pretty obviously does not give a single solitary shit about his kids.
[16:3] So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife.
Where dies it say Sarah tried to kill Hagar?
Slaves were not anything like what happened in America before the civil war. They were more comparable to servants. They were not bought or sold, rather, they often gave themselves or their children into servitude so they could eat. The masters were not (usually) cruel or inhumane. The slaves ate and slept better than they would by themselves.
Yes, Abraham messed up when he took Hagar, but everybody messes up. That is why we need a Savior. However, Abraham loved Issac very much and being willing to sacrifice him must have taken more faith than I can imagine.
Yea, Abraham was a real pig from the perspective of those in our society. Note, also, that God turns the girl back to her slavery, and identifies her as "slave," despite essentially returning her to cruelty. This, again, is the expectation of the time. Unless you think that the Abrahamic society was somehow the "right" society, he is an utter and complete ass, and arguably so is God.I can't find this, could you tell me where it is in the Bible? Also, see the slavery thing above.
Do people still believe in the bibles?So do you think that Jesus was the Devil as well? If so, why is the Devil doing all of this because there obviously isn't a good god in this case. If not, then WHY would Satan make the entire Old Testament pointing towards the only thing that could ruin him?
Wow.
I beleive in a deity but I dont praise it.
All gods comments in the scripture sounds like satan.
"Seeing me will kill you, so hide in this rock and I will pass over you and you will feel it"
"Kill this thing for me... dont worry its an animal, it has no soul"
"Im only strong if you believe"
Just look at Israel and you will see where religious zealots take us.
Oh yeah the reason Abram got tricked by god was because he didnt count the stars, mainly because of his vision problemsSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Also, I did make a mistake. Abraham had more sons than Issac and Ishmael I just didn't find it in my first responses.
"Now Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. 2And she bore to him Zimran and Jokshan and Medan and Midian and Ishbak and Shuah," (Genesis 25:1-2)
This still does not change the fact that Issac was the son promised by God.
Post by: Frumple on October 11, 2015, 08:57:23 pm
Where does it say he was a rapist? Back then it was not uncommon for men to have multiple wives.Let me shift that emphasis for you. Rape's a pretty straightforward thing involving lack of consent. There was no consent involved here. Cause, y'know, slavery.
[16:3] So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife.
Quote
Where dies it say Sarah tried to kill Hagar?Pregnant woman, thrown out, found in desert. I guess sarai "only" threw hagar out to die of exposure? I'd still be pretty willing to call that attempted murder, m'self.
Quote
Slaves were not anything like what happened in America before the civil war. They were more comparable to servants. They were not bought or sold, rather, they often gave themselves or their children into servitude so they could eat. The masters were not (usually) cruel or inhumane.Let's... not try to whitewash slavery with the exact same rhetoric slave owners used, yes? Because those were the exact same lines stateside slave owners used to try to whitewash slavery.
Also, yeah, sex slavery, being gifted to your husband to be knocked up, and then being thrown out into the desert (most likely to die) is pretty inhumane by most reasonable standards, I'd say. Maybe the mythical good slaveowner was more common back then, who the zog knows. Abraham and family most definitely wasn't an example of them.
---
... just.. look. If you want to say these monsters were messengers of god, or somehow favored by the divine, or... whatever. Okay. I won't agree, and I'll definitely question your willingness to put human filth on a pedestal or consider them anything even remotely resembling role models, but largely m'pretty willing to say "have at it." But call a horse a horse. These were not good people. It takes a god to have their actions be anything resembling excusable.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 11, 2015, 09:02:45 pm
I am sure that you feel the same about me, so it is probably best not to continue this argument.
Post by: Frumple on October 11, 2015, 09:10:26 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 11, 2015, 09:20:53 pm
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." (Exodus 21:20)
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)
"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)
"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves. (Exodus 23:12)
Do not slander a slave to his master, Or he will curse you and you will be found guilty. (Proverbs 30:10)
'Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. (Leviticus 19:20)
"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. (Deuteronomy 23:15)
'If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. (Leviticus 25:39-43)
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)
Post by: Frumple on October 11, 2015, 09:32:30 pm
... would you happen to have any historical or archaeological support for the position, offhand? Or is it just your interpretation of the biblical texts?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 11, 2015, 09:41:21 pm
Y... you do realize those laws still allow for a tremendous amount of abuse, up to and including systematic physical harm and the rape of your slaves, right? Especially for non-hebrew slaves. And there's a few others in the OT that don't paint even nearly so moderating a picture (which is damning those ones with faint praise, as they still paint a pretty horrible one).Oh, don't worry. There were plenty of other laws against rape and abuse. But they were generalized to everybody, not just masters and slaves. I really don't want to dig those up.
... would you happen to have any historical or archaeological support for the position, offhand? Or is it just your interpretation of the biblical texts?
As for the archaeological evidence, I don't think it would be possible to give any evidence of how Abraham treated Hagar in either direction. The Bible is the best source. These were the laws for the Israelites, the Egyptians in early exodus for example did not follow those standards. That is the only "bad" example of slavery in the early OT that I can think of. I'll give a run-down of what a life of a slave might have been.
-Harvest of one year is bad, you can't feed yourself so you sell your land and yourself to a master.
-your master (or mistress) gives you food and shelter so long as you work for them.
-After 7 years of work, your master gives you back your land and you work it again.
Post by: Bohandas on October 11, 2015, 09:49:30 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 11, 2015, 09:54:29 pm
IIRC it was 49 yearsExodus 21:2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free.
The 50 year year of Jubilee was something else related to land. I don't know exactly what.
Post by: Bohandas on October 11, 2015, 10:06:19 pm
IIRC it was 49 yearsExodus 21:2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free.
Granted.
That brings up another issue though, IIRC there were far fewer protections for enslaved foreigners.
Because the ancient Hebrews were racist fucks.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 11, 2015, 10:08:43 pm
Because the ancient Hebrews were racist fucks.Yes. That actually sums it up pretty well.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 11, 2015, 10:43:55 pm
I am using the laws of the Israelites.Next line, to be fair: "but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." (Exodus 21:21)
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." (Exodus 21:20)
Pretty normal for slavery, but... not nice. We can interpret that and Exodus 21:12 to mean that a master who kills a slave was put to death:
"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)But I don't think that's true. Literally, that would mean soldiers would be put to death... and also the people putting others to death, would be put to death. Dwarf Fortress loyalty cascade :P
So it's not literal. It's probably like the first commandment, which only applies to fellow Israelites. I think it's interesting that the laws say things like "don't kill", and all these exceptions are just understood. Shows that they didn't think much of criminals or outsiders (all the massacres and slave-taking were also clues).
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)This is cool
"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves. (Exodus 23:12)It's lumping slaves in with livestock. The Israelites couldn't work on the sabbath, and neither could their property. That'd be cheating.
Also, note that children of female slaves are also slaves.
Aaand... actually, the female slaves aren't actually given the day off. The reason is as obvious as it is disgusting. (And I don't just mean the housework)
Do not slander a slave to his master, Or he will curse you and you will be found guilty. (Proverbs 30:10)They're lying to the other Israelite. The master could harm his own slave over the lie, so lying like that is a serious offense against the master.
'Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. (Leviticus 19:20)Have sex with a free woman: Death
Have sex with someone else's slave: "Punishment", probably a fine for ruining the slave's value.
And what happens to the slave? Stoning women for getting raped happens *today*, and the armies of Israel tended to kill non-virgin women on their conquests. My bet is that the rapist would be encouraged to buy the slave. "You break her, you buy her".
"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. (Deuteronomy 23:15)Huh, I guess this is cool too. Seems very out of place though... Ah, it doesn't say they become free. They just get to choose a new master. Even so, sounds bizarre.
Some people suggest that it was intended for severely mistreated slaves... Particularly those from other tribes. That I can see. Letting slaves freely choose their masters just doesn't sound historical.
'If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. (Leviticus 25:39-43)Why stop there?
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)
Quote from: Exodus 21:4-7
4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.
5 But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,'
6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently
7 If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
And yes, fellow Hebrews got special treatment. Foreign slaves were just slaves, as were their children.
YeahBecause the ancient Hebrews were racist fucks.Yes. That actually sums it up pretty well.
Oh, don't worry. There were plenty of other laws against rape and abuse. But they were generalized to everybody, not just masters and slaves. I really don't want to dig those up.They would go into towns and kill everyone except for the young virgin girls, who they'd take as slaves. They probably didn't call it rape, but... it was. I'd call it a "very aggressive arranged marriage", but it wasn't marriage. It was involuntary concubinage.
Post by: TD1 on October 12, 2015, 04:06:57 am
Also, I did make a mistake. Abraham had more sons than Issac and Ishmael I just didn't find it in my first responses.
"Now Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. 2And she bore to him Zimran and Jokshan and Medan and Midian and Ishbak and Shuah," (Genesis 25:1-2)
This still does not change the fact that Issac was the son promised by God.
Just because Abraham was told Isaac was going to be born, doesn't mean that he's going to be the one all Abram's ancestors will come from. I mean, it's fairly obvious that with that amount of children (who knows how many other slaves he impregnated?) he is going to have many descendants. With or without Isaac.
Plus, Sarah's slave was specifically told that her descendants would be numberless. That definitely fulfils God's obligations on the "you'll have loads of descendants" front.
Post by: TD1 on October 23, 2015, 02:40:36 pm
Someone shared this on facebook.
I found it humorous that they say "these people are bad because they judge" and then goes on to judge them. Heh.
Post by: Flying Dice on October 23, 2015, 09:41:15 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on October 24, 2015, 08:46:43 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 24, 2015, 09:28:45 am
Post by: wierd on October 24, 2015, 09:33:33 am
It is not suprising that it harbors the most vile intellectual filth that humans can concieve of. Really. Aggregating and concentrating "Like minded" people and their vitriol is like, kinda its purpose for existing. (aside from the obvious, which is to make Mark Zuckerberg filthy fricken rich of course.)
Post by: Flying Dice on October 24, 2015, 11:30:01 am
"Like minded" people
You. YOU, sir! You have just been awarded the Noble Prize in Applied Punnery.
Post by: TD1 on October 29, 2015, 10:10:13 am
Under Constantius Arianism (belief that God and Jesus are separate) was supported, interestingly, and this was accepted by the Nicene Council (barring the odd one exiled for their blasphemy) and many other Christians.
Shows what a fine line we walk between "blasphemy" and fact.
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 29, 2015, 07:11:34 pm
Shows what a fine line we walk between "blasphemy" and fact.Relevant? (https://youtu.be/__OAU2aCZ4M?t=3m6s)
Post by: Vilanat on November 05, 2015, 04:13:38 pm
The theoretical assumption this study suggest as to the causation is by indicating that while religious children are less likely to share with others, they identify themselves as more moral than non-religious children (A notion they share with their parents) and as a result, do not feel the need to share with others as they are already moral enough (In their own opinion).
Post by: Arx on November 05, 2015, 04:27:02 pm
(Having longer time under religious influence)
Not actually studied, as far as I can tell. Pretty sure they'd need to test with kids of that age who'd swapped religions or something to be sure.
Can't say I think they come off as particularly neutral, but eh.
It would be interesting to see how this relates to geography, as well. I feel like the Islamic group would tend to draw more heavily from the Middle East, but I have absolutely nothing to back that up.
It's a bit disheartening. Plenty of people screwing up a fundamental message of Christianity.
And with that, I think I might be filtering this thread out of my replies for a bit.
Post by: Baffler on November 05, 2015, 04:39:41 pm
Going to throw bit quite a toxic bomb here, but according to this study (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01167-7), religious children are less likely to share with others than non-religious children. further more, this correlation strengthen as the child gets older (Having longer time under religious influence) and for children from deeper religious households.
I wouldn't put too much stock in what these people are saying. Sampling bias hits this pretty hard, with almost all of the irreligious children coming from the wealthiest countries they sampled from.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 05, 2015, 04:48:06 pm
I wouldn't put too much stock in what these people are saying. Sampling bias hits this pretty hard, with almost all of the irreligious children coming from the wealthiest countries they sampled from.How can you tell? A lot of this is greek to me.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 05, 2015, 08:12:22 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 05, 2015, 08:42:18 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 05, 2015, 10:10:34 pm
A lot of the spread post-Constantine was political. Suddenly, instead of being barred from public office (iirc), Christians were suddenly the only group eligible for it. So the nobility and senate flocked to the new official religion. And then status quo ensued for another thousand or so years, in all the countries born out of Rome's collapse.Except for all the countries now full of protestants, new popetm catholicism, everyone in the east, all the meditteranean muslim countries and so on
That kind of sounds accurate throughout history. It seems that the more persecuted Christians are, the more firm the believers get and Christianity will spread stronger (but not faster) But once it's less persecuted, it spreads much faster, but not very strong if you know what I mean. I guess that when Christianity is suddenly persecuted, it will die off a large amount, but if it is suddenly "liberated" (like during Constantine) it spreads like crazy. That's just what I'm thinking.Unsurprisingly suppressing a religion reaffirms its believers and tolerating it allows its proselytizers to spread it, this isn't unique to Christianity m8 this is how all ideologies work and it doesn't even always work like that
If the Saudi Arabians stopped killing missionaries I don't think there'd be an explosion in Christian conversions any time soon
Post by: Bohandas on November 05, 2015, 10:30:13 pm
That kind of sounds accurate throughout history. It seems that the more persecuted Christians are, the more firm the believers get and Christianity will spread stronger (but not faster) But once it's less persecuted, it spreads much faster, but not very strong if you know what I mean. I guess that when Christianity is suddenly persecuted, it will die off a large amount, but if it is suddenly "liberated" (like during Constantine) it spreads like crazy. That's just what I'm thinking.Unsurprisingly suppressing a religion reaffirms its believers and tolerating it allows its proselytizers to spread it
I think the solution may be to laugh at them
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 05, 2015, 10:32:44 pm
I think that's the same as suppressing it.That kind of sounds accurate throughout history. It seems that the more persecuted Christians are, the more firm the believers get and Christianity will spread stronger (but not faster) But once it's less persecuted, it spreads much faster, but not very strong if you know what I mean. I guess that when Christianity is suddenly persecuted, it will die off a large amount, but if it is suddenly "liberated" (like during Constantine) it spreads like crazy. That's just what I'm thinking.Unsurprisingly suppressing a religion reaffirms its believers and tolerating it allows its proselytizers to spread it
I think the solution may be to laugh at them
Post by: Bohandas on November 05, 2015, 10:43:13 pm
Post by: Descan on November 05, 2015, 10:54:24 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 05, 2015, 10:57:56 pm
I think the solution may be to laugh at themWe tried that in Europe, people got beheaded
Post by: Bohandas on November 05, 2015, 11:03:33 pm
It suppresses them aboooout as much as it suppresses Flat Earthers.
Well I don't think flat-earth is the official ideology of any nation
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 05, 2015, 11:13:34 pm
Well, the Reformation was a hiccup along the way. Still Christianity, just with fewer priests. The Schism is pretty weird politically speaking; I can't really comment on that very well.A lot of the spread post-Constantine was political. Suddenly, instead of being barred from public office (iirc), Christians were suddenly the only group eligible for it. So the nobility and senate flocked to the new official religion. And then status quo ensued for another thousand or so years, in all the countries born out of Rome's collapse.Except for all the countries now full of protestants, new popetm catholicism, everyone in the east, all the meditteranean muslim countries and so on
Spread of Islam is (mostly, afaik) the same thing as Rome/Christianity, with the Umayyads blobbing all over the place, then disintegrating into a bunch of independent Muslim nations. They just managed to eat a few Christian provinces in the process.
Post by: Descan on November 05, 2015, 11:28:31 pm
Either way, laughing at them isn't likely to be suppressive. Hell, it'd be less suppressive, since Christianity is riding in so many people in power to defend it.It suppresses them aboooout as much as it suppresses Flat Earthers.
Well I don't think flat-earth is the official ideology of any nation
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2015, 11:33:12 pm
You know what the fucked up part is though? They're way more upset at being laughed at than people are at being beheaded. Sarcasm and absurdity are an existential terror to ideological veins that live off of being taken seriously, and religions are no exception.I think the solution may be to laugh at themWe tried that in Europe, people got beheaded
Post by: Bohandas on November 06, 2015, 12:47:36 am
You know what the fucked up part is though? They're way more upset at being laughed at than people are at being beheaded. Sarcasm and absurdity are an existential terror to ideological veins that live off of being taken seriously, and religions are no exception.I think the solution may be to laugh at themWe tried that in Europe, people got beheaded
That's the idea exactly.
Post by: Adragis on November 06, 2015, 01:54:51 am
Post by: ggamer on November 06, 2015, 02:11:13 am
I'd think saying something like 'fnyar fnyar we know exactly how 2 defeat these christian scumbags the answer is laughter fnyar fnyar' is against the thread rules :P
I think the idea pertains more religious fundamentalists, i.e. the types that did the charlie hebdo shootings or that boycott the funerals of soldiers
at least, that's what I gathered. Bohandas is a grey area for me
Post by: Adragis on November 06, 2015, 02:15:12 am
Post by: Flying Dice on November 06, 2015, 02:45:59 am
Post by: Adragis on November 06, 2015, 02:57:16 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 06, 2015, 03:04:25 am
Post by: Sheb on November 06, 2015, 04:10:08 am
Post by: Adragis on November 06, 2015, 04:48:25 am
The soldiers fought for the US, homosexuality isn't a criminal offence in the US, ergo the soldiers are filthy homofags and are going to hell.lungs
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 06, 2015, 04:54:35 am
You know what the fucked up part is though? They're way more upset at being laughed at than people are at being beheaded. Sarcasm and absurdity are an existential terror to ideological veins that live off of being taken seriously, and religions are no exception.All the broadcasters bowed down to their demands so I'd say they were more afraid of being beheaded than they of being laughed at
Post by: TD1 on November 06, 2015, 08:42:48 am
A lot of the spread post-Constantine was political. Suddenly, instead of being barred from public office (iirc), Christians were suddenly the only group eligible for it. So the nobility and senate flocked to the new official religion. And then status quo ensued for another thousand or so years, in all the countries born out of Rome's collapse.
Plus, it was linguistically based too. Christianity merely had the good fortune to come into prominence in a time when Alexander the Great had spread Greek culture almost as far as possible, and when Rome subsequently defeated that empire. So there were only two main languages which everyone who was anyone knew - a perfect breeding ground for a religious spread.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that if Alexander the Great hadn't done what he'd done, we probably wouldn't even have heard of Christianity. It may have only been limited to wherever Constantine managed to spread it, given language and culture barriers.
Also, yea. Constantine hoarded Christians, and his son Constantius persecuted polytheists. Christians were the only ones allowed to thrive, as it was imposed by the emperor.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 06, 2015, 10:27:54 am
That kind of sounds accurate throughout history. It seems that the more persecuted Christians are, the more firm the believers get and Christianity will spread stronger (but not faster) But once it's less persecuted, it spreads much faster, but not very strong if you know what I mean. I guess that when Christianity is suddenly persecuted, it will die off a large amount, but if it is suddenly "liberated" (like during Constantine) it spreads like crazy. That's just what I'm thinking.
On the subject of the study, I don't see it as saying Christians or religious people are bad. Just that unreligious people have morals too (and that, maybe, religion can distract people from actually being good).
That may sound like a silly conclusion, but it's *very* common for religious people to question the possibility of atheist morality. "If you don't believe in God, where does morality come from?" is one of the most asked "gotchas". Furthermore, most Christians believe that all humans are sinful creatures who deserve punishment. That includes all Christians, and also all atheists... The atheists are just "unrepentant". Stuff like this is why atheists are often lumped in with Satanists as untrustworthy and morally suspect.
And, ironically, muslims: http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/the_numbers_are_in_america_still_distrusts_atheists_and_muslims_partner/
This generosity study, like the earlier studies on divorce rates, just show that atheists have functioning morality without religion. We shouldn't *need* to prove that, but people still don't believe it's true.
Post by: Telgin on November 06, 2015, 10:58:14 am
That may sound like a silly conclusion, but it's *very* common for religious people to question the possibility of atheist morality. "If you don't believe in God, where does morality come from?" is one of the most asked "gotchas". Furthermore, most Christians believe that all humans are sinful creatures who deserve punishment. That includes all Christians, and also all atheists... The atheists are just "unrepentant". Stuff like this is why atheists are often lumped in with Satanists as untrustworthy and morally suspect.
Pretty much. Clearly not all Christians are like that, or any other religious group, but it absolutely was and is a common belief around where I grew up.
As a kid who didn't know any better I went along with a lot of the "holier than thou" stuff that was preached. If I found out someone was an atheist, I was first shocked, then appalled, then just accepted an attitude of "well, you're a bad person who's going to Hell and getting what you deserve." I never said that to anyone, but I thought it a lot.
When I look back on some of the things I believed as a child, specifically because of the local flavor of Christianity, I'm both ashamed and terrified. I believe that my personal code of morality and ethics is far better after I left that stuff behind, and it scares me that things like that are pressed onto children who will accept and repeat it like I did.
Post by: Bohandas on November 06, 2015, 01:50:00 pm
That may sound like a silly conclusion, but it's *very* common for religious people to question the possibility of atheist morality. "If you don't believe in God, where does morality come from?" is one of the most asked "gotchas". Furthermore, most Christians believe that all humans are sinful creatures who deserve punishment. That includes all Christians, and also all atheists... The atheists are just "unrepentant". Stuff like this is why atheists are often lumped in with Satanists as untrustworthy and morally suspect.
Pretty much. Clearly not all Christians are like that, or any other religious group, but it absolutely was and is a common belief around where I grew up.
As a kid who didn't know any better I went along with a lot of the "holier than thou" stuff that was preached. If I found out someone was an atheist, I was first shocked, then appalled, then just accepted an attitude of "well, you're a bad person who's going to Hell and getting what you deserve." I never said that to anyone, but I thought it a lot.
When I look back on some of the things I believed as a child, specifically because of the local flavor of Christianity, I'm both ashamed and terrified. I believe that my personal code of morality and ethics is far better after I left that stuff behind, and it scares me that things like that are pressed onto children who will accept and repeat it like I did.
I've always found it ironic that 1 Corinthians 13:11 is the perfect metaphor for losing one's faith and becoming an atheist or agnostic.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 06, 2015, 02:58:34 pm
I was like this, and I still partly am. I know that instead of condemning others, I am supposed to love and share with them. The holy spirit changes the hearts, not me. It is quite difficult though. Especially when some of my personnel morals are breached, like abortion or gay marriage.That may sound like a silly conclusion, but it's *very* common for religious people to question the possibility of atheist morality. "If you don't believe in God, where does morality come from?" is one of the most asked "gotchas". Furthermore, most Christians believe that all humans are sinful creatures who deserve punishment. That includes all Christians, and also all atheists... The atheists are just "unrepentant". Stuff like this is why atheists are often lumped in with Satanists as untrustworthy and morally suspect.
Pretty much. Clearly not all Christians are like that, or any other religious group, but it absolutely was and is a common belief around where I grew up.
As a kid who didn't know any better I went along with a lot of the "holier than thou" stuff that was preached. If I found out someone was an atheist, I was first shocked, then appalled, then just accepted an attitude of "well, you're a bad person who's going to Hell and getting what you deserve." I never said that to anyone, but I thought it a lot.
When I look back on some of the things I believed as a child, specifically because of the local flavor of Christianity, I'm both ashamed and terrified. I believe that my personal code of morality and ethics is far better after I left that stuff behind, and it scares me that things like that are pressed onto children who will accept and repeat it like I did.
Post by: Telgin on November 06, 2015, 04:49:35 pm
The rambling point I made, which I'll provide in brief here, is that the things I was taught as a kid turned me into a passive bully throughout my teenage years. Three of my best friends in high school were gay. Everyone but me knew it, but I was in denial because... well, being gay was terrible. They weren't terrible people, so they weren't gay. Anyway, none of them ever told me because they knew how I felt about it, and it wasn't until years after we'd all graduated and moved away that I learned the truth.
Of course, by then I didn't care one bit and had already come to the conclusion that most of the things I was taught as a kid were nonsense, but it did instill a powerful message in me. For years and years these people interacted with me a lot, and we were friends, but they never let me know the truth. They told other people, so they must have had a reason to not tell me. Were they afraid to? Did they think I'd stop being their friends if they told me? Would I have stopped being their friends?
I don't know, but the mere thought of it scares me. It's not that different from picking on someone for anything else outside of their control. I never picked on anyone for anything and thought the idea was despicable, but yet... I was effectively doing just that, wasn't I?
"I can't be friends with the short kid" isn't so different from "I can't be friends with the gay kid." Just imagine what it must feel like to be pressed into secrecy because of something like that. If I didn't cause harm I surely didn't help.
So, that's a very large part of why I decided that my morals shouldn't be dictated by rules from the bronze age. I've come to believe a lot more in a "live and let live" policy. If your beliefs and actions don't hurt anyone, why should I care what you do or believe?
Post by: TD1 on November 06, 2015, 06:02:08 pm
Post by: Graknorke on November 06, 2015, 06:13:54 pm
FAKE EDIT: Speak of the fucking devil. (https://youtu.be/Fq6lG4GeEMI) Couldn't have been timed better.
Post by: Bohandas on November 06, 2015, 08:14:46 pm
FAKE EDIT: Speak of the fucking devil. (https://youtu.be/Fq6lG4GeEMI) Couldn't have been timed better.
They introduce a false dichotomy at the end of that trailer. Personally I'd rather judge God.
Post by: TD1 on November 06, 2015, 08:28:24 pm
Why can humans not judge their creator?
Just can't. He's right.
Why is he right?
He's God, that's why.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 06, 2015, 08:31:34 pm
Yes, teachers can no longer lead students in a Buddhist, Taoist, Islamic, Christian, Hindu, etc prayer.
This argument is "No, teachers should be allowed to teach their personal religious beliefs in schools!"
If these guys won, cue many teachers around the nation telling kids "Well actually, there probably isn't a God in the sense your parents say. Next question?"
(Not really, they'd get fired soooo fast)
Post by: Bohandas on November 06, 2015, 08:44:53 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 06, 2015, 08:50:02 pm
I have an insight in regard to the "problem of hell" that may be salient. Basically, how severe of a punishment something is can be seen as how much worse it makes a person's condition, so while being flayed alive in a pit of lava may be severe to us living in 21st century free countries it would be a comparatively much more mild worsening of conditions to someone living in ancient squalor under mosaic law.In the bible, the actual punishment of hell is spending an eternity without God. You would go through the judgement, so you would witness God's full glory, then be sentenced to a life without him forever.
Post by: TD1 on November 06, 2015, 08:55:53 pm
The Bible seems to put it much more physically.I have an insight in regard to the "problem of hell" that may be salient. Basically, how severe of a punishment something is can be seen as how much worse it makes a person's condition, so while being flayed alive in a pit of lava may be severe to us living in 21st century free countries it would be a comparatively much more mild worsening of conditions to someone living in ancient squalor under mosaic law.In the bible, the actual punishment of hell is spending an eternity without God. You would go through the judgement, so you would witness God's full glory, then be sentenced to a life without him forever.
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Any Biblical passages saying Hell is only separation from God?
Edit: And then a webpage gave me these...
(3) Hell is conscious torment.
Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
(4) Hell is eternal and irreversible.
Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 06, 2015, 09:35:24 pm
He also smote a fig tree because he didn't get figs from it. If that's not the most literal metaphor ever I don't know what is.
Post by: Adragis on November 07, 2015, 04:23:50 am
What if it wasn't the season for figs?
Post by: lemon10 on November 07, 2015, 04:41:49 am
No, that isn't what the bible says hell is. While various sects believe thats what hell is, the bible never really says that. Honestly, its pretty vague on the whole matter, and what it does say seems to imply an eternity of hellfire and torment.I have an insight in regard to the "problem of hell" that may be salient. Basically, how severe of a punishment something is can be seen as how much worse it makes a person's condition, so while being flayed alive in a pit of lava may be severe to us living in 21st century free countries it would be a comparatively much more mild worsening of conditions to someone living in ancient squalor under mosaic law.In the bible, the actual punishment of hell is spending an eternity without God. You would go through the judgement, so you would witness God's full glory, then be sentenced to a life without him forever.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 07, 2015, 04:47:22 am
what it does say seems to imply an eternity of hellfire and tormentA lot of churches teach that while Hell is eternal, the suffering isn't, because your soul is destroyed. Basically brief pain and then nothing, like dreamless sleep.
Very liberal churches tend to ignore Hell entirely. It's only the really conservative ones (like mine) that hold to eternal torment as... gospel.
Post by: Helgoland on November 07, 2015, 06:14:31 am
No, that isn't what the bible says hell is. While various sects believe thats what hell is, the bible never really says that.It's really really weird how deeply ingrained sola scriptura is even among the areligious folks here.
Post by: Graknorke on November 07, 2015, 07:20:16 am
It kind of is the entire basis of Christianity. The god that created everything told people a bunch of stuff and to write it down, and since he said it, it's the absolute truth.No, that isn't what the bible says hell is. While various sects believe thats what hell is, the bible never really says that.It's really really weird how deeply ingrained sola scriptura is even among the areligious folks here.
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2015, 08:08:33 am
Really, I'm saying have free reign to change it as you please (for the better, preferably) but the family knife that's had its handle changed half a dozen times, and the blade changed four times, isn't the same family knife anymore. Even if the blade and handle are better quality.
Post by: Arx on November 07, 2015, 08:46:39 am
It kind of is the entire basis of Christianity. The god that created everything told people a bunch of stuff and to write it down, and since he said it, it's the absolute truth.
I think you're reinforcing Helgo's point. As is Dwarfy.
Post by: Graknorke on November 07, 2015, 08:53:20 am
I find it fascinating how religion's advocates always interpret the texts in the most positive way possible, and its detractors always interpret them in the most negative way possible.I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that the nice things are actually bad and people are just interpreting them wrong. There's a difference between being negative, and being realistic about a negative thing.
I think you're reinforcing Helgo's point. As is Dwarfy.Well yeah. I'm not denying that it is, but it's also reasonable that it is. It's written into the religious texts (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A18-19&version=KJV) that the whole thing is meant to be based off. Unless you're saying that disagreeing with the religion's ultimate authority figure on matters of religion is sensible?
Post by: Arx on November 07, 2015, 09:02:22 am
Quote from: NIV
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
I find it fascinating how religion's advocates always interpret the texts in the most positive way possible, and its detractors always interpret them in the most negative way possible.I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that the nice things are actually bad and people are just interpreting them wrong. There's a difference between being negative, and being realistic about a negative thing.
And yet people consistently say "hell is definitely eternal torment!" Despite the fact that as far as I can tell it's just as reasonable to believe in annihilation.
Post by: Graknorke on November 07, 2015, 09:07:32 am
Is there some nuanced difference in translation that I missed?Quote from: NIV18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
And yet people consistently say "hell is definitely eternal torment!" Despite the fact that as far as I can tell it's just as reasonable to believe in annihilation.
Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”?
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”
Post by: Arx on November 07, 2015, 09:18:08 am
Is there some nuanced difference in translation that I missed?Quote from: NIV18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
In the KJV it's implicitly only referring to Revelations, and in the NIV it's explicitly only referring to Revelations, which paints a pretty clear picture of what John meant.
Quote
And yet people consistently say "hell is definitely eternal torment!" Despite the fact that as far as I can tell it's just as reasonable to believe in annihilation.Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”?
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”
Only one of those is incompatible with annihilation doctrine, and it is specifically referring to 'worshippers of the Beast', which is a concept entirely distinct from just being a non-believer.
Post by: Graknorke on November 07, 2015, 09:49:58 am
In the KJV it's implicitly only referring to Revelations, and in the NIV it's explicitly only referring to Revelations, which paints a pretty clear picture of what John meant.If trying to change the future is such a heinous crime, what makes you think that rewriting history would be any better?
Only one of those is incompatible with annihilation doctrine, and it is specifically referring to 'worshippers of the Beast', which is a concept entirely distinct from just being a non-believer.So you only get tortured for a bit before being killed for good? I can almost feel the love.
And I'm not really sure that there is a difference between being a devil worshipper and a non-believer. You either grovel to Jesus for forgiveness, or you don't and are stuck with original sin along with all the other stuff you've done.
Post by: Arx on November 07, 2015, 10:17:33 am
In the KJV it's implicitly only referring to Revelations, and in the NIV it's explicitly only referring to Revelations, which paints a pretty clear picture of what John meant.If trying to change the future is such a heinous crime, what makes you think that rewriting history would be any better?
...rewriting history? Not following sola scriptura isn't rewriting history. I was mostly pointing out that your argument that the Bible says not to add anything is invalid.
Quote
Only one of those is incompatible with annihilation doctrine, and it is specifically referring to 'worshippers of the Beast', which is a concept entirely distinct from just being a non-believer.So you only get tortured for a bit before being killed for good? I can almost feel the love.
And I'm not really sure that there is a difference between being a devil worshipper and a non-believer. You either grovel to Jesus for forgiveness, or you don't and are stuck with original sin along with all the other stuff you've done.
You will notice that all of the quotes referring to pain are from Revelations and referring to worshippers of the Beast. Matthew just refers to being distraught about annihilation.
I'd also like to point out how gloriously out of context "Revelation 20:14" is. The first half of the verse goes "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire." Quite possibly the worst case of quote mining in the history of these threads.
And last, you don't see the difference between not believing in Jesus and choosing to worship the Beast? You can see no difference at all?
Post by: Telgin on November 07, 2015, 10:37:32 am
I should probably try rereading Revelation and apparently Matthew at some point so I can try to understand the annihilation / isolation from God point of view. I don't remember ever seeing much to support it, but I fully admit that I actively try to avoid reading the Bible these days.
Post by: Arx on November 07, 2015, 10:41:32 am
if you buy something on Sunday (a sin)
...they actually teach that? Wow. (I can think of no reasonable justification for that being a sin).
Post by: MaximumZero on November 07, 2015, 10:54:31 am
Post by: Robsoie on November 07, 2015, 10:59:20 am
Quote
The church I still get dragged to believes that any sin you commit can and will send you to eternal burning torment.
I wonder what kind of church that is, as that is directly ignoring Matthew 12:31 and the extent of God's mercy regarding sinners, especially considering everyone has faults of their own.
And even regarding that specific unforgivable sin, on the cross the Christ prayed God to forgive those because they didn't knew what they were doing.
Meaning that very likely only those that commit this specific sin while knowing what they are doing aren't going to recieve the mercy, of course unless God gives them so, as whatever man says, it's all in God's judgement in the end.
Is this mercy for sinners going after a time of "soul cleansing" in some kind of "fire" or before, avoiding it, it's not mentionned.
Post by: sprinkled chariot on November 07, 2015, 11:03:38 am
Post by: Arx on November 07, 2015, 11:04:04 am
Well, you are forcing someone to work on their supposed holy day off. Stores wouldn't be open if you weren't there. Then again, clergy work on the sabbath, too, so I don't know what that says about them.
It's not a sin to work on the Sabbath, though. As far as I can tell, it's just conservatives pushing their own agendas under the guise of religion (as usual).
Post by: Graknorke on November 07, 2015, 11:07:32 am
...rewriting history? Not following sola scriptura isn't rewriting history.Well I mean you're taking something that's meant to be absolute truth and then changing your mind and saying actually it isn't. I don't know what else you'd call that.
And last, you don't see the difference between not believing in Jesus and choosing to worship the Beast? You can see no difference at all?Of course I see the difference, but that doesn't mean that Christian doctrine does. What I picked up from the people I'd consider to be authorities (teachers at a religious school, the canon who lead services in my local church, and probably some other people) it doesn't matter if you're literally Hitler or you just had lustful thoughts for someone you're not married to; the only thing that matters when it comes to your judgement is whether or not you've looked for forgiveness in Jesus. Anything else is irrelevant because you're stuck with original sin regardless.
Well, you are forcing someone to work on their supposed holy day off. Stores wouldn't be open if you weren't there. Then again, clergy work on the sabbath, too, so I don't know what that says about them.It's not a sin to work on the Sabbath, though. As far as I can tell, it's just conservatives pushing their own agendas under the guise of religion (as usual).
Quote from: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah+13%3A15-22&version=ESV
16 Tyrians also, who lived in the city, brought in fish and all kinds of goods and sold them on the Sabbath to the people of Judah, in Jerusalem itself! 17 Then I confronted the nobles of Judah and said to them, “What is this evil thing that you are doing, profaning the Sabbath day?That one I am almost certain is a real thing, rather than an interpretation. Then again I think Jesus said at some point that it's okay to do work on the Sabbath so long as it's also a good thing. This one (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+3%3A1-6&version=NIV).
Post by: Arx on November 07, 2015, 11:18:01 am
...rewriting history? Not following sola scriptura isn't rewriting history.Well I mean you're taking something that's meant to be absolute truth and then changing your mind and saying actually it isn't. I don't know what else you'd call that.
It's really really weird how deeply ingrained sola scriptura is even among the areligious folks here.
Quote
And last, you don't see the difference between not believing in Jesus and choosing to worship the Beast? You can see no difference at all?Of course I see the difference, but that doesn't mean that Christian doctrine does. What I picked up from the people I'd consider to be authorities (teachers at a religious school, the canon who lead services in my local church, and probably some other people) it doesn't matter if you're literally Hitler or you just had lustful thoughts for someone you're not married to; the only thing that matters when it comes to your judgement is whether or not you've looked for forgiveness in Jesus. Anything else is irrelevant because you're stuck with original sin regardless.
Yes. However, either that's special-cased for Revelation or Revelation is wrong, so my point stands.
Quote
Well, you are forcing someone to work on their supposed holy day off. Stores wouldn't be open if you weren't there. Then again, clergy work on the sabbath, too, so I don't know what that says about them.It's not a sin to work on the Sabbath, though. As far as I can tell, it's just conservatives pushing their own agendas under the guise of religion (as usual).Quote from: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah+13%3A15-22&version=ESV16 Tyrians also, who lived in the city, brought in fish and all kinds of goods and sold them on the Sabbath to the people of Judah, in Jerusalem itself! 17 Then I confronted the nobles of Judah and said to them, “What is this evil thing that you are doing, profaning the Sabbath day?That one I am almost certain is a real thing, rather than an interpretation. Then again I think Jesus said at some point that it's okay to do work on the Sabbath so long as it's also a good thing. This one (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+3%3A1-6&version=NIV).
That, and the thing that I am forever referencing:
Quote from: Acts 15
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
So unless you're Jewish, you're A-okay.
Post by: Helgoland on November 07, 2015, 11:24:53 am
Yeah, some folks gave a couple good examples of what I meant. Seriously though: The bible was put together at some point during the fourth or so century, hundreds of years after Jesus and all his contemporaries had died. And what went in and what stayed out was decided by majority vote! How can the bible be a higher authority than the Church if the Church decided the bible's content in the first place?...rewriting history? Not following sola scriptura isn't rewriting history.Well I mean you're taking something that's meant to be absolute truth and then changing your mind and saying actually it isn't. I don't know what else you'd call that.It's really really weird how deeply ingrained sola scriptura is even among the areligious folks here.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2015, 11:27:07 am
Post by: Helgoland on November 07, 2015, 11:29:27 am
- If God doesn't let the Church make mistakes, how can the Church make mistakes today?
- Who says that God's commandments stay the same over time? Surely different times and different societies call for different commandments...
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2015, 11:34:59 am
-The Church can make as many mistakes as it wants, just not regarding God's doctrine, hence why the Pope may speak infallibly on such matters and why those who confess a different belief are heretics.
-God's commandments cannot change because that would imply that God had changed his mind, if God changes his mind it exposes God as not omniscient, which we know must be impossible since God's word is perfect.
Post by: Graknorke on November 07, 2015, 11:40:01 am
- That's circular logic.This is the religion thread
If God doesn't let the Church make mistakes, how can the Church make mistakes today?¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe they don't make mistakes.
Who says that God's commandments stay the same over time? Surely different times and different societies call for different commandments...Because we haven't had any big-time prophets in a thousand and a bit years.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 07, 2015, 11:41:35 am
It actually makes perfect sense, though. The Christians here seem to almost entirely be freethinkers, skeptics. That's a really good thing. It makes it hard to attack their beliefs, but also makes it unnecessary. I think it's fine for someone to believe in God (or fairies, like I do). It's only a problem when people get caught up in doctrines which make them do bad things. And (almost) no one here is like that. Also, atheists get caught up in doctrines too... There are differences but still.
So it's frustrating because "How am I supposed to win an argument against this person, when their faith is self-sourced and it's hard to tell what specific things they believe in?". Compared to making a case against a Bible literalist, which is easy and kinda played out.
I say that knowing there's at least one Bible literalist here, which maybe is another reason why atheists keep making arguments against the literal Bible.
Post by: Arx on November 07, 2015, 11:45:10 am
Okay first off, it's kinda funny to see Christians arguing against the Bible and the circular logic of it attesting to its own infallibility :P We've come a long way.
I just have to check, you don't mean Helgo do you? Because I'm pretty sure he's an atheist on some level (although I could be wrong!).
It's certainly true that we have lots of free thinkers here. I'm certainly a heretic for multiple reasons, at least according to the Roman Catholic Church :P
Post by: Sheb on November 07, 2015, 12:14:48 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 07, 2015, 12:22:48 pm
I'm certainly a heretic for multiple reasons, at least according to the Roman Catholic Church :PAnd something like 90% of protestant churches, heh. Probably like your version better than many, Arx, but I'm afraid you're definitely a radical that holds beliefs that are both significantly different from and strongly in contention with most christian believers (at least stateside ones, at the very least, though from what I understand it would be even worse in the growing areas). You probably would have been lynched or burnt to death if you were lucky a century or two ago :P
-God's commandments cannot change because that would imply that God had changed his mind, if God changes his mind it exposes God as not omniscient, which we know must be impossible since God's word is perfect.Not even remotely -- the new covenant should make that blatantly clear. The commandments are perfectly capable of changing, just as God's laws towards mankind can and have (and why the whole new covenant thing doesn't terrify the hell out of a lot of believers is something I have trouble wrapping my head around, some days) -- that doesn't mean its mind has changed, just that the time has come for a different part of its plan to be expressed.
Because we haven't had any big-time prophets in a thousand and a bit years.Plenty of disagreements there, heh, and going by biblical history (OT and its gaggle of prophets) it's significantly likely we actually have had at least a few big-time prophets, they've just been ignored or suppressed. You could probably tack on some half-mad rambling about the devil or heathens to that observation.
Post by: Arx on November 07, 2015, 12:28:07 pm
I'm certainly a heretic for multiple reasons, at least according to the Roman Catholic Church :PAnd something like 90% of protestant churches, heh. Probably like your version better than many, Arx, but I'm afraid you're definitely a radical that holds beliefs that are both significantly different from and strongly in contention with most christian believers (at least stateside ones, at the very least, though from what I understand it would be even worse in the growing areas). You probably would have been lynched or burnt to death if you were lucky a century or two ago :P
Oh, I know. I've never claimed not to be a very weird Christian. :P
-God's commandments cannot change because that would imply that God had changed his mind, if God changes his mind it exposes God as not omniscient, which we know must be impossible since God's word is perfect.
Not even remotely -- the new covenant should make that blatantly clear. The commandments are perfectly capable of changing, just as God's laws towards mankind can and have (and why the whole new covenant thing doesn't terrify the hell out of a lot of believers is something I have trouble wrapping my head around, some days) -- that doesn't mean its mind has changed, just that the time has come for a different part of its plan to be expressed.
Hmm, why particularly do you think it's terrifying?
Quote
Because we haven't had any big-time prophets in a thousand and a bit years.Plenty of disagreements there, heh, and going by biblical history (OT and its gaggle of prophets) it's significantly likely we actually have had at least a few big-time prophets, they've just been ignored or suppressed. You could probably tack on some half-mad rambling about the devil or heathens to that observation.
It's kind of odd, because every Christian is technically a prophet since the coming of Christ - so there's a reduced need for a once-every-few-generations major prophet. I wouldn't be surprised if we'd missed a fair few, though.
Post by: Frumple on November 07, 2015, 12:42:07 pm
Hmm, why particularly do you think it's terrifying?It means the rules -- that you're relying on to obtain salvation -- changed. Which means that they can change again. Sure, you've got assurances that it won't... but so did the believers in the old covenant. When it's about something as fundamentally important (to the folks in question, anyway) as the path to heaven, the fact that that path can change is something I think it would be reasonable to call just a titch worrying :P
What I understand, most that even consider that say they trust God not to deceive them or change the rules suddenly, but the bible ascribing what it does to the entity in question, that's... not something I'd call particularly assured, heh.
Post by: Fenrir on November 07, 2015, 12:43:02 pm
Well, that has implications. If God’s orders aren’t supreme and unchanging, that implies that part of the plan could be to make murder acceptable for example. Hell, that makes it possible for God to lie. Fits divine command theory, I think, but I don’t know how many people actually accept that theory, and I agree that it should be troubling in any case.-God's commandments cannot change because that would imply that God had changed his mind, if God changes his mind it exposes God as not omniscient, which we know must be impossible since God's word is perfect.Not even remotely -- the new covenant should make that blatantly clear. The commandments are perfectly capable of changing, just as God's laws towards mankind can and have (and why the whole new covenant thing doesn't terrify the hell out of a lot of believers is something I have trouble wrapping my head around, some days) -- that doesn't mean its mind has changed, just that the time has come for a different part of its plan to be expressed.
fakeedit: Ninja’d. Looks like we’re in agreement on this point.
Post by: Arx on November 07, 2015, 12:45:12 pm
Hmm, why particularly do you think it's terrifying?It means the rules -- that you're relying on to obtain salvation -- changed. Which means that they can change again. Sure, you've got assurances that it won't... but so did the believers in the old covenant. When it's about something as fundamentally important (to the folks in question, anyway) as the path to heaven, the fact that that path can change is something I think it would be reasonable to call just a titch worrying :P
What I understand, most that even consider that say they trust God not to deceive them or change the rules suddenly, but the bible ascribing what it does to the entity in question, that's... not something I'd call particularly assured, heh.
Ah. You seem to have a fundamentally different understanding to me, then - I don't think the New Covenant being a thing immediately cause all the (dead (physically?)) followers of the Old Covenant to immediately get screwed over.
Post by: Frumple on November 07, 2015, 12:58:04 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 07, 2015, 01:16:48 pm
I say that knowing there's at least one Bible literalist here, which maybe is another reason why atheists keep making arguments against the literal Bible.hi :)
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2015, 01:36:20 pm
Post by: Graknorke on November 07, 2015, 01:45:28 pm
It's kind of odd, because every Christian is technically a prophet since the coming of Christ - so there's a reduced need for a once-every-few-generations major prophet. I wouldn't be surprised if we'd missed a fair few, though.You'll have to explain this one to me. How can every Christian be a prophet when what it is to be Christian is decided by the prophets? Doesn't that mean that hypothetically everyone could be a Christian regardless of actual belief?
@dwarfy1: I think we all know it's the Chuckle Brothers who are truly eternal.
Post by: Arx on November 07, 2015, 02:00:07 pm
It's kind of odd, because every Christian is technically a prophet since the coming of Christ - so there's a reduced need for a once-every-few-generations major prophet. I wouldn't be surprised if we'd missed a fair few, though.You'll have to explain this one to me. How can every Christian be a prophet when what it is to be Christian is decided by the prophets? Doesn't that mean that hypothetically everyone could be a Christian regardless of actual belief?
What it is to be Christian is defined by Jesus, viz. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No-one can come to the Father except through me" and John 3:16.
And pretty much yes, as far as I can tell. "I will pour out my spirit on all people..." I forget the citation, but the point is that instead of a few select people having power in the Spirit, everyone does, which means everyone has a direct line to God and thus what's right.
Which is also incidentally part of the reason the early church was able to say the Law was less important. Following the Spirit (i.e. being a moral human being) is following the essence of the Law. But you guys have heard me harp on this point at length, so I'll stop there.
Post by: Fenrir on November 07, 2015, 02:09:22 pm
If there were more people arguing for a peer based religion…P2P religion? I can see the social media posts now: “There was a devastating earthquake in «Impoverished Nation». Please seed!”
Post by: Telgin on November 07, 2015, 02:53:47 pm
if you buy something on Sunday (a sin)
...they actually teach that? Wow. (I can think of no reasonable justification for that being a sin).
MaximumZero nailed it, pretty much. I'd have to find the specific passage, but it's pretty explicit that buying or selling on the Sabbath is defiling it, which is a sin. Probably no point in dredging it back up at this point since the subject has changed.
AboutQuoteThe church I still get dragged to believes that any sin you commit can and will send you to eternal burning torment.
I wonder what kind of church that is
It's a Pentecostal Holiness church, which is pretty close to the extreme end of Bible literalism and conservatism. Little surprise that they believe things that way as a result.
The fact that they do believe in eternal torment Hell for conventional (as opposed to beast worshipping) sinners pretty much directly leads to the insane things they believe, and by following their logic I almost can't fault them. They believe that any sin, including not being saved and just having "original sin" is enough to condemn you to eternal Hell. As a result, you should get saved as soon as you can and basically do as little as you can that isn't written as being okay in the Bible, else you risk going to Hell forever.
Drinking at all, for example, is forbidden. The Bible just says to abstain from drunkenness, but why would you ever dare to risk getting drunk when it could land you in Hell forever? Literally no risk in a finite lifetime is worth an eternity of unimaginable punishment, so you shouldn't take risks.
That's also why the Pentecostal Holiness church is such a Bible literalist denomination. If it's written as being bad in the Bible, don't dare do otherwise or you'll burn in Hell forever. Buying or selling on the Sabbath is defiling it, which is a sin, which sends you to Hell. Women can't teach in the church, or they'll go to Hell. Gays are going to Hell. Saying "Oh my God!" is taking the Lord's name in vain, which is sending you to Hell. See how it works?
Quote
as that is directly ignoring Matthew 12:31 and the extent of God's mercy regarding sinners, especially considering everyone has faults of their own.
Pentecostal Holiness is a religion of fear, pure and simple, and they interpret that passage accordingly. They don't dress it up that way and do go around saying "God is good," all of the time, but as a kid fear is all I ever took away from it. If I messed up, I'd go to Hell forever. You could be forgiven of your sins by God, but you had to ask, and He had to accept your apology. If you messed up, got in a car wreck or had a heart attack five minutes later without asking for forgiveness, off to Hell with you. Didn't matter if you had been an abiding Christian for 30 years prior. You just shouldn't have let yourself get into the mindset so that you'd do something bad. God was good, but God was absolute and unrelenting.
Clearly, not all of them believed that way. The more sane ones would just say "Well, he just lost some of his reward in heaven," instead of saying he went to Hell. Or, "I'm sure God gave him a chance to repent before he died." Most people when presented with insanity like that take away a personalized more sane version. But... there were the serious ones, and as a kid I was too scared to do anything but take it completely seriously. I spent a year or more of my life seriously stopping every few minutes to ask God to forgive me of something I didn't even know I'd done, because I didn't want to go to Hell.
I do want to clarify that the people usually aren't bad and this isn't like the Westboro Baptist Church where they go around doing dreadful things to forward their agenda, but the beliefs are pretty awful at times. They usually are nice people and help the community. They give out food to the needy. They try to be the best people they can. The beliefs just skew what is "good" in this case too much for me to accept.
So... sorry for dragging that back into the discussion and painting Christianity in almost the worst light it could be painted in, but I want to frame things for those who wonder why I seem so bitter at times. This kind of teaching still happens to kids around here, in the 21st century.
Post by: Helgoland on November 07, 2015, 03:03:00 pm
So it's frustrating because "How am I supposed to win an argument against this person, when their faith is self-sourced and it's hard to tell what specific things they believe in?". Compared to making a case against a Bible literalist, which is easy and kinda played out.Actually this is what sort of pisses me off about (some of) the areligious/antireligious folks here. This is the 'Religion and Spirituality Discussion' thread, not the 'Disprove Christianity' one.
And pretty much yes, as far as I can tell. "I will pour out my spirit on all people..." I forget the citation, but the point is that instead of a few select people having power in the Spirit, everyone does, which means everyone has a direct line to God and thus what's right.I think this is a vital point that many here are missing: There is supposed to be a direct connection between God and each believer, so everyone has a sort of innate understanding of God's will. The law as it is written is just a sort of guideline, to help people understand more clearly.
Which is also incidentally part of the reason the early church was able to say the Law was less important. Following the Spirit (i.e. being a moral human being) is following the essence of the Law. But you guys have heard me harp on this point at length, so I'll stop there.
@Prophet stuff: I'd argue that the old Jewish prophets are roughly equivalent to the Christian saints. St. Francis would be a prime example.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 07, 2015, 03:07:05 pm
Prophet is not the word I would use for Christians. Witnesses and Disciples I think fit better.It's kind of odd, because every Christian is technically a prophet since the coming of Christ - so there's a reduced need for a once-every-few-generations major prophet. I wouldn't be surprised if we'd missed a fair few, though.You'll have to explain this one to me. How can every Christian be a prophet when what it is to be Christian is decided by the prophets? Doesn't that mean that hypothetically everyone could be a Christian regardless of actual belief?
@dwarfy1: I think we all know it's the Chuckle Brothers who are truly eternal.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2015, 03:15:24 pm
Not like there's a lot else to discuss, religion threads across the internet are pretty much only propelled by conflict between believers and nonbelievers. But I'll tell you one thing, if my focus on bringing down Christian theology pisses you off, imagine how pissed off I must be at Christianity for how I was treated by it, and that was years ago.So it's frustrating because "How am I supposed to win an argument against this person, when their faith is self-sourced and it's hard to tell what specific things they believe in?". Compared to making a case against a Bible literalist, which is easy and kinda played out.Actually this is what sort of pisses me off about (some of) the areligious/antireligious folks here. This is the 'Religion and Spirituality Discussion' thread, not the 'Disprove Christianity' one.
But also, personal internalized faith doesn't make for good discussion, what with it being personal and internalized. Maybe one 'just feels' a certain way about god or faeries (that's not an insult, look back to Rolan's post) or any of the other supernatural concepts adhered to by humans, but we can't really have discourse about that sort of thing to any extent.
Post by: Frumple on November 07, 2015, 03:27:29 pm
I think this is a vital point that many here are missing: There is supposed to be a direct connection between God and each believer, so everyone has a sort of innate understanding of God's will.I don't think many here are missing it, exactly. They just regularly interact with people for whom
Quote
The law as it is written is just a sort of guideline, to help people understand more clearly.is believed to be untrue, and the law as written is considered absolute.
Honestly, most folks I've encountered (religious or otherwise) that have thought more than two seconds on the subject are well aware that there's a fair amount of folks out there that do consider the biblical laws to be guidelines and whatnot. It's just they're either broadly unconcerned about those sorts (some of the religious, most of the otherwise) or think they're going to burn in hell for not following the bible explicitly (many of the religious).
S'one of the things I think you lot that deal with a lot of the more moderate christians have trouble really wrapping your head around -- there are some very strident believers out there that would probably drag you into an alley and beat the shit out of you for saying the bible isn't strictly literal, if they thought they could get away with it. Even if you claimed to be christian yourself. And they're not in exactly small numbers in a lot of places in the world.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 07, 2015, 03:32:31 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2015, 03:51:01 pm
Post by: Helgoland on November 07, 2015, 03:54:02 pm
-snip-So basically what you're saying is that the areligious folks here argue against a type of Christianity that is almost completely absent here*? Then I'd really, really like them to stop doing that, since it's pointless and drowns out any relevant discussion relevant to the type of Christianity more common around here - the prophet stuff, for example.
*And really not that common around the world either. Hell, even the Vatican accepts historical criticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism) as a valid theological tool!
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2015, 03:56:50 pm
The Bible is used as the key source in such argument. For obvious reasons.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 07, 2015, 04:07:55 pm
Seems rather hedonistic. Well, not quite, but the basis of a law based around purely your own advancement seems self indulgent. You could even literally kill ten thousand people, so long as you keep your faith to the end. Parts of the Old Testament even would support it :PAre you asking if you accepted Christ, then killed 1000 people? Or the other way around?
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2015, 04:22:04 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 07, 2015, 04:29:42 pm
Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.yes. Although you probably would feel terrible for the rest of your life.
Post by: Frumple on November 07, 2015, 04:37:59 pm
So basically what you're saying is that the areligious folks here argue against a type of Christianity that is almost completely absent here?No? Just trying to help you understand why folks bring up the subjects like they do (regular exposure, to a fair degree), and why they don't talk terribly much about the more moderate stuff (not really all that much to talk about, heh). Then there's TD1's point.
You'll also note it's not exactly absent, here, and the position is being (and has been) brought up pretty regularly in conversation by believers of varying degrees, not just other folks. S'also not like there's no conversation to be had talking to believers that aren't literalists re: how they reconcile their beliefs with the other sets of interpretation.
Quote
*And really not that common around the world either. Hell, even the Vatican accepts historical criticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism) as a valid theological tool!Vatican's a long way from the states (where a good chunk of the catholic population outright rejects the vatican's authority), and pretty distant from africa and south america, too, where most of the christian populations are, heh. It's really damn common, just less so in (parts of) europe.
Like I said, from what I understand it's worse in SA and Africa than it is in the US, and in the US there's a lot of places you keep your mouth shut if you're not at least willing to act like a biblical literalist. Fair number of areas in this world where claiming the bible's a guideline in any sense or criticizing it in any way is a good way to get yourself socially ostracized (in the "good luck finding a job" sense), at best.
Post by: Helgoland on November 07, 2015, 04:47:11 pm
Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.Since becoming Christian involves repenting such acts, there's not really a problem here. It's just forgiveness, that's all. We're not talking about a judicial system, remember.
(By the way: It's funny how the way you attack Christianity shows that you've been raised with a Protestant mindset. Your sort of argument does not make any sense in a Catholic context.)
Most of the irreligious here argue against whatever point is put in front of them. "Hell is not a physical place." "Actually, it says... *quote* *quote* *quote*I keep telling you: Sola scriptura is far from universally accepted! What matters to me for example is what is written, how it is interpreted by the Church, what other doctrines and traditions have evolved around the subject, etc etc. Yes, most irreligious folks here argue against whatever is put in front of them - which is a problem in itself, since there's rather little listening in all that arguing - but do so in a very narrow manner.
The Bible is used as the key source in such argument. For obvious reasons.
Like I said, from what I understand it's worse in SA and Africa than it is in the US, and in the US there's a lot of places you keep your mouth shut if you're not at least willing to act like a biblical literalist. Fair number of areas in this world where claiming the bible's a guideline in any sense or criticizing it in any way is a good way to get yourself socially ostracized (in the "good luck finding a job" sense), at best.Well sure, there's Catholic crazies too - but they're a different flavor of crazy. Also we don't really have that many South Americans here, and AFAIK Arx is the only African dude around...
Anyway: Maybe we should split this thread into one thread for inner-religious discussion and one for arguing against certain modes of bible interpretation. I'd love to have a place where I could talk about how I visited Church during that beer festival I went to, but here I think it'd just get buried in the usual sort of commentary...
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2015, 04:48:01 pm
Doesn't matter. Bit of regret? Meh. Eternal happiness with God in heaven? Yay.Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.yes. Although you probably would feel terrible for the rest of your life.
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2015, 05:01:00 pm
Yes, most irreligious folks here argue against whatever is put in front of them - which is a problem in itself, since there's rather little listening in all that arguing - but do so in a very narrow manner.So...basically any argument ever, and every arguer ever. Including yourself.
Quote
I keep telling you: Sola scriptura is far from universally accepted! What matters to me for example is what is written, how it is interpreted by the Church, what other doctrines and traditions have evolved around the subject, etc etc.
All well and dandy. I do the same. Given that all of that stems from the original source, that's what I go by. If someone has a differing belief, then I work with that. It tends to be, however, that Christians go with what is in the Bible because it's a source of authority, and respond best to arguments that come from it.
It's rather obvious that I don't think the Bible is an absolute authority, but it is HIGHLY influential for every Christian. Whether they think it's absolutely correct is irrelevant.
I will add that sola scriptura is the only approach that makes sense to me in a religious sense, but again, irrelevant.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 07, 2015, 05:06:45 pm
I don't understand what you mean. I try to listen to what someone says their position is, then argue against that (if I have an argument to make). What's the alternative, to read into their position? IE, make assumptions?Most of the irreligious here argue against whatever point is put in front of them. "Hell is not a physical place." "Actually, it says... *quote* *quote* *quote*I keep telling you: Sola scriptura is far from universally accepted! What matters to me for example is what is written, how it is interpreted by the Church, what other doctrines and traditions have evolved around the subject, etc etc. Yes, most irreligious folks here argue against whatever is put in front of them - which is a problem in itself, since there's rather little listening in all that arguing - but do so in a very narrow manner.
The Bible is used as the key source in such argument. For obvious reasons.
And citing the Bible in an argument doesn't require the other side to be a biblical literalist. Most Christians believe that the bible is important, even if it isn't perfect (heck, that's why it keeps getting re-"translated" and "corrected").
It's only pointless if the other person is rejecting all the problematic passages. Which many Christians do, either actively or in a passive "Oh, there must be an explanation but I'm not a priest" way. But arguing religion with such a person is fruitless. Their faith is basically personal and nebulous. At best it's a function of their community, making it folklore (like my own faith). At worst it's defined by one of those millionaire television preachers.
kinda ninja'd
Post by: Sheb on November 07, 2015, 05:08:05 pm
Anyway: Maybe we should split this thread into one thread for inner-religious discussion and one for arguing against certain modes of bible interpretation. I'd love to have a place where I could talk about how I visited Church during that beer festival I went to, but here I think it'd just get buried in the usual sort of commentary...
Is that the 24h, or another time?
Post by: Frumple on November 07, 2015, 05:09:42 pm
I'd love to have a place where I could talk about how I visited Church during that beer festival I went to, but here I think it'd just get buried in the usual sort of commentary...Folks would probably comment on it if it were brought up for comment, and from what I recall all of the similar recollections that have come up previously weren't buried. Be the change you want to see in the thread :P
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2015, 05:17:04 pm
It's funny how the way you defend Christianity shows that you've been raised with a Catholic mindset. Your sort of argument does not make any sense in a Protestant context. :POther way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.Since becoming Christian involves repenting such acts, there's not really a problem here. It's just forgiveness, that's all. We're not talking about a judicial system, remember.
(By the way: It's funny how the way you attack Christianity shows that you've been raised with a Protestant mindset. Your sort of argument does not make any sense in a Catholic context.)
Plus, my family has always been rather lukewarm about religion. I have a feeling it's more tradition with them. Barring my sister, for whom I suspect it's mainly social. So my protestant upbring wasn't all encompassing, as it were, though I did believe for a while.
Post by: Helgoland on November 07, 2015, 05:39:34 pm
But yeah, I guess you see what I mean: You vigorously go up against a certain type of Christianity, but use the word 'Christianity' to describe that type. That's what's weirding me out, basically.
I don't understand what you mean. I try to listen to what someone says their position is, then argue against that (if I have an argument to make). What's the alternative, to read into their position? IE, make assumptions?Correct, but most of the time the 'listen to what someone says their position is' part of the process doesn't work all that well. We have precisely one biblical literalist around here, but go look for yourself what portion of the last twenty or so pages was devoted to arguments that pretty much boiled down to attacks on biblical literalism.
And citing the Bible in an argument doesn't require the other side to be a biblical literalist. Most Christians believe that the bible is important, even if it isn't perfect (heck, that's why it keeps getting re-"translated" and "corrected").
All well and dandy. I do the same. Given that all of that stems from the original source, that's what I go by. If someone has a differing belief, then I work with that. It tends to be, however, that Christians go with what is in the Bible because it's a source of authority, and respond best to arguments that come from it.What original source? The bible was put together by the Church, so it can't be that original source you're referring to...
Is that the 24h, or another time?Yeah, the 24h. And I guess you know why I don't think this thread is the place for going into details.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 07, 2015, 05:41:44 pm
Post by: Sheb on November 07, 2015, 05:42:20 pm
Post by: Helgoland on November 07, 2015, 05:44:21 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2015, 05:47:43 pm
Quote
What original source? The bible was put together by the Church, so it can't be that original source you're referring to...Fine, if you want to be obtuse, original sources. To be put together they had to exist pre Church, correct? No doubt there are some missing or some incorrectly added, but that doesn't matter to a believer, and so the non believer must work within those parameters in order to make a meaningful argument that will connect.
Quote
but go look for yourself what portion of the last twenty or so pages was devoted to arguments that pretty much boiled down to attacks on biblical literalism.Or, more precisely, that boil down to attacks on the Biblical interpretation. Certainly, we could argue specifically for one specific branch of Christianity if you want. All you need do is bring up that view. Which ... for the most part ... you didn't do.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 07, 2015, 07:40:19 pm
Exactly. As long as you trust yourself to God, and accept his gift of eternal life, you get it.Doesn't matter. Bit of regret? Meh. Eternal happiness with God in heaven? Yay.Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.yes. Although you probably would feel terrible for the rest of your life.
Post by: Calidovi on November 07, 2015, 08:05:57 pm
Exactly. As long as you trust yourself to God, and accept his gift of eternal life, you get it.Doesn't matter. Bit of regret? Meh. Eternal happiness with God in heaven? Yay.Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.yes. Although you probably would feel terrible for the rest of your life.
I guess that leads to some questions about the strength of repentance and what is necessary. At least live sacrifice is quantifiable, to an extent.
Post by: Graknorke on November 07, 2015, 08:08:25 pm
How do you know what you're meant to repent for? Do you just go for a blanket and apologise for everything about you and what you've done, or is there some way to single out what's important and what isn't?Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.Since becoming Christian involves repenting such acts, there's not really a problem here. It's just forgiveness, that's all.
Post by: Calidovi on November 07, 2015, 08:10:10 pm
How do you know what you're meant to repent for? Do you just go for a blanket and apologise for everything about you and what you've done, or is there some way to single out what's important and what isn't?Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.Since becoming Christian involves repenting such acts, there's not really a problem here. It's just forgiveness, that's all.
It's just internal specification.
"I ask that you forgive me for stabbing my uncle 15 times" seems like the way you'd do it.
Post by: Helgoland on November 07, 2015, 08:23:34 pm
You know what to repent for on a sort of instinctual level, I guess. That's what faith is supposed to do - and I think the repenting is of a rather general nature, since you won't be able to remember all your sins anyway. It's about a change of heart, not about punishment for what you've done.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 07, 2015, 08:28:47 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 07, 2015, 08:33:25 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 07, 2015, 08:51:16 pm
Well, he's forgiven the elect. He hasn't forgiven the folks who don't/didn't/won't want it.correct. I don't know why anybody who believes that wouldn't want it though.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 07, 2015, 09:02:38 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 07, 2015, 09:04:31 pm
But yes, it's an attractive offer. "I did a thing which makes all your mistakes okay. You don't have to feel guilty anymore, also I love you." I wish I could believe in something like that. Though even then, I'm not sure I would accept. Letting someone else suffer for my sins doesn't altogether sit right with me. If I can just stop existing, or live with my mistakes in a place apart from Him, that seems more fair to me.
*also*, if I were to take up the offer, I feel like I'd be fundamentally different. Since I wouldn't be sinning in heaven... Why? Would I be the same person, without my flaws? Troubling idea.
Still a nice offer though.
Post by: Fenrir on November 07, 2015, 09:05:55 pm
Well, that depends on what God decides to do to you if you don’t want it. Eternal disutility? Yeah, okay, fine. Nothing happens? Depends on whether you care what God thinks of you at that point. You don’t actually need divine permission to stop feeling guilty if you don’t want to feel guilty anymore.Well, he's forgiven the elect. He hasn't forgiven the folks who don't/didn't/won't want it.correct. I don't know why anybody who believes that wouldn't want it though.
Post by: Calidovi on November 07, 2015, 09:06:24 pm
Since I wouldn't be sinning in heaven... Why? Would I be the same person, without my flaws? Troubling idea.
Reminds me of that Calvin and Hobbes strip.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 07, 2015, 09:36:42 pm
Welllll, cases have been made. "Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven" and all. It depends a lot on what one believes about God, Jesus, heaven, and hell though. And what they believe about humanity.Jesus already suffered for your sins. You can't really change that.
But yes, it's an attractive offer. "I did a thing which makes all your mistakes okay. You don't have to feel guilty anymore, also I love you." I wish I could believe in something like that. Though even then, I'm not sure I would accept. Letting someone else suffer for my sins doesn't altogether sit right with me. If I can just stop existing, or live with my mistakes in a place apart from Him, that seems more fair to me.
*also*, if I were to take up the offer, I feel like I'd be fundamentally different. Since I wouldn't be sinning in heaven... Why? Would I be the same person, without my flaws? Troubling idea.
Still a nice offer though.
Once a christian is taken into heaven, they receive a new body (but they don't become angels) this new body is completely free of sin. You keep your soul when you go into heaven, but your earthly sinful nature dies with your body.
Post by: Flying Dice on November 07, 2015, 09:54:25 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 07, 2015, 10:03:38 pm
One of the things that always made me uncomfortable about that is the absolution of responsibility. I've always felt that if you make a mistake, it's yours to own up to and your to bear. You can learn from it, become a better person because of it, &c. but you shouldn't be able to just pretend that it doesn't matter that you did something wrong as long as you acknowledge that it was wrong simply because something you believe in tells you that it's already been paid for. Sort of a counterpart to the previously mentioned thing about morality being dictated by faith; it's frightening to think that the world is full of people whose only motivation for acting morally is, by all appearances, the fact that their god told them that they should (but that they'll still be rewarded even if they behave immorally, as long as they keep believing and don't commit certain acts).You are still responsible for your actions, but God has forgiven you. If you read the parable of the prodigal son, I think it makes it more clear. (Luke 15:11-32)
Post by: Fenrir on November 07, 2015, 10:55:14 pm
…this new body is completely free of sin.Can you say what that would mean?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 07, 2015, 11:02:51 pm
It means that in heaven, there is no sin. There is much debate about what age/appearance people will have in heaven, but I don't think that that is imperative to know.…this new body is completely free of sin.Can you say what that would mean?
Post by: Fenrir on November 07, 2015, 11:09:02 pm
No, I mean, what does it mean for a body to be “free of sin”?It means that in heaven, there is no sin. There is much debate about what age/appearance people will have in heaven, but I don't think that that is imperative to know.…this new body is completely free of sin.Can you say what that would mean?
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 07, 2015, 11:47:24 pm
A body (or soul, or whatever, the effect is the same) without sin would be like Christ. That is, one who follows the commandments perfectly (but not in the sense of "supreme authority on heaven and earth", obviously). The commandments are usually summed up as "Love the Lord your God ... and love your neighbour as yourself", although it's horrendously rare for churches to even remotely resemble that.
Post by: Fenrir on November 08, 2015, 12:02:20 am
Sin is, in effect, the compulsion to go against God. It's (metaphorically) tied to "the flesh", which is why the New Testament is full of verses about casting aside your old body and so on. None of that is literal - you can safely ignore it if you like.I thought origamiscienceguy is a biblical literalist, though, which would imply that’s not what they mean.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 08, 2015, 01:10:27 am
Post by: Bohandas on November 08, 2015, 01:55:37 am
this new body is completely free of sin
Wouldn't that undermine "free will"?
Post by: Sheb on November 08, 2015, 05:28:51 am
Post by: Helgoland on November 08, 2015, 07:07:04 am
Sort of a counterpart to the previously mentioned thing about morality being dictated by faith; it's frightening to think that the world is full of people whose only motivation for acting morally is, by all appearances, the fact that their god told them that they should (but that they'll still be rewarded even if they behave immorally, as long as they keep believing and don't commit certain acts).As far as I can tell, it really doesn't work like that: The internal enlightenment that comes with faith gives you an innate understanding of right and wrong, so that you freely choose to no longer sin. It's not compliance with some sort of legal code, but closer to being convinced by a good argument: The motivation to stop sinning comes from yourself, not from outside.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 08, 2015, 08:39:40 am
I do think that sin is a literal part of us on the earth. We are also tempted by Satan while we are on the earth. For example, you don't have to teach a small child how to lie. Once we die, we receive a new body that does not have that sinful nature. If you think that that goes against free will, in heaven, we will finally see God in his full glory, and everybody will worship him day and night because it is what he deserves for how great he is.Sin is, in effect, the compulsion to go against God. It's (metaphorically) tied to "the flesh", which is why the New Testament is full of verses about casting aside your old body and so on. None of that is literal - you can safely ignore it if you like.I thought origamiscienceguy is a biblical literalist, though, which would imply that’s not what they mean.
Post by: Teneb on November 08, 2015, 09:15:56 am
Heaven sounds terribly boring from that description, if worshiping the big man is all there is to do. Your description also implies there is no choice: you are there, so you must worship, you can't just do anything else, if you would still be capable of wanting to do anything else (which sounds a lot like brainwashing to me).I do think that sin is a literal part of us on the earth. We are also tempted by Satan while we are on the earth. For example, you don't have to teach a small child how to lie. Once we die, we receive a new body that does not have that sinful nature. If you think that that goes against free will, in heaven, we will finally see God in his full glory, and everybody will worship him day and night because it is what he deserves for how great he is.Sin is, in effect, the compulsion to go against God. It's (metaphorically) tied to "the flesh", which is why the New Testament is full of verses about casting aside your old body and so on. None of that is literal - you can safely ignore it if you like.I thought origamiscienceguy is a biblical literalist, though, which would imply that’s not what they mean.
Post by: Sheb on November 08, 2015, 10:57:05 am
It's like if you're presented with a plate of the best nachos ever. You can choose to eat it or not, but everyone will choose to eat it.
Post by: Graknorke on November 08, 2015, 12:31:46 pm
Post by: Telgin on November 08, 2015, 12:58:09 pm
I guess free will is just irrelevant in heaven, since we'd have already been tested on Earth. Or whatever the point of mortal life is anyway.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 08, 2015, 01:34:44 pm
It probably does sound boring right now, but we were created to worship God. I imagine that worshiping him will be the most fulfilling and wonderful thing ever.Heaven sounds terribly boring from that description, if worshiping the big man is all there is to do. Your description also implies there is no choice: you are there, so you must worship, you can't just do anything else, if you would still be capable of wanting to do anything else (which sounds a lot like brainwashing to me).I do think that sin is a literal part of us on the earth. We are also tempted by Satan while we are on the earth. For example, you don't have to teach a small child how to lie. Once we die, we receive a new body that does not have that sinful nature. If you think that that goes against free will, in heaven, we will finally see God in his full glory, and everybody will worship him day and night because it is what he deserves for how great he is.Sin is, in effect, the compulsion to go against God. It's (metaphorically) tied to "the flesh", which is why the New Testament is full of verses about casting aside your old body and so on. None of that is literal - you can safely ignore it if you like.I thought origamiscienceguy is a biblical literalist, though, which would imply that’s not what they mean.
Post by: TD1 on November 08, 2015, 03:30:13 pm
Rather implies that future, heavenly you is not...well, you.
Though this is a rabbit hole we've dived down a few times now.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 08, 2015, 04:15:14 pm
Post by: Calidovi on November 08, 2015, 04:18:25 pm
Even here on earth, worshiping God is satisfying. Why do you think people want to go to church in the first place? It becomes a lot easier once you realize how much God loves you. He deserves all we can give him.
I always assumed that the popularity of church was partly due to the "like-minded community" aspect. What does church provide that prayer alone doesn't otherwise?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 08, 2015, 04:23:44 pm
Yes. That is also a reason, but the people *should* be coming together to worship God together. That is the "like-minded community" reason people *should* be coming. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that many Christians don't know that.Even here on earth, worshiping God is satisfying. Why do you think people want to go to church in the first place? It becomes a lot easier once you realize how much God loves you. He deserves all we can give him.
I always assumed that the popularity of church was partly due to the "like-minded community" aspect. What does church provide that prayer alone doesn't otherwise?
Post by: Frumple on November 08, 2015, 06:11:24 pm
I always assumed that the popularity of church was partly due to the "like-minded community" aspect. What does church provide that prayer alone doesn't otherwise?A priest to mangle the bible into horrible shapes, mostly, with a nice sideline of behavior explicitly contrary to the text (sup matthew 6:1-15 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mt6.1-15)) :V
The rest of it is pretty much entirely social, yeah. Not even about being around like-minded people, really (that helps, but churches are often quite fractious*), it's just entrenched enough in a lot of places people realistically don't have a choice but to attend if they want to have any meaningful degree of community integration. Combine that with conditioning the youth to attend and you've got a fair amount of the reason the vast majority of churchgoers go.
*Church politics are often amazing (to watch, from a distance). It's like normal clique/social maneuvering, except the people involved are entirely willing to claim each other are pawns on the devil or cite aural hallucinations as justification for their actions with an entirely straight face, and then shift track not five minutes later. And that's just within a particular congregation! What gets said about other congregations is better left unsaid :P
Post by: Fenrir on November 08, 2015, 06:12:29 pm
It probably does sound boring right now, but we were created to worship God. I imagine that worshiping him will be the most fulfilling and wonderful thing ever.
Even here on earth, worshiping God is satisfying. Why do you think people want to go to church in the first place? It becomes a lot easier once you realize how much God loves you. He deserves all we can give him.
Wow. That is creepy.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 08, 2015, 06:16:00 pm
Basically, like Eden before the fall. Adam had a job - looking after the garden - and although he spoke with God, he didn't spend all his time in perpetual prayer. Because that would be boring. We're still human, and humans like to have variation in their lives.
Post by: Bohandas on November 08, 2015, 07:25:36 pm
matthew 6:1-15 (http://matthew 6:1-15)
That link doesn't link anywhere
Post by: Frumple on November 08, 2015, 07:38:47 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on November 08, 2015, 07:41:07 pm
I kind of wish there was a secular equivalent to church. I like beer-league softball and barbecue, too, you know.Even here on earth, worshiping God is satisfying. Why do you think people want to go to church in the first place? It becomes a lot easier once you realize how much God loves you. He deserves all we can give him.
I always assumed that the popularity of church was partly due to the "like-minded community" aspect. What does church provide that prayer alone doesn't otherwise?
Post by: Graknorke on November 08, 2015, 07:43:38 pm
Quote
5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love xto stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. yTruly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, zgo into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. aAnd your Father who sees in secret will reward you.u wot m8
Anyone know how the Church (Catholic, CoE, whatever) reconciles that with all the time they spend organising big services?
Post by: TD1 on November 08, 2015, 07:46:46 pm
IMO the most Biblical interpretation of Heaven (although there's very little said to describe it) is that it'll be exactly like Earth, but everyone will be nice and get along and go to church on Sundays. We'll have work to do, but it will be enjoyable and satisfying. We'll have friends, and holidays, and all the other nice stuff that happens on Earth.That's not so bad, then. I'd be interested in where in the Bible that is?
Basically, like Eden before the fall. Adam had a job - looking after the garden - and although he spoke with God, he didn't spend all his time in perpetual prayer. Because that would be boring. We're still human, and humans like to have variation in their lives.
Post by: Helgoland on November 08, 2015, 07:59:54 pm
IMO the most Biblical interpretation of Heaven (although there's very little said to describe it) is that it'll be exactly like Earth, but everyone will be nice and get along and go to church on Sundays. We'll have work to do, but it will be enjoyable and satisfying. We'll have friends, and holidays, and all the other nice stuff that happens on Earth.Isn't there an idea in Judaism that day-to-day life and work are prayer/religious service too? I think I remember hearing something like that once...
Basically, like Eden before the fall. Adam had a job - looking after the garden - and although he spoke with God, he didn't spend all his time in perpetual prayer. Because that would be boring. We're still human, and humans like to have variation in their lives.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 08, 2015, 08:11:53 pm
That's not so bad, then. I'd be interested in where in the Bible that is?It's not really in the Bible per se, but there are a few passages in the NT (references escape me) that basically say Heaven is Earth, but perfect (in the Biblical sense of being without sin). There's an article in the Belgic Confession (or Heidelberg, I can never remember which one's which) on the topic that I can dig out later if you like.
There is some Biblical precedent for origami's stance of endless prayer and all that, but it's mostly psalms along the lines of "and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever, and praise your name day and night", that sort of thing. Personally I think that's more of a poetic description of gratefulness than literally singing/praying to God 24/7.
Obviously everything regarding the exact nature of Heaven is speculative, but I think there's enough to go on that it won't be that different from life on Earth.
...
Isn't there an idea in Judaism that day-to-day life and work are prayer/religious service too? I think I remember hearing something like that once...Yeah, pretty sure that's a thing. AFAIK the concept sort of carries over to the NT, but it's kinda vague.
Post by: Frumple on November 08, 2015, 08:14:52 pm
Isn't there an idea in Judaism that day-to-day life and work are prayer/religious service too? I think I remember hearing something like that once...Can't speak for judaism, but it's definitely a thing with christianity. That's pretty much the entire basis of the whole "Walk with Christ" ethos -- you pray (express your faith, connect with god, etc.) by action and living, not by word and blandishment. Vocal prayers are what amounts to empty, church services of little meaning. You pray by expressing yourself as christ would, through charity and good work at all times, and in doing so god walks with you.
See it in the wild every once in a while, and from what I've noticed the concept is at least given a nod in a lot of christian religious practice, but it's fairly rare a congregation actually gives it much attention or investment (which is somewhat understandable, considering the extent the belief downplays traditional church structure -- sunday mass or service or whathaveyou is, broadly speaking, an obstacle to that kind of belief).
Post by: Helgoland on November 08, 2015, 08:18:30 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 08, 2015, 08:49:03 pm
IMO the most Biblical interpretation of Heaven (although there's very little said to describe it) is that it'll be exactly like Earth, but everyone will be nice and get along and go to church on Sundays. We'll have work to do, but it will be enjoyable and satisfying. We'll have friends, and holidays, and all the other nice stuff that happens on Earth.That does sound nice. Satisfying work is satisfying
Basically, like Eden before the fall. Adam had a job - looking after the garden - and although he spoke with God, he didn't spend all his time in perpetual prayer. Because that would be boring. We're still human, and humans like to have variation in their lives.
Being able to read all the things and peruse history and space as an observer would help too
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 08, 2015, 09:00:04 pm
Probably Revalation 21. Anyways, In my oppinion, that is a perfectly valid interpretation. From what I read heaven isn't a specific place, it is where the full presence of God is. Revelation 21 says that God will come to a new earth and there will be no suffering. However, worship is not confined to prayer and singing songs. It can encompass work and basically anything that isn't a sin. As long as you are working to glorify the lord rather then for your own benefit.That's not so bad, then. I'd be interested in where in the Bible that is?It's not really in the Bible per se, but there are a few passages in the NT (references escape me) that basically say Heaven is Earth, but perfect (in the Biblical sense of being without sin). There's an article in the Belgic Confession (or Heidelberg, I can never remember which one's which) on the topic that I can dig out later if you like.
There is some Biblical precedent for origami's stance of endless prayer and all that, but it's mostly psalms along the lines of "and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever, and praise your name day and night", that sort of thing. Personally I think that's more of a poetic description of gratefulness than literally singing/praying to God 24/7.
Obviously everything regarding the exact nature of Heaven is speculative, but I think there's enough to go on that it won't be that different from life on Earth.
Post by: Bohandas on November 08, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
That's not so bad, then. I'd be interested in where in the Bible that is?It's not really in the Bible per se, but there are a few passages in the NT (references escape me) that basically say Heaven is Earth, but perfect (in the Biblical sense of being without sin).
That was a Belinda Carlisle song.
Post by: TD1 on November 09, 2015, 04:37:30 am
Why does God need to be glorified? The human interpretation of glory involves other people assessing you. What is God's reason for it?Probably Revalation 21. Anyways, In my oppinion, that is a perfectly valid interpretation. From what I read heaven isn't a specific place, it is where the full presence of God is. Revelation 21 says that God will come to a new earth and there will be no suffering. However, worship is not confined to prayer and singing songs. It can encompass work and basically anything that isn't a sin. As long as you are working to glorify the lord rather then for your own benefit.That's not so bad, then. I'd be interested in where in the Bible that is?It's not really in the Bible per se, but there are a few passages in the NT (references escape me) that basically say Heaven is Earth, but perfect (in the Biblical sense of being without sin). There's an article in the Belgic Confession (or Heidelberg, I can never remember which one's which) on the topic that I can dig out later if you like.
There is some Biblical precedent for origami's stance of endless prayer and all that, but it's mostly psalms along the lines of "and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever, and praise your name day and night", that sort of thing. Personally I think that's more of a poetic description of gratefulness than literally singing/praying to God 24/7.
Obviously everything regarding the exact nature of Heaven is speculative, but I think there's enough to go on that it won't be that different from life on Earth.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 09, 2015, 08:34:41 am
Post by: TD1 on November 09, 2015, 09:11:55 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 09, 2015, 01:41:00 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 09, 2015, 01:52:51 pm
Post by: Arx on November 09, 2015, 02:07:44 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 09, 2015, 02:14:31 pm
In fact, perhaps the one true religion simply wasn't well enough evolved, and not related to Christianity at all. Perhaps it's dead and buried, because whilst it was truth, it wasn't the truth people wanted?
I'm speaking purely hypothetically here, of course, and postulating that there's a true religion at all.
Post by: Arx on November 09, 2015, 02:24:56 pm
And perhaps God did design those other religions. I wouldn't pitch anything on it myself, but there's no reason to say he didn't.
Of course, The One True Faith (patent pending) might also have died. But I don't think so. Which is the crux (hehe) of most religous arguments.
Post by: Graknorke on November 09, 2015, 02:41:23 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 09, 2015, 02:46:12 pm
Post by: Arx on November 09, 2015, 02:48:28 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 09, 2015, 02:50:18 pm
E: S'also a helluva' lot more core tenants to christianity that that one (and which ones have been the primary focus has most definitely shifted over the years), and more things beyond that that involve the whole memetic evolution concept. Christianity as a whole (nevermind how splintered it is) has changed pretty radically over the years.
Post by: TD1 on November 09, 2015, 03:13:08 pm
You've both missed the point - the core tenet of constant prayerfulness and all that hasn't changed. You'll notice I specified 'at its core'.Protestantism, whilst maybe not a fundamental change in tenants, is still a huge diversion from the old Catholicism. Then there's the change from Old to New Testament. There's the establishment of different branches (especially in the Protestant church) e.g. Westboro, Methodist, even Mormonism. Bits are added, altered, and reinterpreted all the time.
Another example is women clergy, gay marriage, etc. You could say that gay marriage isn't against the tenants, but there's at least a strong argument that it is. These are examples of things the Church evolved to include so it could survive in modern society.
Edit: Plus, even approaches to things like prayer has changed. I can't imagine Victorians jumping about in an ecstasy of God-worship and a social emotional feedback loop.
Post by: Beast Tamer on November 09, 2015, 03:33:47 pm
Post by: i2amroy on November 09, 2015, 03:41:13 pm
One of my biggest issues against most religions is that you must live a life of temperance and restraint so that you can go to an afterlife where all your wildest dreams come true and you live in bliss. It's like rewarding a child who ate their vegetables by shoving a cake down their throat.Honestly I have a problem with any religion that promises an eternal paradise after you die. It seems like if such a religion was composed of people who actually believed in it, then it would suicide itself out of existence pretty quickly (or barring that would have pretty much everyone struggling to take the riskiest jobs like firefighters to get life done with as fast as possible if suicide was expressly forbidden). I mean why linger in this place if all it takes is a single trigger pull to reach eternal paradise?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 09, 2015, 03:45:50 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 09, 2015, 05:29:30 pm
One of my biggest issues against most religions is that you must live a life of temperance and restraint so that you can go to an afterlife where all your wildest dreams come true and you live in bliss. It's like rewarding a child who ate their vegetables by shoving a cake down their throat.That's... missing the point entirely.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 09, 2015, 07:09:08 pm
Post by: Descan on November 09, 2015, 07:16:39 pm
Secondly, and more importantly regarding your point, the Bible HAS changed. The Catholics and the Protestants have whole different books in their bibles, not to mention the Assyrian, Coptic, Orthodox, and so forth. That's not even counting language differences, just in English alone the various translations have sometimes wildly different meanings depending on which word is chosen, and ACROSS languages whole meanings are spun out of whole cloth. Such as the origin of the "Virgin" Mary being an Aramaic/Hebrew word that didn't mean Virgin, but meant Young Maiden. It was translated to a Greek word that DID mean Virgin, and it wasn't a double meaning situation, because Hebrew/Aramaic (I honestly forget which, I think it was Aramaic because that's the language Jesus spoke, but it may have been Hebrew that the word was) did have a word for Virgin, and that wasn't the one used.
To a large extent, your Bible is a product of (continuous) bad translation and politics, not revelation or the work of wise men of God.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 09, 2015, 07:22:16 pm
About the virgin thing, almah can mean virgin or young woman, but in hebrew culture, the two were almost synonymous.
Post by: Bohandas on November 09, 2015, 07:33:05 pm
One of my biggest issues against most religions is that you must live a life of temperance and restraint so that you can go to an afterlife where all your wildest dreams come true and you live in bliss. It's like rewarding a child who ate their vegetables by shoving a cake down their throat.
I think the idea is more that heaven is just as restrained miserable but only the abberrant few who derive pleasure from this get in and they perceive it as eternal bliss
Post by: Helgoland on November 10, 2015, 04:55:10 am
The New Testament was made with strict guidelines.
The Catholic Church included some books that were outside of those guidelinesWee bit of a contradiction there, mate.
I think the idea is more that heaven is just as restrained miserable but only the abberrant few who derive pleasure from this get in and they perceive it as eternal blissYou do realize that this sounds rather disrespectful, don't you?
Post by: scrdest on November 10, 2015, 05:10:39 am
About the virgin thing, almah can mean virgin or young woman, but in hebrew culture, the two were almost synonymous.Weak argument. There is a word that specifically means 'virgin' in then-contemporary Hebrew, bethulah. It's only arguably synonymous insofar as the fact that the two groups tended to overlap for what should be obvious reasons.
It is definitely not synonymous sensu stricte and it seems like pretty transparent post-hoc apologetics for a mistranslation to Greek that got carried over because an average convert was far more likely to be acquainted with Greek and so, Greek texts and flawed translations; and both Septuagint and Hebrew texts use almah to describe definitely-non-virgins.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 10, 2015, 08:49:23 am
Post by: TD1 on November 10, 2015, 09:58:52 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Edit: Removed two words that seemed to appear randomly.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 10, 2015, 12:07:24 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 10, 2015, 03:30:44 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 10, 2015, 03:36:28 pm
But I think that she was a virgin before with Jesus because Joseph wanted to divorce here quietly when he found out she was pregnant.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 10, 2015, 06:00:20 pm
Either way, it challenges the Roman Catholic concept of Mary's somehow perpetual virginity.Wait, where did you get the idea that's a thing?
Is that a thing?
Helgo?
Post by: Helgoland on November 10, 2015, 06:07:26 pm
Post by: Telgin on November 10, 2015, 06:59:41 pm
Now, I can't remember whether that author was a Catholic or Protestant, but that seems a bit far fetched to me. I doubt too many believe anything like that.
That does sound a bit like typical Protestant dismissal of Catholic beliefs though. Many Protestants around here anyway believe that Catholics are a bunch of crazy Mary worshipers who pray to everyone but God.
I remember asking about that in the Catholic thread long ago and the answer was somewhat unsatisfying, although I think the problem was that I find most any answer on why people should pray to be unsatisfying.
Edit: To clarify, I know Catholics don't pray to saints and Mary like they would to God or Jesus, but it is very interesting from a Protestant point of view that Catholics involve them at all. From the Protestant Bible at least there's no reason given to do that, as far as I know.
Post by: Bohandas on November 10, 2015, 07:17:00 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 10, 2015, 07:25:27 pm
Post by: Telgin on November 10, 2015, 07:44:31 pm
Is it true that Protestant prayers to Jesus usually include statements somewhat along the lines of "Your mama's so ugly when she looks in the mirror her reflection throws up" :D
Not usually. Actually, in my experience Protestants don't even pray to Jesus directly. They usually / always just pray straight to God and then tack on something at the end like "in Jesus's name" so as to clarify that they're asking it through Jesus.
Now, the subject matter of such prayers varies tremendously, but yo mama jokes are pretty uncommon.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 10, 2015, 07:59:54 pm
Is it true that Protestant prayers to Jesus usually include statements somewhat along the lines of "Your mama's so ugly when she looks in the mirror her reflection throws up" :Duuhh... no.
Mary is a very good example of faith, and is often used as the example for a godly woman. At least in my church.
Post by: Teneb on November 10, 2015, 08:26:45 pm
To clarify, I know Catholics don't pray to saints and Mary like they would to God or Jesus, but it is very interesting from a Protestant point of view that Catholics involve them at all. From the Protestant Bible at least there's no reason given to do that, as far as I know.In theory, they don't. Being raised as a catholic in a country with a catholic majority, I can tell you that in practice they do pray to saints and Mary. There are queues to pray at the shrines to saints present at churches. Hell, I've heard family members praying directly to saints multiple times throughout my life.
Not usually. Actually, in my experience Protestants don't even pray to Jesus directly. They usually / always just pray straight to God and then tack on something at the end like "in Jesus's name" so as to clarify that they're asking it through Jesus.It may depend on the denomination. I see and hear a lot of the evangelicals (I guess I should say protestant, but the term is uncommon at best) around here very specifically praying to Jesus, and actually very rarely mentioning "the Lord God" in speech or prayer.
Could be wrong, of course.
Post by: Telgin on November 10, 2015, 08:33:18 pm
Anyway, back to the prayer thing - for those who are familiar with Catholicism, how does the Catholic church rationalize praying to saints or asking for their blessings? Is there something in the Catholic Bible that supports the practice?
Post by: Teneb on November 10, 2015, 08:40:10 pm
Anyway, back to the prayer thing - for those who are familiar with Catholicism, how does the Catholic church rationalize praying to saints or asking for their blessings? Is there something in the Catholic Bible that supports the practice?Don't know about the Bible itself, but the Church stance is that the saint intercedes with God for intervention.
Post by: Frumple on November 10, 2015, 08:42:43 pm
... also the catholic bible is the bible. Like... very, very literally, considering it's the catholic church that set the original canon. Presumably you're talking about the other bits of catholic canon, which... there's a word for I'm forgetting. Eh.
Post by: TheDarkStar on November 10, 2015, 08:56:53 pm
... also the catholic bible is the bible. Like... very, very literally, considering it's the catholic church that set the original canon. Presumably you're talking about the other bits of catholic canon, which... there's a word for I'm forgetting. Eh.
Apocrypha?
Post by: Telgin on November 10, 2015, 08:57:43 pm
Regarding the saints: That's kind of what I assumed, and I think that's roughly the answer I got before. The Catholic Church thread is dead though, so might as well continue the discussion here. I guess maybe it makes more sense from a Catholic point of view, but it feels a little strange to me, since God presumably wouldn't need anyone to clarify the meaning of a prayer to him, or have a limited amount of attention to divide and thus need assistants to sift through the prayers.
Maybe it's just supposed to some kind of appeal to respect. I mean, I guess the same argument applies to invoking Jesus in a prayer.
Post by: Graknorke on November 10, 2015, 09:00:23 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 10, 2015, 09:03:47 pm
E: Though I'm now left with the terrifying curiosity if someone out there has ground up saint bones to make lube. I'm pretty sure you could, and I rather imagine the market value of something like that would be faintly incredible...
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 10, 2015, 09:07:47 pm
Post by: Descan on November 10, 2015, 09:28:14 pm
Oh, I was always under the impression that Catholics used a physically different Bible that had all of the books from the Protestant Bible but included other books.http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/jun01.html
Post by: Teneb on November 10, 2015, 09:29:58 pm
Eh, god doesn't need the saints, nor does it possess limited multitasking capabilities, but it's not like the thing isn't on the books as acting through intermediaries fairly often -- letting the saints handle some things isn't much different than working through prophets or angels. S'more for man's benefit than god's, so far as I'm aware, basically. Saints' are more intercessory lubricant than interventional necessity.From what I understand, the whole concept of saint worship is because it was easier to convert the polytheistic (and idol-worshipping) peoples of Europe (and later other regions) by adapting some of the beliefs. Let's say it worked quite well.
Also got Ninja'd.
Post by: Graknorke on November 10, 2015, 09:36:24 pm
E: Though I'm now left with the terrifying curiosity if someone out there has ground up saint bones to make lube. I'm pretty sure you could, and I rather imagine the market value of something like that would be faintly incredible...You could probably find enough saint's toes and fingers going around to fill a bath with. Not that you should. Or that any of them would be the genuine article.
Post by: Telgin on November 10, 2015, 09:38:46 pm
Oh, I was always under the impression that Catholics used a physically different Bible that had all of the books from the Protestant Bible but included other books.http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/jun01.html
Ah, that's interesting and makes some sense. I assumed that it varied in the New Testament as well, but by the changes being confined to the Old Testament I would assume that Biblical doctrine isn't that different between the two.
Anyway, shifting gears a little. I've mentioned already how the Protestants around here feel about Catholics, who generally find it weird and possibly heretical that Catholics pray to anyone other than Jesus and God, and who think that it's strange that someone like the Pope exists with the authority he has.
Now, how do feelings flow in the other direction? Do Catholics view Protestants as being too loose with the rules? I read an essay by a Catholic scholar (name escapes me) who claimed that Protestants were almost "too" holy, although what he meant I can't quite remember. I think it was a criticism of how informally Protestants treat their relationship with God, finding salvation on their own terms and interpreting what they feel are directions and convictions from God on their own instead of through someone who knows how to interpret things like that.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 10, 2015, 09:50:16 pm
i heard it said by history related people(ethnography and archeology buffs) that catholicism converted a lot of the local pagan worshipping rites, places, and festivities into saint worshipping, and in south america missionaries did the same to local and slave religion, while protestantism was born more out of theological philosophy and draws less from natural traditionWhen Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire, many Roman pagan holidays (like Saturnalia) we co-opted to Christian celebrations so the people wouldn't complain too much. The Roman Catholic Church periodically added new celebrations and festivals as well.
The Reformation (i.e. establishment of the Protestant churches) was much later. The reformers wanted to scrap a lot of the Catholic Church's celebrations, primarily those that weren't based in some way on the (revised) Bible. The result was pretty varied, which is why we have Protestants observing Lent and Halloween and other nonsense.
You'll never find a church that isn't based on culture or tradition in at least some form. Protestantism isn't based any more or less on theology or culture than Catholicism.
...
Saints' are more intercessory lubricant than interventional necessityIn the Old Testament, the average Jew could only communicate with God via a priest. The idea carries over to the New Testament, and the commonly held interpretation is that Jesus serves as the priest (along with the glorified saints if you're Catholic). We don't communicate with God directly but rather to Christ who then passes it on, so to speak.
It's counterintuitive that prayers are usually prefixed with "Dear Father in Heaven" or somesuch, but that's because it's based off the Lord's Prayer, which is effectively an example of a "good" prayer.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 10, 2015, 11:23:47 pm
what i was talking about is more things like local shrines, patron saints, and festivals and not catolicism\empire wide mandated traditions. many are, the scholars* argue, direct descendants from local traditions.i heard it said by history related people(ethnography and archeology buffs) that catholicism converted a lot of the local pagan worshipping rites, places, and festivities into saint worshipping, and in south america missionaries did the same to local and slave religion, while protestantism was born more out of theological philosophy and draws less from natural traditionWhen Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire, many Roman pagan holidays (like Saturnalia) we co-opted to Christian celebrations so the people wouldn't complain too much. The Roman Catholic Church periodically added new celebrations and festivals as well.
The Reformation (i.e. establishment of the Protestant churches) was much later. The reformers wanted to scrap a lot of the Catholic Church's celebrations, primarily those that weren't based in some way on the (revised) Bible. The result was pretty varied, which is why we have Protestants observing Lent and Halloween and other nonsense.
*by scholars i mean people i get drunk with
Quote
You'll never find a church that isn't based on culture or tradition in at least some form. Protestantism isn't based any more or less on theology or culture than Catholicism.i never said otherwise, but they vary widely depending on their age and the writing technology available to it's precursors.
you can find religions or religious interpretations intensely based on folk culture and oral tradition, and others dictated by historical people, like mohamed, aquinas, luther, calvin, the trent council, constantinus, hubbard, joseph smith, etc.
protestantism is a spawn of the press, motivated by theological disagrements, and implemented relatively recently by dissatisfied purists\fanatics from the ground up in a virgin land or countries rescued from satan worshipping corrupt clergy, while catholicism was an effort to standardize the chaotic religious scene of the borglike romans, and implemented by coerced natives who mostly tried balance keeping their traditions and their heads
Post by: Bohandas on November 11, 2015, 12:26:15 am
In the Old Testament, the average Jew could only communicate with God via a priest. The idea carries over to the New Testament, and the commonly held interpretation is that Jesus serves as the priest. We don't communicate with God directly but rather to Christ who then passes it on, so to speak.
Doesn't that interpretation assume non-trinitarianism?
EDIT:
who generally find it weird and possibly heretical that Catholics pray to anyone other than Jesus and God
Same question
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 11, 2015, 12:35:36 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 11, 2015, 12:43:53 am
Not really (although personally I'm sceptical of it). The Trinity is composed of three distinct entities, it's reasonable to assume they can act independently and communicate.In the Old Testament, the average Jew could only communicate with God via a priest. The idea carries over to the New Testament, and the commonly held interpretation is that Jesus serves as the priest. We don't communicate with God directly but rather to Christ who then passes it on, so to speak.Doesn't that interpretation assume non-trinitarianism?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 11, 2015, 12:59:07 am
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 03:51:21 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 11, 2015, 06:38:01 am
Quote
Despite the origin of the term, from Greek skhizein, meaning "to split", and phrēn, meaning "mind", schizophrenia does not imply a "split personality" or "multiple personality disorder" — a condition with which it is often confused in public perception.[1] Rather, the term means a "splitting of mental functions", reflecting the presentation of the illness.[2]
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 06:40:17 am
Quote
false beliefs, unclear or confused thinking:P
Still, you know what I meant. Would they say he had multiple personality disorder?
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 11, 2015, 06:53:43 am
There's also the matter of the... Covenant of the Trinity, or something like that, which is the theological term used to describe the idea that all three persons of the Trinity are always in perfect agreement, making any sort of disagreement an impossibility. So although the personalities are distinct, they also agree with one another. Somehow.
So in the sense of having multiple personalities, sure, but God isn't human. He's a... thing... that is beyond mortal ken. Like if Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey all fused together into Super-Emperator (and didn't keep trying to murder each other). It's kind of hard to diagnose Super-Emperator with personality disorders.
Post by: scrdest on November 11, 2015, 07:01:24 am
Possibly? "God" is a bit of a tricky concept. In terms of Trinity doctrine, God is composed of the three persons, each of whom are God in their own right, but but exist as God alongside the other two.Wait...
There's also the matter of the... Covenant of the Trinity, or something like that, which is the theological term used to describe the idea that all three persons of the Trinity are always in perfect agreement, making any sort of disagreement an impossibility. So although the personalities are distinct, they also agree with one another. Somehow.
So in the sense of having multiple personalities, sure, but God isn't human. He's a... thing... that is beyond mortal ken. Like if Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey all fused together into Super-Emperator (and didn't keep trying to murder each other). It's kind of hard to diagnose Super-Emperator with personality disorders.
God is composed of three elements, each of which is God.
Holy shit, God is fractal.
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 07:01:36 am
Of course, this is blatant anthropomorphism, but let's face it, the only way we know God is by expressing him in human terms. He "loves" us, he is "wrathful" and so on.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 11, 2015, 07:05:29 am
Super-Emperator.
...
Holy shit, God is fractal.Next up: Jesus is composed of three elements: Prophet, Priest, and King.
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 07:16:37 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 11, 2015, 08:59:36 am
(https://manyprophetsonemessage.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/doctrine-trinity.png)
The best example I can think of is a marriage. A man and a women are not each other, but each are part of one flesh.
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 09:03:30 am
Anyway, that picture doesn't make sense to me. If the son is God, and God is the Holy Spirit, then it is illogical to say that the son is not the Holy Spirit. Given they're both God, and God is both, the son is the holy spirit.
Post by: Arx on November 11, 2015, 09:05:11 am
Part of one flesh? I know many people who would disagree. Myself included. I may have exceedingly strong feelings for my dog, but that doesn't make us "one flesh."
You're not married to your dog.
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 09:10:28 am
Post by: Rolan7 on November 11, 2015, 09:13:23 am
Wait...That's how they are omnipresent - it's God(s) all the way down!
God is composed of three elements, each of which is God.
Holy shit, God is fractal.
Post by: TempAcc on November 11, 2015, 09:15:55 am
So if I say ceremonious words to my dog, then I become "one flesh" with it?
Marriage in the church/bible isn't limited to the ritual, the ritual is just a small part of it. So, unless you're doing some stuff to your dog you really shouldn't be doing, then you aren't "one flesh" with it :v
No details pls.
Post by: Sheb on November 11, 2015, 09:16:23 am
Post by: Arx on November 11, 2015, 09:19:42 am
So if I say ceremonious words to my dog, then I become "one flesh" with it?
No. You cannot ordain a marriage. No man can.
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 09:25:56 am
So you define "one flesh" as sexual interaction, combined with marriage?So if I say ceremonious words to my dog, then I become "one flesh" with it?
Marriage in the church/bible isn't limited to the ritual, the ritual is just a small part of it. So, unless you're doing some stuff to your dog you really shouldn't be doing, then you aren't "one flesh" with it :v
No details pls.
I can have sex with anyone, and marry them, and suddenly we're "one flesh?"
Were we one flesh, there would be some observable difference. Say one died in India, the other in America would know because a part of them just died. Instead, couples who are married frequently have arguments, get cabin fever, can be disillusioned, etc. Saying they're "one flesh" is romantic nonsense mixed with religion.
Priests have a good stab at it, heh.So if I say ceremonious words to my dog, then I become "one flesh" with it?
No. You cannot ordain a marriage. No man can.
I assume you mean a spiritual, godly marriage? The most spiritual marriage still has many associated problems that one would see if they weren't "one flesh."
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 11, 2015, 09:31:07 am
Post by: Arx on November 11, 2015, 09:33:00 am
Also, it is also possible that we as humans living on earth just cannot comprehend God.
Going by Biblical literalism, it's significantly more than possible. It's pretty much a definite.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 11, 2015, 09:34:02 am
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 09:39:46 am
:P
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 11, 2015, 09:41:04 am
Actually, it was a rhetorical statement, but whateverWith the power of post-editing, it is now a rhetorical question, but whatever.
:P
:P :P
Post by: TempAcc on November 11, 2015, 09:45:46 am
So you define "one flesh" as sexual interaction, combined with marriage?So if I say ceremonious words to my dog, then I become "one flesh" with it?
Marriage in the church/bible isn't limited to the ritual, the ritual is just a small part of it. So, unless you're doing some stuff to your dog you really shouldn't be doing, then you aren't "one flesh" with it :v
No details pls.
I can have sex with anyone, and marry them, and suddenly we're "one flesh?"
Were we one flesh, there would be some observable difference. Say one died in India, the other in America would know because a part of them just died. Instead, couples who are married frequently have arguments, get cabin fever, can be disillusioned, etc. Saying they're "one flesh" is romantic nonsense mixed with religion.
Not just sex either. Marriage is defined as a communion between a man and a woman in God's presence, and one of the pillars between human interaction with God. Think of it as kind of a "mini covenant", in which the involved agree to follow God's will, rules and to love eachother unconditionally. The ritual, sex and other things are just small parts of it.
And ye, God being inherently incomprehensible to humans is a maxim of many religions, including Christianity, Hermeticism, Hinduism (in relation to Vishnu and I guess Krishna, I think) and many others. And not just humans in some cases, spiritism for example actualy says that practically nobody, not even the most developed spirits can truly understand just what God is its fullness.
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 09:59:06 am
Quote
to love eachother unconditionally
A pipe dream. Doesn't exist - the entire premise upon which the "oneness" of married couples is based doesn't hold up in reality. It's a nice, touching thing, but there's no such thing as unconditional love. Your wife turns out to be a serial rapist? You're not going to love them for long.
But siblings and family members have unconditional love, some may argue. Not so - as I can attest, those are again ideal views which can be seen to be true, until something happens and suddenly the rules are changed. Unconditional love is only unconditional for as long as it takes something that makes it conditional to happen.
Post by: TempAcc on November 11, 2015, 10:09:53 am
The scope of the entirety of the world's fraternal and matrimonial relationships kinda goes beyond your personal experience and observation capacity :vQuoteto love eachother unconditionallyA pipe dream. Doesn't exist [...] as I can attest
I think assuming something does not exist because you have not observed it is kinda silly.
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 10:13:38 am
That work, heh? :-\
Edit: I think that may be the only time I've sworn properly on Bay12, bar one other time which I cleansed. It's quoted below, though, so yay I guess.
Post by: Arx on November 11, 2015, 10:14:46 am
My brother is a fucking bastard and I can attest that I don't love him.
That work, heh? :-\
And every time I've had alcohol I haven't got drunk. Everyone who thinks they get drunk off alcohol is wrong. That work?
Post by: Rolan7 on November 11, 2015, 10:20:09 am
Unless you're arguing that unconditional love doesn't exist *anywhere*, which I don't think you were... Though I'm not convinced that it does exist.
I kinda hate the pseudo-unconditional love for family members because it makes conflicts hurt more. I'd rather choose my relationships.
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 10:24:26 am
Unconditional love, by definition, is...unconditional.
But when there are examples of family rifts - mother against son, brother against brother, wife against husband - it shows how conditional it is.
As I said, you may love your wife, but if she does something horrendous (or even trivial like buying a puppy or something) and is utterly unrepentant, you're not going to love her for long.
Unconditional love depends upon unchanging personalities and unchanging perceptions of people. That's not something you're going to get in real life.
@Dwarf1I don't believe in unconditional love at all, and am dubious about love in general - I recognise people form emotional attachments, but there are some heavy meanings to "love" that I'm not sure can be applied or not. So that's the grey area - unconditional love is the extreme, though.
Unless you're arguing that unconditional love doesn't exist *anywhere*, which I don't think you were... Though I'm not convinced that it does exist.
I kinda hate the pseudo-unconditional love for family members because it makes conflicts hurt more. I'd rather choose my relationships.
Post by: TempAcc on November 11, 2015, 10:28:51 am
Not a statement of fact, of course, just my personal belief.
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 10:33:22 am
Post by: Bohandas on November 11, 2015, 10:37:34 am
So you define "one flesh" as sexual interaction, combined with marriage?So if I say ceremonious words to my dog, then I become "one flesh" with it?
Marriage in the church/bible isn't limited to the ritual, the ritual is just a small part of it. So, unless you're doing some stuff to your dog you really shouldn't be doing, then you aren't "one flesh" with it :v
No details pls.
I can have sex with anyone, and marry them, and suddenly we're "one flesh?"
Were we one flesh, there would be some observable difference. Say one died in India, the other in America would know because a part of them just died. Instead, couples who are married frequently have arguments, get cabin fever, can be disillusioned, etc. Saying they're "one flesh" is romantic nonsense mixed with religion.
Not just sex either. Marriage is defined as a communion between a man and a woman in God's presence
So God likes to watch. That's interestibg.
Post by: TempAcc on November 11, 2015, 10:47:33 am
Right now. :v
Post by: Rose on November 11, 2015, 10:59:20 am
And yes, God sees all and knows all.
Post by: Frumple on November 11, 2015, 11:18:33 am
While true, that's always struck me as one of the worst cop-outs religion in general tends to pull. I just woke up, so the words aren't quite coming right, but... "It can't be understood" is, just... not a point for, or something like that. It's functionally no different from saying, "It's entirely arbitrary" or "It's just bughumping insane". When you consider the ethics of belief, especially with regard to something as important as religion claims to be (the soul, afterlife, weighed in relation to the eternal consequences, etc.), choosing to believe in something you don't and (significantly worse) can't understand is, just... bad. Bad form, bad idea, the list just rolls on. Science and whatnot get away with it a bit because at least that stuff is trying fix the situation, but with religion it's always brought up as a sort of conversation stopper. "I can't, therefore you cannot claim I should and must accede my suppositions are unassailable." It also seems to be done with the intent that since total comprehension is impossible, lesser comprehension(s) are also meaningless -- that the overall nature of the entity is such that it overrides entirely the nature of its lesser actions. It's basically saying that because god is unknowable, its every action is incapable of being assessed and has no bearing on an evaluation of its actions (current, past, potential future, whatever).Also, it is also possible that we as humans living on earth just cannot comprehend God.Going by Biblical literalism, it's significantly more than possible. It's pretty much a definite.
From a human perspective that's just... abhorrent? Significantly unwise? We've seen that sort of belief in human history, many times over -- the king's actions are unknowable to the peasant, therefore the king's rape and murder of the peasantry should not be questioned. The general's intent is unknowable to the soldier, therefore the soldier should follow the order to massacre civilians without hesitation. It just goes on, and on, and on. Maybe it's even true, but that doesn't mean it's right for the soldiers and the peasantry to accept it as true, y'know?
---
S'also an implicit denial of the critter's omnipotence, heh -- it's saying that if god wanted to (and nevermind the implications that it wants mankind to live in ignorance of its nature, instead), it couldn't make humans living on earth comprehend it, if nothing else at least well enough for people to make appropriate decisions regarding the thing.
Post by: miauw62 on November 11, 2015, 11:32:07 am
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 11:33:24 am
Unconditional love may be impossible, but that doesn't mean it's not an ideal worth pursuing.Yep:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TheDarkStar on November 11, 2015, 12:38:52 pm
Post by: Descan on November 11, 2015, 12:41:30 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 11, 2015, 12:41:50 pm
It's okay if you don't get it all.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 11, 2015, 12:44:57 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
Post by: Frumple on November 11, 2015, 12:49:31 pm
Question regarding the Trinity: So it's really three different people who work together (as a single God)? That's the impression I get from reading posts here, but I've also heard some very different things about it (i.e. it's just one person).Think of it as one entity expressed as three separate entities. If you're looking for a different example, it's like a tiny brahman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman). There is only brahman (God), but there is also Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, and the other divinities (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). That Vishnu and Brahma are separate from each other makes them no less indivisible from the brahman. If that feels confusing to you, it's because it's confusing.
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2015, 01:00:27 pm
It was the subject of much debate and death, and I'm not even sure what explanation(s) won or how much it depends on denomination. Maybe st patrick can explain:I wonder how many people here would still be arguing for a one god if the Arians had succeeded and hadn't been expunged from history as much as possible by the Nicene orthodoxy.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2015, 01:03:55 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on November 11, 2015, 01:51:43 pm
Question regarding the Trinity: So it's really three different people who work together (as a single God)? That's the impression I get from reading posts here, but I've also heard some very different things about it (i.e. it's just one person).
Interpretation varies wildly based on which Christian denomination you belong to. The most mainstream one, I think, is that the Trinity is one entity in three aspects. St. Patrick described it as like the trefoil leaf: Three seperate... THINGIES/LEAVES that still belong to one greater entity/stem.
There's also those that believe that the Trinity are three seperate entities that are just best bros, although professing that is a good way to get punched by Santa.
Its always seemed like a weird and tiny distinction to make, but this is apparently SRS BSNESS anyways.
Post by: TheDarkStar on November 11, 2015, 02:14:56 pm
There's also those that believe that the Trinity are three seperate entities that are just best bros, although professing that is a good way to get punched by Santa.
I suspect that I would be punched. Also, Santa?
Post by: Baffler on November 11, 2015, 02:23:04 pm
There's also those that believe that the Trinity are three seperate entities that are just best bros, although professing that is a good way to get punched by Santa.
I suspect that I would be punched. Also, Santa?
St. Nicholas famously punched Arius at the council of Nicaea.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Or if you prefer...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Grim Portent on November 11, 2015, 02:26:03 pm
There's also those that believe that the Trinity are three seperate entities that are just best bros, although professing that is a good way to get punched by Santa.
I suspect that I would be punched. Also, Santa?
St. Nicholas famously punched Arius at the council of Nicaea.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The way his fist is painted makes it look almost like he's stabbing him in the head with a dart. The highlighting on the fold above the bottom of his thumb looks like fletching. :P
Post by: Helgoland on November 11, 2015, 03:19:05 pm
-snip-Made my day. Especially the second picture.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 11, 2015, 05:20:00 pm
There's also those that believe that the Trinity are three seperate entities that are just best bros, although professing that is a good way to get punched by Santa.So that's why I never get any presents.
Post by: TD1 on November 12, 2015, 04:12:09 pm
I went there to get a quote for an essay, and got stuck.
Post by: Helgoland on November 12, 2015, 04:18:55 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 12, 2015, 04:52:02 pm
Post by: Adragis on November 12, 2015, 05:15:57 pm
Post by: TempAcc on November 12, 2015, 05:18:24 pm
Anyway, currently going through the 4th fundamental book in spiritism, right at the start of the book there's a rather interesting philosophical analysis on why people started to become more and more materialistic and nihilistic in western society and how christian doctrine (altough the author is clearly referring to catholic doctrine in specific, in this case) failed to provide people with reasons to not walk away from the idea of life after death and become more individualistic.
The very first part of the book is almost purely philosophical in nature, so regardless of what your religion (or lack of religion) is, it should be an interesting quick read for anyone interested (altough it does take several stabs at the catholic church). There's an english PDF version (http://www.ssbaltimore.org/PDF/Heaven_Hell.pdf) of it provided by the Baltimore Spiritist Society.
Post by: TD1 on November 12, 2015, 05:19:30 pm
Tell me, what effect do you hope for when posting a link essentially containing nothing but witticisms about organized religion being dumb and worthy of contempt into a thread like this?...not what you seem to be suggesting. I was not making some petty point to stir people up.
Quote
“One century's saint is the next century's heretic ... and one century's heretic is the next century's saint. It is as well to think long and calmly before affixing either name to any man.”This is the quote that prompted me to share the page. So that's why I chose to share it - because I thought there might be the odd thought provoking quote in there. Feel free to look for them or ignore them all, I don't particularly care.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 12, 2015, 06:48:23 pm
Huh, I thought heresy was like, opinions on church doctrine that differ from the church's accepted doctrine, and not just disagreeing with the church in general.No, that's exactly what it is, but historically there's been a lot of overlap.
Post by: Bohandas on November 12, 2015, 07:18:47 pm
Huh, I thought heresy was like, opinions on church doctrine that differ from the church's accepted doctrine, and not just disagreeing with the church in general.
Anyway, currently going through the 4th fundamental book in spiritism, right at the start of the book there's a rather interesting philosophical analysis on why people started to become more and more materialistic and nihilistic in western society and how christian doctrine (altough the author is clearly referring to catholic doctrine in specific, in this case) failed to provide people with reasons to not walk away from the idea of life after death and become more individualistic.
I thought it was simply because modern science technology delivered visible miracles where previous worldviews didn't.
Post by: TempAcc on November 12, 2015, 08:37:55 pm
No, porn doesn't count :v
Post by: itisnotlogical on November 12, 2015, 08:52:36 pm
Define ~visible miracles~
I'd say that instant (or close enough that it doesn't matter) contact with anybody else in the world that has any form of Internet is pretty cool.
Or being able to carry dozens, if not hundreds of books on a device about the size of a smallish sketchbook.
Or being able to (kinda) read other languages, if you get lucky.
Or being able to refrigerate food for weeks instead of having to eat it as soon as you got your hands on it.
Or not freezing to death in winter.
Or flying.
Basically, the modern world is much, much cooler than people realize.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 12, 2015, 09:05:55 pm
Define ~visible miracles~The fact that we have eyes to see in the first place.
No, porn doesn't count :v
The definition will change to whoever you speak to.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 12, 2015, 09:13:13 pm
It's really true. The scientific method, wielded by incredibly determined people, has accomplished veritable and *verifiable* miracles.Define ~visible miracles~
I'd say that instant (or close enough that it doesn't matter) contact with anybody else in the world that has any form of Internet is pretty cool.
Or being able to carry dozens, if not hundreds of books on a device about the size of a smallish sketchbook.
Or being able to (kinda) read other languages, if you get lucky.
Or being able to refrigerate food for weeks instead of having to eat it as soon as you got your hands on it.
Or not freezing to death in winter.
Or flying.
Basically, the modern world is much, much cooler than people realize.
Helps that they all had incentive to one-up each other, heh, but often not a lot of incentive. Beyond advancing human knowledge.
Post by: TempAcc on November 12, 2015, 09:14:12 pm
What I meant by my original comment is that the philosophical essay I mentioned takes a stance I find rather interesting. Its not at all about science vs religion, in fact, it very much promotes scientific knowledge and evidence based logical thought as something we should always have within ourselves and are things which we should always use when interacting with the world.
It just says that taking the advancements of science as a reason to adopt a purely materialistic, nihilistic and individualistic view of life is just as foolish or even more foolish as adopting a extremist religious view, and at the same time it also criticises mainstream christian doctrine (with heavy implied emphasis on catholicism) for adopting contradictory ideas and ignoring the value of religion in the moral betterment of humanity by adopting strange and incompatible ideas such as eternal punishment for the wicked, with no hope of redemption once they get to that point, and that God favors rituals and doctrine rather than each person's own work and merit.
Ultimately, it does not care much for wheter you believe in God or not, but it warns about the dangers of a purely materialistic view of life, and condemns mainstream religion for being stern, slow and unable to keep the pace with the world and failing to improve the human condition by favoring rituals and old doctrines over the moral betterment of mankind.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 12, 2015, 09:38:10 pm
Charles Darwin agreed with that.Define ~visible miracles~The fact that we have eyes to see in the first place.
No, porn doesn't count :v
The definition will change to whoever you speak to.
But, it turns out, it was practically inevitable once we had multicellular organisms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrKZBh8BL_U
In short:
Sensing light was beneficial (very very basic microbes do this)
Sensing the direction of light (through a pinhole) was beneficial
Covering the pinhole with clear substance for protection was beneficial
Modifying that cover to focus the light was beneficial
And of course *everything* is better with bilateral symmetry, IE 2 eyes, which happened to allow depth perception with enough brainpower.
Charles Darwin, like practically every scientist in history, had his theories improved upon to more accurately describe reality. Because that's the core of the scientific process: If you make a more accurate theory, you win. But then everyone else will want to one-up YOU, and steal that glory. So there's an incentive to be right.
With religion, with all due respect, there's absolutely no built-in incentive to be correct. Just to be attractive and comforting. That's why a normal person may use faith healing to feel better, and medicine to get better. (Or psychiatry to feel better... since it's demonstrably more effective, but expensive)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 12, 2015, 09:44:20 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 12, 2015, 09:51:26 pm
Furthermore, no religion has verifiable information about the afterlife. Since, by definition, it was verifiable it'd be scientific.
If there was a process to reliably speak to the dead, it'd be scientific because it could be tested.
Post by: Frumple on November 12, 2015, 09:57:42 pm
It is more than current comfort that most religions care about. Most care about getting to the afterlife.Rol didn't say anything about current comfort. Just comfort. Getting to the afterlife is... pretty much entirely about comfort, just in the future -- christianity in particular is pretty explicit about that, as it heaps piles and piles of promised discomfort upon the person not believing properly (whatever the means for a particularly denomination).
Getting to the afterlife includes a very large component of current comfort, too. It's very much an existential and psychological salve to a lot of people throughout their life.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 12, 2015, 10:01:43 pm
Ok, I misread that.It is more than current comfort that most religions care about. Most care about getting to the afterlife.Rol didn't say anything about current comfort. Just comfort. Getting to the afterlife is... pretty much entirely about comfort, just in the future -- christianity in particular is pretty explicit about that, as it heaps piles and piles of promised discomfort upon the person not believing properly (whatever the means for a particularly denomination).
Getting to the afterlife includes a very large component of current comfort, too. It's very much an existential and psychological salve to a lot of people throughout their life.
Post by: Adragis on November 13, 2015, 01:36:08 am
You people are clearly not even considering the visible miracle that is Scientology.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 13, 2015, 01:57:01 am
Post by: Adragis on November 13, 2015, 02:00:15 am
It's the epitome of human enlightenment :P
Post by: Bohandas on November 13, 2015, 03:24:37 am
It is more than current comfort that most religions care about. Most care about getting to the afterlife.
Give us a couple decades and we'll cover that too
Post by: TD1 on November 13, 2015, 07:24:49 am
Wonder if he'd be peeved :P
Post by: Adragis on November 13, 2015, 07:26:57 am
Post by: Helgoland on November 13, 2015, 08:15:37 am
Post by: TD1 on November 13, 2015, 08:51:43 am
Making a simulation in which we are happy isn't quite the same thing.
Post by: Frumple on November 13, 2015, 09:28:03 am
It's spun as a hubris thing, but you can read the passage itself as you please and it really doesn't come off as a hubris thing. God's stated reason for screwing with the whole babel thing was because mankind speaking one language and working together would have nothing they could not achieve. And apparently that's bad, so shatter the nation, scatter the people, and more or less give everyone involved brain damage. One of those moments thoroughly on the jackass list :-\
Post by: TD1 on November 13, 2015, 09:32:10 am
"You can do whatever you want. Except for that. Here, I'm going to have to make some alterations to your brain to fix that...."
Post by: Adragis on November 13, 2015, 09:43:15 am
-- the tower was built primarily to make sure mankind didn't scatter apart, not really in order to reach heaven --Please quote. I agree with what you're saying, but I've never heard this one before.
Post by: TD1 on November 13, 2015, 09:48:08 am
5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.
6 And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
9 Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
Post by: Frumple on November 13, 2015, 09:49:13 am
In any case, I'd probably say not to read too much into the story. All it really was was a mythological explanation of why there's multiple languages, conceived by a people that didn't believe it could happen naturally and did believe that god was a complete dick (but should be followed lest you get dicked by it).
As to the quote:
Quote from: NIV Gensis 11 1-9
Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar[b and settled there.Ninja'd a bit, but whatev'.
3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
The specific line you're looking for is
Quote
Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”It says it right there -- the reason they were doing it and making a name for themselves was to prevent their people from being scattered across the whole of the earth. It wasn't pride, it wasn't trying to reach the heavens for poke the eye of god or anything like that, it was just so that mankind would maintain solidarity and not become less than they could be.
Post by: scrdest on November 13, 2015, 09:49:47 am
4 And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”TIL God's an antiglobalist.
5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.
6 And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
9 Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
Post by: Teneb on November 13, 2015, 09:55:34 am
And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”For some reason, I can't help but interpret this tower as a space elevator.
Post by: Adragis on November 13, 2015, 10:32:45 am
Post by: Descan on November 13, 2015, 11:01:30 am
And on a slightly more rocky note, the whole "believe or burn for eternity" thing goes against free will. Eternal burnination, if real, would certainly fall under "under duress" and not really count as freely choosing to follow Christ. I know of a few people who are Christian purely out of fear of Hell.
Makes the whole "follow me out of your own choice" thing modern Christ has going on ring a little hollow.
Post by: TD1 on November 13, 2015, 11:07:01 am
Post by: Telgin on November 13, 2015, 11:53:02 am
Also free will goes out the window when you consider he hardened Pharoahs heart like 10 times, presumably so God could get some firstborn killing in.
And on a slightly more rocky note, the whole "believe or burn for eternity" thing goes against free will. Eternal burnination, if real, would certainly fall under "under duress" and not really count as freely choosing to follow Christ. I know of a few people who are Christian purely out of fear of Hell.
Makes the whole "follow me out of your own choice" thing modern Christ has going on ring a little hollow.
I was one of those Christians for a long time and agree.
An interesting thing about the hardening of Pharoah's heart is that supposedly the original text blamed that on Ra and that later translations changed it to be God, presumably to deny that any other gods existed.
Post by: Graknorke on November 13, 2015, 11:56:16 am
It's very much an existential and psychological salve to a lot of people throughout their life.A friend sincerely said to me today, "My life is a mess, but it's okay because I'm Christian." It's an odd sentiment from the outside but makes sense internally I guess.
Also free will goes out the window when you consider he hardened Pharoahs heart like 10 times, presumably so God could get some firstborn killing in.Wrong god, Ra was the one doing the hardening. Then it got retconned because monotheism.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 13, 2015, 12:13:30 pm
The old Pascal's Wager has always been a tad abhorrent to me.You feeling lucky, punk? Did I roast three cheeky nandos, or two?
Post by: Cthulhu on November 13, 2015, 12:42:27 pm
Also free will goes out the window when you consider he hardened Pharoahs heart like 10 times, presumably so God could get some firstborn killing in.
And on a slightly more rocky note, the whole "believe or burn for eternity" thing goes against free will. Eternal burnination, if real, would certainly fall under "under duress" and not really count as freely choosing to follow Christ. I know of a few people who are Christian purely out of fear of Hell.
Makes the whole "follow me out of your own choice" thing modern Christ has going on ring a little hollow.
There's a rabbi, I don't remember his name, who points out that there's obviously two conflicting histories going on, the Bible and empirical observations about the world. If God exists and created the world then this is obviously intentional. So which are we supposed to believe? The book with talking animals and a six-thousand year earth or the brain that God gave us?
Quote from: Proverbs 14:15
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.
Which leads into what I really think, which is that if God exists (I don't think he does) the only thing that makes sense is the universe is a test and the Bible is the wrong answer.
Post by: i2amroy on November 13, 2015, 12:53:08 pm
The old Pascal's Wager has always been a tad abhorrent to me.I love when people use it though, because it's the easiest thing to poke holes in. Simply introducing another god who may possibly be real (and who's belief is mutually exclusive) automatically zeroes out the whole gain chart, or alternatively propose the existence of a god of atheism, that rewards you in the afterlife for disbelieving in it à la Dresden Codak (http://dresdencodak.com/2005/11/29/secular-heaven/). (Sadly people seem to have caught onto that, so I don't get to whip out the refutations that often. :P)
Post by: Cthulhu on November 13, 2015, 12:55:36 pm
Post by: Bohandas on November 13, 2015, 01:52:31 pm
Also free will goes out the window when you consider he hardened Pharoahs heart like 10 times, presumably so God could get some firstborn killing in.Wrong god, Ra was the one doing the hardening. Then it got retconned because monotheism.
It was neither. Eating too many deep-fried geese hardened the pharoah's heart.
EDIT:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1253842/The-sacred-junk-food-Egyptian-pharaohs.html
Post by: lemon10 on November 13, 2015, 08:32:01 pm
Also free will goes out the window when you consider he hardened Pharoahs heart like 10 times, presumably so God could get some firstborn killing in.It doesn't actually seem to really be against free will to me. While it obviously shows that god *can* take away your free will if he chooses, these are the exception rather than the rule. So everyone that isn't the pharaoh does presumably have free will. Similarly, the fact that he could turn you into a fish if he wanted too doesn't make you any less human now. That all said, it was really a super dick thing to do.
And on a slightly more rocky note, the whole "believe or burn for eternity" thing goes against free will. Eternal burnination, if real, would certainly fall under "under duress" and not really count as freely choosing to follow Christ. I know of a few people who are Christian purely out of fear of Hell.
Makes the whole "follow me out of your own choice" thing modern Christ has going on ring a little hollow.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 13, 2015, 08:51:20 pm
If you read Exodus 14:
"Then the waters returned and covered the chariots, the horsemen, and all the army of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them. Not so much as one of them remained."
It says pharaoh's whole army died, but it doesn't specifically say he died. After seeing all the crazy stuff that happened, pharaoh may have had a change of heart. Even if he did die in the ocean, he believe God still would have given him a chance to change his heart on his own right before he died.
Post by: lemon10 on November 13, 2015, 08:59:29 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
So while it *is* theoretically possible that he chose to turn around at the last instant (although I pretty sure god would have just "hardened his heart" again and made him keep going), I think the bible would have probably noted that he lived and broke off from his army beforehand.
That said, it doesn't really matter if he did survive, the actions he took against him before his death are far more dickish then simply killing him.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 13, 2015, 09:06:40 pm
"Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When Israel's god dealt harshly with them, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way?"
From this verse, it implies that pharaoh hardened his own heart. Perhaps one of the scenarios is a difficult translation. But that's interesting.
Post by: Descan on November 13, 2015, 09:09:55 pm
Which Pharoah being fucked with shows that yeah, no, he could do that, hell I even tossed in a few examples of ways he can "interfere with free will" without going all mind-probey.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 13, 2015, 09:11:45 pm
Post by: Graknorke on November 13, 2015, 09:13:29 pm
It's hard to love a robot.Let me tell you about a little thing called a 'waifu'...
Post by: Descan on November 13, 2015, 09:13:59 pm
Not much love involved in "You don't believe in me because [reasons, usually involving evidence (or lack there of), or being raised in a different religion]? THEN BURN!" "But you could just like... pop up and tell me I'm wrong! I'm okay with that! You don't even need to stick your godfinger in my brain!" "Nope. Hell."
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 13, 2015, 09:27:54 pm
I just found this in 1 Samuel 6:6Context: The Ark of the Covenant has been captured by the Philistines, and they don't know what to do with it. Their priests and diviners are telling them to send it back to Israel so they don't get plagued like what happened to Egypt.
"Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When Israel's god dealt harshly with them, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way?"
God himself is not directly involved at all. No free will is implied. The Philistine priests etc. are trying to convince their friends that provoking the Lord of Israel is a Bad Idea.
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 13, 2015, 10:44:11 pm
Are you saying this verse contradicts the verse about God hardening the pharaoh's heart?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 13, 2015, 11:01:51 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 13, 2015, 11:54:07 pm
He's God, he can do whatever he wants. He gave us free will so he could love us. It's hard to love a robot.If I were an all knowing god, humans would be nothing but robots I designed. I would know what every single one of their actions would be before I even built them.
The only reason we don't love robots is because we haven't built one who's intelligence has surpassed our ability to comprehend it yet.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 14, 2015, 12:01:23 am
Think of chairs instead.
:P :P
Post by: Graknorke on November 14, 2015, 12:04:32 am
People can get attached to anything.
Post by: Frumple on November 14, 2015, 12:13:18 am
It's damned easy to love a chair -- they have pretty much nothing but positive qualities, and their only substantial downside is degeneration over time and a degree of uncertainty (downsides which humans have at least as much). They aid and support you, often longer than most of your human relationships will, and have a literally complete lack of malice, selfishness, or hate. They may lack the depth of human interaction, but to say they are difficult to love? No. Not even remotely.
Post by: Ghazkull on November 14, 2015, 08:29:18 am
I don't recall the exact words but the idea was roughly thus:
God is almighty. He can create whatever the fuck he wants. But the problem is with creating automatons (aka angels here) kinda sucks because they lack free will. They love him because he made them this way that they have to love him no matter if they want to or not. Because they can't not want to. (that already sounds so grammatically wrong)
Anyway. He thus created humans with free will. He creates them with free will so that they can choose not to love him. The idea being behind it that man would choose to love god for himself not because he is an almighty creator or can give them boons but love him for his own sake.
I guess that makes the almighty god a pretty lone guy who just wants to be loved, but not by something which loves him because he said so but by something that chooses to love him.
The fact that he is then angry that those who can choose then choose not to do so, however is an entire different keg.
Post by: Descan on November 14, 2015, 11:48:20 am
Also, basically, God is an absentee father. Only worse, because at least you can be reasonably certain your dad at least existed at one point, even if you never saw him. But he still wants you to love him, and would be really angry if you didn't.
He's basically a deadbeat dad.
Post by: BFEL on November 14, 2015, 01:09:34 pm
Yeah.Actually, if you believe the bible, God is Casey Anthony.
Also, basically, God is an absentee father. Only worse, because at least you can be reasonably certain your dad at least existed at one point, even if you never saw him. But he still wants you to love him, and would be really angry if you didn't.
He's basically a deadbeat dad.
Oh, the humans are acting up again and MEDAMMIT I'LL JUST DROWN THE FUCKERS
Post by: scrdest on November 14, 2015, 01:24:19 pm
That would mean that, logically, Casey Anthony is therefore God.Yeah.Actually, if you believe the bible, God is Casey Anthony.
Also, basically, God is an absentee father. Only worse, because at least you can be reasonably certain your dad at least existed at one point, even if you never saw him. But he still wants you to love him, and would be really angry if you didn't.
He's basically a deadbeat dad.
Oh, the humans are acting up again and MEDAMMIT I'LL JUST DROWN THE FUCKERS
WHERE IS YOUR GO- oh wait, nevermind.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 14, 2015, 06:20:11 pm
Post by: lemon10 on November 14, 2015, 06:43:38 pm
Lemon, I guess? Most often I've heard the free will argument more along the lines of "God doesn't/can't interfere in free will, that's why he can't [just show us he exists by appearing individually to every person]/[make everyone on Earth believe in him]/[make sure his book is translated correctly/written correctly]/[make sure everyone understands it correctly]/[etc]"In my opinion, it shows that free will only exists because god chooses to allow it to exist, not that it doesn't actually exist.
Which Pharoah being fucked with shows that yeah, no, he could do that, hell I even tossed in a few examples of ways he can "interfere with free will" without going all mind-probey.
Not that I actually believe that free will is consistent with an omniscient god, but I don't think this particular action of his is a good argument against it.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 14, 2015, 06:56:12 pm
Post by: lemon10 on November 14, 2015, 07:05:40 pm
But the fact that he only mind controls someone once ever compared to all the times he simply kills people through plague/smiting/famine implies that he is pretty reluctant to do so.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 14, 2015, 07:19:19 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 14, 2015, 07:38:43 pm
But the fact that he only mind controls someone once ever compared to all the times he simply kills people through plague/smiting/famine implies that he is pretty reluctant to do so.Yeah, fair enough. Still, it only applies if people have free will in the first place.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 14, 2015, 09:46:14 pm
I figure it's easier to believe in free will than not to, because the latter involves a lot of mental acrobatics and double think to really function whilst believing. If you try and use it to just justify doing whatever you want(heh) to, it just makes you a dick, and that's still kinda true if you use it to say something like 'well everything must be the way it is now because that's how it will have been no matter what because no such thing as free will,' and then something about how trying to change the status quo is futile (despite status quo changes having occurred many times through history).
And if you just go on acting no differently, then you're just pretentious, there's no point in not believing in free will, and while you could make the argument that you believe in it because even though you can't actually change what your behavior will be, you know the truth.
Though the idea of knowledge, if there is no free will, is kinda moot. As well, you could make the argument of no free will based on a purely rationalistic argument. But like I said. What's the point?
If there is a God, and He acts as He does in the Bible, He is not omni-benevolent, or even all that nice of an entity, as far as I can tell. It's redundant to me if he exists or not, or rather whether I believe in him or not; why would I pay homage to an entity with fewer apparent morals than I? If I go to hell for not believing him, I dunno if heaven was a place I wanted to go in the first place.
...feel like a bit of an ass for just spouting opinion/belief randomly when I come in. >.> Apologies if that's faux pas.
Post by: Graknorke on November 14, 2015, 09:55:46 pm
Post by: XXXXYYYY on November 14, 2015, 10:03:37 pm
And if you just go on acting no differently, then you're just pretentious, there's no point in not believing in free will, and while you could make the argument that you believe in it because even though you can't actually change what your behavior will be, you know the truth.... I don't really think so, as someone in that position. At least, I try not to be.
The way I see it is that, while I don't think free will exists, the distinction doesn't actually matter in daily life.
What's the practical difference between free will and not in a system where the two are, for all intents and purposes, identical? There's no difference really - we wouldn't be having this age-old discussion if there was.
"Free will" isn't even well defined enough to really have a good discussion on, anyway.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 14, 2015, 10:10:32 pm
...feel like a bit of an ass for just spouting opinion/belief randomly when I come in. >.> Apologies if that's faux pas.We're not going to spurn your contributions.
Although it would be nice if we could talk about something new instead of retreating the same old "God's a dick", "ikr" thing that we have going on.
Post by: Graknorke on November 14, 2015, 10:12:30 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 14, 2015, 10:17:09 pm
So...is the elephant Islam? Or am I an idiot, and it's the far simpler elephant of 'why is this religion right and all the others wrong for X religion'?
Post by: Arcvasti on November 14, 2015, 10:18:44 pm
From your perspective you feel like you have free will in that you make choices, but from an external perspective there was only one thing you were ever going to choose. Does that make sense?
Yes. Graknorke has basically perfectly summarized my views on the subject.
Post by: Graknorke on November 14, 2015, 10:25:57 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 14, 2015, 10:34:50 pm
Post by: Descan on November 14, 2015, 10:36:29 pm
But only to say I don't see why people think God cares about free will.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 14, 2015, 10:50:01 pm
Just to clarify, my point about free will was never to fall into the cliche of "FREE WILL DOESN'T EXIST!"
But only to say I don't see why people think God cares about free will.
Oh, I would disagree. I would say he in fact has some sort of weird, big complex about it, just like we probably would if we were trying to make something truly sentient. He wants his kids/creations to like him, but if he just makes them that way it doesn't really count, but if he doesn't do anything they might think he's a dick for not being nicer, but doing everything for them is hard...incentive/disincentive should work, right?
Post by: Graknorke on November 14, 2015, 10:53:12 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 14, 2015, 11:01:17 pm
Yes you have correctly identified the elephant. Basically there's a decent portion of the kinds of demographics that make up B12 who have a very strong interest in defending Islam despite the fact it stands against a lot of their other values. It's a thing I don't really understand.... you mistake trying to avoid blatant ignorance and blanket, xenophobia-driven demonization for defense, mostly. It only looks the same because much of the criticism of islam is rooted in the same sort of fuckheadedness that drives the worst kind of militant atheists.
Most of the folks that have spoke in favor (and I use the term lightly, because no, most of the folks that speak up are not ignorant of the problems that plague it) of islam in general on b12 have more or less just been trying to give it the same treatment most people give the other major religions. For various reasons, it's really hard to get people to do that.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 14, 2015, 11:02:37 pm
Nah, Islam is big on the honourable holy war front, and its adherents have been practising as such for the entire history of the religion where they could get away with it. The other Abrahamic religions at least have the excuse of "well people don't interpret it that way". Islam doesn't, because a lot of people do.
Except when people do. Like the KKK. Or Israel's treatment of the Gaza Strip, you could say. Islam has very visible violent fundamentalists, partially because it's newer, and in some sense Christianity has gotten it out of their system, so to speak. The average Muslim, particularly ones who aren't in wartorn countries riddled with strife and poverty, is probably rather big on the whole 'peace and equality' bits, which, while extremely de-emphasized in media today, are kinda why it spread so much in the first place.
Plus, what Ispil said. Westboro Baptist Church doesn't represent all Christianity. ISIS isn't all Islam.
Post by: Graknorke on November 14, 2015, 11:16:12 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 14, 2015, 11:25:53 pm
That's before getting to the bias possible. Or secondary factors, like, say 'hey all these people hate me because of my religion...well, fuck them anyway, then!' or the whole 'hey what the fuck are those people doing to my fellow Muslims around the holy land'.
Or the fact that this is (very) approx. 500 or so years after the massive Protestant v. Catholic wars...which is about the difference between the birth of Christianity and the birth of Islam.
Mark Twain said it best. There are three types of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
As well, I have to wonder what percentage of people in well off countries, if asked similar questions related to retaliation against Islamic countries, communities, and areas believed to maybe possibly harbor terrorism, would answer 'yeah bomb the fuck out of those filthy fucks'.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 14, 2015, 11:37:19 pm
'yeah bomb the fuck out of those filthy fucks'.It's funny that this is the attitude of both terrorists and people supposed to oppose terrorism
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2015, 01:30:35 am
Here we go. (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm) Sizeable proportions of muslims in more well-off countries have extremist viewpoints. Just because they're not out fighting doesn't mean they don't support those who are.
These people are arguably an even more serious problem. They're more likely to bring about meaningful lasting change by voting than by fighting. Like the Christian right in he USA; the anchor that holds this country back.
'yeah bomb the fuck out of those filthy fucks'.It's funny that this is the attitude of both terrorists and people supposed to oppose terrorism
Indiscrimimite mass bombing would be an overreaction but it would still be categorically different because the F4ench and United States militaries are backed by soverign nations (both of which are in turn backed by the will of the people), whereas religious extremists are not backed by any legitimate authority
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 15, 2015, 01:53:31 am
Indiscrimimite mass bombing would be an overreaction but it would still be categorically different because ISIS and other caliphate militaries are backed by the will of Allah, whereas Western infidels are not backed by any legitimate authorityFTFY
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2015, 01:57:16 am
From your perspective you feel like you have free will in that you make choices, but from an external perspective there was only one thing you were ever going to choose. Does that make sense?
Agreed
"Free Will" is kind of a loaded term that implies a sort of false connection. People use it like an idion but it's exactly not idiomatic at all. It's exactly what it looks like, a noun "will" being modified by an adjective "free" to indicate a quality that is not an inherent part of the noun. But the way religious apologists use it would have you believe that the phrase is redundant like "ATM Machine" or "Cirrhosis of the liver", but it's not. You can have will or volition that is predestined or mechanistic. Furthermore even if it is made more "free" by the introduction of some random element it is unclear what that would contribute except for meaningless noise (perhaps occasional termination of infinite loops?); that doesn't actually seem to be what "free" is meant to mean in this context though, where its usage implies that it is not something random, and yet not also something deterministic (non-random) either (and therefore, by process of elimination, cannot be anything at all)
Post by: ggamer on November 15, 2015, 01:58:24 am
That's a poor excuse, especially considering Hell, as I said originally.
Not much love involved in "You don't believe in me because [reasons, usually involving evidence (or lack there of), or being raised in a different religion]? THEN BURN!" "But you could just like... pop up and tell me I'm wrong! I'm okay with that! You don't even need to stick your godfinger in my brain!" "Nope. Hell."
a running theme in the old testament is how God was literally a giant pillar of fire in the sky and yet his people still chose to live in sin. Humans, as sinful creatures, will always find reasons to live in sin, whether God's there telling them not to or not.
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2015, 02:07:10 am
Just to clarify, my point about free will was never to fall into the cliche of "FREE WILL DOESN'T EXIST!"
But only to say I don't see why people think God cares about free will.
Oh, I would disagree. I would say he in fact has some sort of weird, big complex about it, just like we probably would if we were trying to make something truly sentient. He wants his kids/creations to like him, but if he just makes them that way it doesn't really count, but if he doesn't do anything they might think he's a dick for not being nicer, but doing everything for them is hard...incentive/disincentive should work, right?
That interpretation might have been viable if we were discussing a non-Abrahamic religion, but it violates the assumptions of omnipotence and omnibenevolence and therefore does not work in this context
Post by: Strife26 on November 15, 2015, 02:11:20 am
Damn but Wikipedia is getting obtuse.
Much easier just to listen to the Rush song until one forgets about the problems inherent in considering yourself an independent actor in a world where both in-depth analysis of purely physical as well as religious norms seem to point to all of us being nothing more than immensely complex sets of predicable machines.
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2015, 02:22:31 am
Post by: Adragis on November 15, 2015, 04:27:18 am
Going off topic for a minute here, in regard to the thread's poll I put down "SubGenius" but I also identify as a discordian, a nihilist/cosmicist, an agnostic, and a worshipper of technologyLife is, in a word, technology.
Post by: Graknorke on November 15, 2015, 09:26:16 am
And sizable portions of Christians in extremely well off countries do too (America, of course, being the sad prime example). Just because there's no one fighting to support doesn't make them any less fundamentalist.That is true. Christian fundamentalists just aren't as extreme. Unless they're the kkk they're not liable to go and watch the stoning of a gay or an adulterer or whatever other stuff Islamists support.
Post by: Sheb on November 15, 2015, 09:28:16 am
Post by: Graknorke on November 15, 2015, 09:29:54 am
Post by: Arx on November 15, 2015, 09:37:36 am
Regarding the LRA, I suppose you could say they're equivalent, but I think the disconnect between their actions/interpretations and the Bible/mainstream interpretation is much, much larger than that between those of Islamic extremists and the Qu'ran/mainstream interpretation.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 15, 2015, 09:51:52 am
The scale is absolutely different too. Even if these were monks instead of basically a militant cult of personality, it wouldn't begin to stack up against Islamic extremeism. This is basically like bringing up abortion bombings and saying "See, crazy Christians do bombings too!" Technically true, but orders of magnitude different.
As an aside, one reason I haven't read the Quran much is because it can supposedly only be appreciated in Arabic. So they shut down useful debate *even faster* than Christian apologists do.
Post by: scrdest on November 15, 2015, 09:56:08 am
Yeah, at the risk of invoking "No True Scotsman", those guys seem about as Christian as Hitler. IE, technically Christian, and using certain parts of the Bible to commit horrendous crimes, but you can't really say they're following Jesus. The Old Testament, yes, but not Jesus.They don't follow your interpretation of Jesus any more than ISIS doesn't follow a liberal Muslim's interpretation of Muhammad/Allah. Since the Big Guy is not up for hanging out with humanity and telling us which dicks just don't get him, maaaaan, it's all the same.
The scale is absolutely different too. Even if these were monks instead of basically a militant cult of personality, it wouldn't begin to stack up against Islamic extremeism. This is basically like bringing up abortion bombings and saying "See, crazy Christians do bombings too!" Technically true, but orders of magnitude different.
As an aside, one reason I haven't read the Quran much is because it can supposedly only be appreciated in Arabic. So they shut down useful debate *even faster* than Christian apologists do.
And Quran being only appreciated in Arabic is possibly the same brand of logic as the KJV 4EVA folks, perhaps a bit more justified considering it wasn't written in a jillion different languages in the first place.
Post by: Frumple on November 15, 2015, 09:58:54 am
Regarding the LRA, I suppose you could say they're equivalent, but I think the disconnect between their actions/interpretations and the Bible/mainstream interpretation is much, much larger than that between those of Islamic extremists and the Qu'ran/mainstream interpretation.They're really kinda' not. Qu'ran has even less wriggle room for the kind of stuff islamic extremists get up to than the christian bible does for its ilk -- islam's actually fairly explicit in regards to what is appropriate re: civilian treatment, wars of aggression, and so on, and the actions of islamic extremists in the present and past shit all over that. And we've had the discussion re: violence and the bible more than once -- it's both pretty permissive and considerably vague.
Mainstream interpretations are perhaps a different story, but there's a hell of a lot more going on there than the religions themselves.
Post by: Graknorke on November 15, 2015, 10:20:22 am
Qu'ran has even less wriggle room for the kind of stuff islamic extremists get up to
Quote from: 5.033
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement
Quote from: 47.035
And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught.Right you are, there isn't much wiggle room there.
Post by: Arx on November 15, 2015, 10:24:04 am
And we've had the discussion re: violence and the bible more than once -- it's both pretty permissive and considerably vague.
As I recall, no one was ever able to show me exactly where the New Testament is permissive of violence. Nor where it was vague.
Post by: Harry Baldman on November 15, 2015, 10:30:06 am
See, if God is a scientist, that'd presumably make us a model that it created to study something. We exist to live and die at its behest, providing answers to questions we can never hope to understand any more than an eyeless fruit fly can know why it cannot see and that its existence indeed has a definite purpose. Amusingly, humanity is even an inbred strain of sorts with its genetic bottlenecks, which is an interesting similarity to your average model organism.
So, if this is true, the why of our existence is because God wills us to provide it with information, and the manifestation of free will is essentially how we differ from the control group (or if we are the control group, what is the baseline we are establishing). And if it ever seems that God is acting in a malicious fashion toward the people of the world, it might be because it definitely is doing so. All for a good cause, presumably, or not, since God is presently unknowable and unprovable with the tools we possess, and what goes through its mind would be impossible to predict.
Not really a serious line of thought (and also highly anthropocentric), but still a thing I found fun to think about.
Post by: Frumple on November 15, 2015, 10:46:23 am
I don't see how, given that, you can say that Christianity is more a religion of violence.I didn't.
Also, at this point, I'm... tired of trying, at the moment. I'm not muslim, and if you and others want to demonize the religion and by extension its believers, just. Go for it. I've more or less given up. Spread your hate, willfully interpret the text as anti-christians interpret the bible, do whatever.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 15, 2015, 10:49:12 am
You know, the free will thing makes me think about the whole "God is a scientist" schtick that pops up here and there (well, mostly in sci-fi as far as I've seen).It does explain all the arbitrary and changing rules. I wonder if God has a control group :P ...Or huh, I guess that could be us!
See, if God is a scientist, that'd presumably make us a model that it created to study something. We exist to live and die at its behest, providing answers to questions we can never hope to understand any more than an eyeless fruit fly can know why it cannot see and that its existence indeed has a definite purpose. Amusingly, humanity is even an inbred strain of sorts with its genetic bottlenecks, which is an interesting similarity to your average model organism.
So, if this is true, the why of our existence is because God wills us to provide it with information, and the manifestation of free will is essentially how we differ from the control group (or if we are the control group, what is the baseline we are establishing). And if it ever seems that God is acting in a malicious fashion toward the people of the world, it might be because it definitely is doing so. All for a good cause, presumably, or not, since God is presently unknowable and unprovable with the tools we possess, and what goes through its mind would be impossible to predict.
Not really a serious line of thought (and also highly anthropocentric), but still a thing I found fun to think about.
Also makes you wonder if there's an experiment out there even worse off...
The Qu'ran has passages that advocate retaliatory justice and violence under certain very specific circumstances (I've read them, in context - one of the ones I'm thinking of occurs late in Al-Baqara). There are no passages advocating violence under any circmstance in the teachings of Jesus. I don't see how, given that, you can say that Christianity is more a religion of violence.The closest thing I remember is that Jesus says he's not replacing the old (violent) laws. But he also kinda says he *is* replacing them. Beyond that, I don't think he ever teaches that people should kill others. He warns that *God* will kill, and eternally punish/burn, but I don't see him suggesting that we help with that.And we've had the discussion re: violence and the bible more than once -- it's both pretty permissive and considerably vague.
As I recall, no one was ever able to show me exactly where the New Testament is permissive of violence. Nor where it was vague.
I basically only skimmed an annotated Matthew though so IDK.
Those earlier quotes are pretty damning. We aren't "demonizing" it, it's plainly violent. Though maybe an apologist can explain why it isn't.I don't see how, given that, you can say that Christianity is more a religion of violence.I didn't.
Also, at this point, I'm... tired of trying, at the moment. I'm not muslim, and if you and others want to demonize the religion and by extension its believers, just. Go for it. I've more or less given up. Spread your hate, willfully interpret the text as anti-christians interpret the bible, do whatever.
Post by: Arx on November 15, 2015, 10:57:45 am
I don't see how, given that, you can say that Christianity is more a religion of violence.I didn't.
Also, at this point, I'm... tired of trying, at the moment. I'm not muslim, and if you and others want to demonize the religion and by extension its believers, just. Go for it. I've more or less given up. Spread your hate, willfully interpret the text as anti-christians interpret the bible, do whatever.
I'm not actually trying to demonise it. I don't oppose it. I'm okay with Muslims. I'd be okay with Islam massively expanding. It just pisses me off when people try to associate Christianity with terrorists. No doubt you feel the same way about Islam.
Also, now you know how I feel every time I check this thread. Every damned time. Except that quote mining Christianity is socially acceptable, and quoting the Qu'ran in context with the concession that the quoted passages are not applicable to very is demonisation. No, I'm not bitter, why do you ask?
Edit: I only just noticed the "...by extension its believers" thing, after Bohandas posted. The irony is so thick right now.
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2015, 11:17:34 am
I don't see how, given that, you can say that Christianity is more a religion of violence.I didn't.
Also, at this point, I'm... tired of trying, at the moment. I'm not muslim, and if you and others want to demonize the religion and by extension its believers, just. Go for it. I've more or less given up. Spread your hate, willfully interpret the text as anti-christians interpret the bible, do whatever.
And here we see another loaded false connection. Plenty of people (I'd go as far as to say the majority of people) identify as members of particular religions without following all that religion's tenets or believing all it's dogma. Furthermore, plenty of religious denominations preaxh a dogma that is out of line with the holy books that supposedly form the basis of their faiths.
Post by: Frumple on November 15, 2015, 11:23:08 am
I'm not actually trying to demonise it. I don't oppose it. I'm okay with Muslims. I'd be okay with Islam massively expanding. It just pisses me off when people try to associate Christianity with terrorists. No doubt you feel the same way about Islam.Don't really give a damn about the quote mining. The difference I've spent too much time -- especially offline --running into between most of the biblical ones and most of the qu'ran ones is that the former is maybe trying to deconvert or belittle, and the latter is being used to support rhetoric that calls for the absolute genocide of the world's muslim population. Spend way to much of my goddamn time around people (devout christians, of course :-\) calling for glassing the middle east or murdering the world's muslim population down to the child, supported and emboldened by rhetoric hinged on stuff like that, to keep associating with the foundations of that message in my off time, too, y'know? Don't really have the energy at the moment, especially not when it's probably about to engender another wave of atrocities.
Also, now you know how I feel every time I check this thread. Every damned time. Except that quote mining Christianity is socially acceptable, and quoting the Qu'ran in context with the concession that the quoted passages are not applicable to very is demonisation. No, I'm not bitter, why do you ask?
For what it's worth, it's fairly frustrating for me when people associate christianity with terrorism, too (you'll note, again, that I wasn't actually doing that). There's damned few religions out there for which the actions terroism involves aren't explicitly damning.
Post by: Arx on November 15, 2015, 11:29:25 am
Post by: Frumple on November 15, 2015, 11:41:05 am
Post by: Arx on November 15, 2015, 12:00:59 pm
I did overreact, though, so sorry about that. The step isn't as much bigger as I said, I was just kinda offended and flailing.
E: so in summary, this is a touchy topic for both of us. Sorry I blew up a bit there.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 15, 2015, 01:27:52 pm
Don't really give a damn about the quote mining. The difference I've spent too much time -- especially offline --running into between most of the biblical ones and most of the qu'ran ones is that the former is maybe trying to deconvert or belittle, and the latter is being used to support rhetoric that calls for the absolute genocide of the world's muslim population. Spend way to much of my goddamn time around people (devout christians, of course :-\) calling for glassing the middle east or murdering the world's muslim population down to the child, supported and emboldened by rhetoric hinged on stuff like that, to keep associating with the foundations of that message in my off time, too, y'know? Don't really have the energy at the moment, especially not when it's probably about to engender another wave of atrocitiesWhich is nice and all but you're talking about fictional genocides on the world's muslim population by American Christians surrounding you when around the world Muslims have been genociding non-Muslims and other Muslims in actuality. Forget Ottoman happy fun time, look at Indonesia where the people who slaughtered the Chinese are still running around with impunity still extorting the surviving Chinese for money. Or in Bangladesh where the Muslims there were practicing impure Islam and found themselves facing wholesale ethnic cleansing with millions dead? Or indeed modern day fundamentalists who have been scouring the land clean of infidels from the ME to South Asia?
For what it's worth, it's fairly frustrating for me when people associate christianity with terrorism, too (you'll note, again, that I wasn't actually doing that). There's damned few religions out there for which the actions terroism involves aren't explicitly damning.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
When the Kenya mall was attacked they separated the Christians from the Muslims and killed the former and then everyone started jumping up and down saying Islam has nothing to do with this. When the cartoon wars started it wasn't terrorists providing the uproar as they were beheaded, they were campaigning for the same blasphemy laws that the rest of the Muslim world lives under with Shariah. The Prime Minister of Malaysia cautioned that a shitty American film was a threat to world peace, not because he was threatening the USA - but because the reaction was going to be violent. This was the reaction from a billion Muslims who clearly were not terrorists, and were clearly just practicing what they follow in places where those values are the norm. Out of conflict Islam was shaped, and a practical political ideology was born. Muslims get their wealth seized, Muhammed allows Muslims to fight the Meccans to regain their wealth. Pagan poets begin criticizing Islam, bitter that it is encroaching. They are killed by their own clan members who converted to Islam. Wealthy Jews do not give Muhammed their support, they are expelled or beheaded. Jewish leaders causing discontent amongst your own ranks? Assassinate them, behead all of them that don't convert then enslave the rest. Conquered Mecca? Destroy all images and statues of the previous religions, erase them from history. This only expands with Umar redefining Jihad to rally support for the necessary invasion of the great Persian Empire beyond the mountain, or the Khawarjites forming the first sect and redefining sinners to be nonbelievers therefore expanding the scope of targets to include the entire world, muslim and nonmuslim alike. Few religions can claim to be peaceful, even fewer can claim to have not known violence, even fewer of those have not gone extinct. I cannot think of a religion this large that has its basis in good statesmanship and martial expansion. The reconquest of Persia was bloodier than the conquest of Persia.
Politics and religion have rarely been separated, even the American protestants with their constitution and their Catholics refusing to kiss the Pope's ring and all that use religion when convenient. I'm also reminded of the Papacy in Renaissance Italy being of particular fondness to such peoples as Niccolo Machiavelli. Some things never change, though who is in power does. Al-Azhar refuses to consider the Islamic State apostates. (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/azhar-egypt-radicals-islamic-state-apostates.html#) Declaring people apostates will incur the penalty of death under shariah law and has been used to kill political enemies before - people who had certainly done no crime as severe as falling afoul of the wrong people. This is just one example of an institution using its power to enforce its own particular brand of Islam, one which “allows for killing a Muslim who does not pray, one who leaves Islam, prisoners and infidels within Islam [those who do not have a clearly specified creed or sect]. [It also allows] gouging their eyes and chopping off their hands and feet, as well as banning the construction of churches and discriminating between Muslims and Ahl al-Kitab [Christians and Jews], and insulting them at times.” Whether you believe that Muslims doing as they have done for hundreds of years is representative of Islam is really just a matter of faith. It happens, and will continue to happen. It hasn't been one week since the last anti-Hindu riot and even in moderate multicultural Malaysia the minister of Islamic affairs is more powerful than any other minister. This year the government introduced a shariah index to measure how compliant with Shariah law Malaysian law was. That is what Islamization looks like and is what will be for many countries in the future; I find it strange that Westerners on the one hand find a codified set of moral law as having too much influence whilst another has no influence.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 15, 2015, 01:57:43 pm
The Qu'ran, like any other holy text, is rich with opportunities for a variety of interpretation. The Bible (and really, because of all the various translations, 'the Bible' is rather a poor phrase) has quite a few verses about conducting war in the name of god, or being the instrument of divine wrath and such as well. In both cases, it's about 'just war'.
But regardless, this does not mean Islam itself is bad. It means certain interpretations are.
Loud Whispers, what are you trying to say? Because religion is, most often, used as an excuse for other things. Yeah, people get pissy when you do things their religion considers offensive. That's rather unsurprising. If you're trying to say only Muslims have been committing genocide, or even that only Muslims have been committing genocide in modern times, you'd be wrong. If you're wanting to say that Islamic Law violates human rights, I'd agree with you, when you look at international definitions and agreements about it. Different cultures have different views on that, though. I would argue that Abrahamic Law in general violates human rights, myself. Just a matter of whether people are interpreting it literally.
When it's an institution using religion as an excuse to maintain their power base, blaming the religion, and by extension, all of the people who practice it, is a pretty shitty thing to do. Because when you criticize Islam, rather than criticizing X interpretation of Islam, you are insulting an entire culture and community of religious individuals. Why is it socially acceptable to criticize Christianity? Because it's the majority. It's the one with the power. Islam? In the Middle East they have power, and they don't allow criticism because most of the governments are still very authoritarian, and even when they aren't, it's quite obvious that Muslims don't appreciate having their religion insulted. And when someone puts up an image of Mohammad, knowing full well that Islam forbids it and finds it offensive, they are insulting it just as much as someone who tries to present themselves as a Christ-figure. It's just different cultural values and weights on freedom of expression. But regardless of all of that? When you attack Islam, just like when you attack any religion, you are attacking it's members. Which includes your fellow Americans or Europeans or Asians or what have you. Because Muslims are people too, and they're your fellow citizens. And you're saying they're bad people for believing in the religion they believe in, because other people are using their religion to commit atrocities. That is why I will defend Islam. I will not defend ISIS, I will not defend the Taliban, any more than I will defend neo-nazis and extremists of any other stripe. But the average individual? Not one of those things.
The most fucked up part of all of this is that being an extremist is hard to avoid when you're raised by extremists or in areas with massive strife and violence, and conflict between people of different sects or ethnicities. Hate can be taught, and is.
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2015, 02:45:23 pm
The thing is, there's a lot of verses in the Qu'ran talking about peace and love for ones neighbor and etc. There's also quite a few talking about when waging holy war on someone is acceptable, usually in defense of Islam, emphasis there on defense. When foreigners try to take over, basically, and make what what was an Islamic state into a non-Islamic state. In comparison to Christianity, the idea of violence as inherently negative, rather than being a tool like any other, is relatively recent. Seriously, look at the religious wars Christianity got into; the only real difference is that the people going to war are considered part of their countries instead of terrorist groups, and there were so many more of them that it wasn't guerilla warfare (plus, genocide was still considered an acceptable response to those kinds of shenanigans from a town you just conquered back then).
The Qu'ran, like any other holy text, is rich with opportunities for a variety of interpretation. The Bible (and really, because of all the various translations, 'the Bible' is rather a poor phrase) has quite a few verses about conducting war in the name of god, or being the instrument of divine wrath and such as well. In both cases, it's about 'just war'.
The Bible is bad too.
Post by: Arx on November 15, 2015, 02:52:56 pm
Rolepgeek, I guarantee you that all those verses about holy and just wars are in the Old Testament. The New Testament, on the other hand, has this: "For whoever lives by the sword, will die by the sword." And a lot of other verses I quote ad nauseum as well. Please don't misrepresent Christianity to make Islam look better.
The Bible is bad too.
You know what's conducive to healthy debate? Nonspecific statements about how Christianity sucks, without any kind of reference as to why.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 15, 2015, 03:01:13 pm
My impression is that you (Arx) think the New Testament completely undoes Old Testament Law and that God's nature changed to match Jesus's message. Because any Christian who thinks otherwise is, literally and pejoratively, a cultist.
Much like the Islamic extremists. Yeah there are many muslims who embrace peace and reject/ignore those parts of the Quran, but the Quran is still hateful. Like the Old Testament.
Am I a "militant atheist" for suggesting that the violence of the Old Testament and Quran be abandoned?
Edit: I love the Cathars, and they were all about Jesus and peace. They were definitely Christians. They just recognized OT God as evil and got slaughtered for it, is all.
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2015, 03:02:08 pm
The Bible is bad too.
You know what's conducive to healthy debate? Nonspecific statements about how Christianity sucks, without any kind of reference as to why.
The argument I was responding to took the Bible being good as a given. If it isn't dogmatically taken as a given then their conclusion about the Koran falls apart.
Their relevant part of the argument basically boiled down to:
-The Bible and the Koran are about equally good
-The Bible is good
-Therefore the Koran is good
But the second given is far from given. It could be argued that some of the points meant to show the equivalence between the two books also show that both are bad.
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2015, 03:04:20 pm
Post by: GoblinCookie on November 15, 2015, 03:05:43 pm
I think the main, underlying argument that can be made here is that Islam is more easily wrought to willful misinterpretations that promote violence.
The Bible is more violent overall, the only advantage is that Christianity holds the more violent half in basically low esteem while the Q'uran has it's violent passages sprinkled more evenly with the whole work having equal validity. Islamists however are basically just Fascists and are ultimately just quoting the Q'uran selectively to back up what they would do anyway, whether in the name of religion or using more secular argument.
Post by: Arx on November 15, 2015, 03:15:27 pm
The Old Testament's message is horrible to any human with morals and I don't mind saying so. Its story is terrifying. Its suggestions for law are abhorrent.
...have you read the Old Testament Law? Because the majority of it is... not that bad. Particularly given the standards of the time.
Quote
My impression is that you (Arx) think the New Testament completely undoes Old Testament Law and that God's nature changed to match Jesus's message. Because any Christian who thinks otherwise is, literally and pejoratively, a cultist.
No? Except in the spots where it specifically contradicts the Old Testament. Like, you know, Jesus advocating for pacifism. And the specific replacement of much of the Mosaic Law.
I don't think I've ever called anyone a cultist or said anything hugely negative about anybody else's beliefs (except in cases where their beliefs clash with multiple elements of the Bible and they are Christians, in which case even so I usually try to avoid perjoratives).
Quote
Much like the Islamic extremists. Yeah there are many muslims who embrace peace and reject/ignore those parts of the Quran, but the Quran is still hateful. Like the Old Testament.
...wait, are you comparing me to an Islamic extremist?
Also, have you read the Qur'an?
Edit: you know, I think everyone needs to go read the thread rules. Rolan, GoblinCookie, anyone else that hasn't read them in a while.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 15, 2015, 03:19:37 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 15, 2015, 03:21:25 pm
I'm literally just saying that you probably don't condone stoning disobedient children, or forcing women to drink abortion-water if one suspects infidelity. (And that if the abortion takes, they were unfaithful)
I understand that it was normal back then, but I don't think you believe it should be law now.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 15, 2015, 03:25:05 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Arx on November 15, 2015, 03:48:07 pm
@Arx
I'm literally just saying that you probably don't condone stoning disobedient children, or forcing women to drink abortion-water if one suspects infidelity. (And that if the abortion takes, they were unfaithful)
I understand that it was normal back then, but I don't think you believe it should be law now.
I'm afraid I have no idea where you're going with this.
Also, I urge you to actually go read the context of any passage you use as an argument. For instance, the 'abortion water' you mentioned is just some dust from the Tabernacle floor mixed with water and a tiny bit of ink, as a symbol/something of God's judgement. Not actually an abortion-inducing potion.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 15, 2015, 04:36:32 pm
Quote from: Rule 4
Please do not make moral or ethical judgements on any given belief or practice, or the people who follow it. Everyone has a different set of morals, and this is not the place for it. I encourage you to discuss cultural implications, but stating that someone is a bad person because they do/believe X is forbidden.I know this is ridiculously hard to do re: militant Islam. You guys have been... okay so far, please don't let it get out of hand.
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2015, 04:48:19 pm
The Old Testament's message is horrible to any human with morals and I don't mind saying so. Its story is terrifying. Its suggestions for law are abhorrent.
...have you read the Old Testament Law? Because the majority of it is... not that bad. Particularly given the standards of the time.
Kind of like how Stalin was such a great guy beause at least he wasn't as bad as Hitler
Post by: lemon10 on November 15, 2015, 04:52:22 pm
Quote from: Deuteronomy 22:13-21
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.Lying about being a virgin=death.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Quote from: Deuteronomy 22:23-27
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.Being raped in a city (while engaged)=death.
Quote from: Exodus 12:15
Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.Eating leavened bread (during a specific religions festival)=death. Being cut off from Isreal means either the death penalty or exile. I'm pretty certain in both these cases it means death.
Quote from: Genesis 17:14
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.Not being circumcised=death.
Quote from: Exodus 21:17
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.Cursing your parents=death.
All these carry the death penalty, and I'm pretty sure there are quite a few more equally unreasonable ones out there that I didn't find in my 10 minute search. Now, you could argue that these laws aren't that bad for the times, and you might be right, but they are pretty terrible from a modern standpoint, much like islamic law is. Saying islamic law is bad (because people actually follow them) while ignoring how bad biblical law (because no one has followed it for over 2000 years) is is a tad hypocritical.
Post by: Helgoland on November 15, 2015, 05:17:03 pm
I think I know what is lacking in this thread: Goodwill. As long as this place is essentially the 'Disprove Christianity' thread, it's pointless to conduct a proper debate.
Post by: Graknorke on November 15, 2015, 05:22:46 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 15, 2015, 05:30:55 pm
You are ignoring context, misrepresenting what is written, acting like this is not a religious text but instead just a judicial codex, and at least with the first quote what you claim is outright false.
I think I know what is lacking in this thread: Goodwill. As long as this place is essentially the 'Disprove Christianity' thread, it's pointless to conduct a proper debate.
What, so the people in this thread don't show goodwill? Hehe. That's kinda false. This is probably the most tolerant a religious discussion is ever going to get. If you want more goodwill, you ought to strive for heaven.
Post by: Helgoland on November 15, 2015, 05:32:18 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 15, 2015, 05:37:53 pm
I don't recall the last time someone was disrespectful to a person (except for quietly ignoring them). Attacking ideas should be okay. Kudos to those trying to defend them, but discussion of ideas is why we're here.
If you do want a place to discuss your antisecular meetups, a "religion general" is the wrong place.
Edit: Sorry, I *like* echo chambers and think they serve important purpose. Even/especially for things I like. It's nice to post somewhere where I don't have to defend what I like.
Edit2: And I wish there were more religious people posting, but I suppose most religious bay12ers prefer not to. I think only a fraction of them are learned apologists, and a fraction of those ever decide to post here.
Post by: lemon10 on November 15, 2015, 05:38:58 pm
You are ignoring context, misrepresenting what is written, acting like this is not a religious text but instead just a judicial codex, and at least with the first quote what you claim is outright false.You are right about the first quote, what I said wasn't nearly specific enough: If a husband finds out his wife lied about being a virgin when they married, and she can't PROVE that she was, she gets stoned to death.
I think I know what is lacking in this thread: Goodwill. As long as this place is essentially the 'Disprove Christianity' thread, it's pointless to conduct a proper debate.
But I didn't take any of my quotes out of context in the slightest, I would honestly like to see the context in any of them (that I somehow missed) that make them not barbaric laws. If a woman is raped in a city (and anyone finds out), the bible calls for her to be stoned to death. If curse your parents, the bible calls for you to be stoned to death.
I am aware that these laws were probably not followed exactly even at the time, but that doesn't mean its not the law that the bible is urging you to follow.
And again, yes is ancient religious law, and most of it was pretty reprehensible stuff, but the same is true for islamic law according to the quran.
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 15, 2015, 06:24:35 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 15, 2015, 06:34:46 pm
Just my opinion, but I think I'm justified in saying that speaking about religion in the real world is worse than speaking here.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 15, 2015, 07:14:04 pm
Saying islamic law is bad (because people actually follow them) while ignoring how bad biblical law (because no one has followed it for over 2000 years) is is a tad hypocritical.Really
Post by: Graknorke on November 15, 2015, 07:20:13 pm
Well yeah, both laws are bad, just Christianity doesn't typically have a program where they systematically indoctrinate children into learning the entirety of the holy texts and the values implied wherein.Saying islamic law is bad (because people actually follow them) while ignoring how bad biblical law (because no one has followed it for over 2000 years) is is a tad hypocritical.Really
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 15, 2015, 07:23:06 pm
E: Or the entirety of the book. So, yeah.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 15, 2015, 07:24:22 pm
No, no, you have to say religion is at its core good and everything bad that comes from it is just a corruption, or else the thread has bad discourse.Well yeah, both laws are bad, just Christianity doesn't typically have a program where they systematically indoctrinate children into learning the entirety of the holy texts and the values implied wherein.Saying islamic law is bad (because people actually follow them) while ignoring how bad biblical law (because no one has followed it for over 2000 years) is is a tad hypocritical.Really
Post by: Graknorke on November 15, 2015, 07:24:39 pm
We do, actually, it's just the the indoctrination is usually isn't on the violent bits.Really? I've only heard of that kind of thing in the more extreme sects like Jehovah's Witnesses or the isolationist American ones.
E: Or the entirety of the book. So, yeah.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 15, 2015, 07:28:04 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 15, 2015, 07:31:43 pm
Ninja'd
Post by: Rolan7 on November 15, 2015, 07:35:33 pm
Post by: Graknorke on November 15, 2015, 07:37:09 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 15, 2015, 07:38:05 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 15, 2015, 07:39:25 pm
Indoctrination is probably too strong a word. JWs and such are very extreme examples, but you'd struggle to find a church where the kids aren't "encouraged" to believe in the locally accepted dogma/doctrine.It's accurate since it is teaching them to live by and memorize off by heart a doctrine, in very literal terms. The Quran for example is the only book, secular or religious which has been completely memorized off by heart by millions of people. Going to church once a week does not quite compare to salat, reciting and praying five times a day verses from the Quran, learning arabic and having your property and children seized before being executed should you leave the faith, insult the faith or fail to practice the faith. Perhaps if you are lucky and you live under one of the more moderate schools of Sunni Islamic law blaspheming will not result in death if you repent. Rates of retention in Islam are higher than any other religion on the planet. Their practices are strict.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 15, 2015, 07:44:01 pm
Used to be that way for the Bible, too, Graknorke, 'specially back when we didn't have the internet, from what I've been told. Christianity is basically just going out of style; people have been getting slowly less devoted as time goes on, whilst Islam is still growing.
Also, honestly, I figured this thread was also for people discussing different ways to interpret various parts in a manner that fits with people's moral compass.
My big question for Loud Whispers is really one of: What are you suggesting be done, and/or trying to say? I can't tell if your concern is with the fundamentals involved in the Islamic faith, with the way it's practiced, or with how it's been practiced in the past.
Post by: Frumple on November 15, 2015, 07:51:13 pm
Really? I've only heard of that kind of thing in the more extreme sects like Jehovah's Witnesses or the isolationist American ones.Yeah... sunday school (basically bible study for kids mixed with lovely social pressure and a nice heaping of local doctrine indoctrination) is incredibly common, at least in the US. The churches in question are just not as emphatic or overt about it, comparatively (usually). Still, pressure on kids to attend church (and church related activities) and espouse what they're told (sometimes accurately, sometimes not) are christian beliefs is pretty strong (as in, I've personally seen kids beaten until they couldn't walk for trying to refuse and the community not blink an eye, and that's in relation to some of the more moderate baptist sects :-\) in a lot of places, and it generally tends to start before they can even walk. It's even more pressured south of the border and in the christian parts of africa, or so I understand.
Though yeah, it's generally not as exacting or focused on the text itself as muslim practices are. Still very much indoctrination, just usually of a different intensity and emphasis.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 15, 2015, 07:52:22 pm
My big question for Loud Whispers is really one of: What are you suggesting be done, and/or trying to say? I can't tell if your concern is with the fundamentals involved in the Islamic faith, with the way it's practiced, or with how it's been practiced in the past.Take what I'm saying at face value. People are ignorant of Islam, its origins and its practice. Peace in Dar Al-Islam and peace are not the same. As for what is to be done? I don't know, depends on who you are and what your objective is I suppose. I have no say over 1,800,000,00 people, only I myself ~o.o~
Post by: Graknorke on November 15, 2015, 07:56:14 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 15, 2015, 07:58:41 pm
Islam and the people who practice it are not the same. There'll probably end up being as many sects of Islam as there of Christianity, once the region(s) settle down.
Post by: TD1 on November 15, 2015, 08:02:13 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 15, 2015, 08:09:28 pm
Wow that's a bit scary to be honest. I always imagined that America was past that kind of thing.Nooo, no. I had to attend Wednesday Bible classes for about a year and a half, or two years. When I was in a low place and staying with a grandparent. And when I was little and my brother and I visited her, we went to Sunday School.
Sunday School isn't like a drill instructor, mainly because that would scare people off. It's fun and games and hey Christ loves you and crafts.
Makes me sick in retrospect, and I'm honestly uneasy around any church now.
Post by: Frumple on November 15, 2015, 08:14:41 pm
Wow that's a bit scary to be honest. I always imagined that America was past that kind of thing.Eh... parts are, parts aren't. It trends towards better in the more urban areas, usually. Bit harder to get away with things there, if nothing else, heh. Most of the population's in those areas, but there's still several countries worth of folks that, well. Aren't. And some nasty shit can get got away with when the sheriff knows yer pappy.
And yeah, as ro notes, the sunday school services themselves trend towards pretty chipper. It's usually the parents or other relatives that brings the stick (though fortunately that, at least, is on the downslope. Got lovely tales from the couple generations before about being switched until they bled for doing something unchristian, though) to accompany the carrot.
Post by: lemon10 on November 15, 2015, 08:17:09 pm
When they were talking about context, lemon, I think they were talking about how the definition of 'sleeping with a woman' is not 'rape' in the old testament. If she calls out (like it said), then it's rape, and she's not considered at fault. If she doesn't, then it's considered also her fault as it's then believed to be consensual or something. Hard to enforce/look at so who knows how it was actually handled, but using what seem like synonyms with a different connotation is what a lot of 'taking out of context' means.If its looked at that way, its clearly not that bad. The problem is that there are tons of cases today, and I'm sure there were back then where people get raped and yelling does nothing and no one hears them (because the rapist was smart enough to avoid trying to rape someone in the middle of a crowded area). Under biblical law, trying to accuse someone of raping you after that means you get put to death. So basically as long as the rapist doesn't get caught in the act, then they can't bring trial against him without being put to death if they win. E: And the husband could have his wife executed (for dishonouring him) if he found out too.
But I do agree with you, some of these laws obviously weren't enforced exactly as written (eg. your child can be put to death if they curse you) even back then.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 15, 2015, 08:51:36 pm
People seem to judge religions in terms of their age - not so. Christianity was more violent in the past because the past was more violent. Islam being a younger religion means that it should, at least in more peaceful countries (not the middle east, heh) be a more peaceful religion. Given that it's not all that peaceful in peaceful countries, one has got to wonder what is causing the violence.
That's one way to view it, certainly. Which peaceful countries is it violent in?
Cuz, I mean, if you're talking about terrorist organizations being able to infiltrate and conduct attacks in generally peaceful countries, that's a different story than if you're trying to say that the population of general Muslims is conducting attacks because those attacks have to come from somewhere, right?
Violence in the middle east affects people elsewhere. Frustration and irritation with discrimination based on their religion, and feeling like your fellow [fill in blank here] are being persecuted, well...I mean, I'd been talking about unrest, not terrorism, but you know. People forget about that when they see genocide, and decide the whole movement is responsible. And I dunno about you, but if I was part of the rioters or whatnot, and find out some of the others have declared themselves in charge and begun killing people, I'd be rather scared of speaking out against them, myself.
I would say that that's not quite how it works. Probably what happens is that if she gets raped and no one hears (under biblical definition of rape blahblahblah), and then accuses him of it, it becomes a serious matter and trial and whatnot, and if she's deemed correct, he gets put to death and she doesn't, because she didn't try to keep it secret, and because God's Truth will prevail, so if she'd slept with him voluntarily, obviously she would be found out and they'd both be punished (with death). If, on the other hand, she's deemed to have born false witness, she gets put to death. Or something. We can't really know, I'm just trying to make the point that one should really interpret the laws in the most reasonable light possible, because having a religious law that isn't a foolproof legal document isn't exactly a crime.When they were talking about context, lemon, I think they were talking about how the definition of 'sleeping with a woman' is not 'rape' in the old testament. If she calls out (like it said), then it's rape, and she's not considered at fault. If she doesn't, then it's considered also her fault as it's then believed to be consensual or something. Hard to enforce/look at so who knows how it was actually handled, but using what seem like synonyms with a different connotation is what a lot of 'taking out of context' means.If its looked at that way, its clearly not that bad. The problem is that there are tons of cases today, and I'm sure there were back then where people get raped and yelling does nothing and no one hears them (because the rapist was smart enough to avoid trying to rape someone in the middle of a crowded area). Under biblical law, trying to accuse someone of raping you after that means you get put to death. So basically as long as the rapist doesn't get caught in the act, then they can't bring trial against him without being put to death if they win. E: And the husband could have his wife executed (for dishonouring him) if he found out too.
But I do agree with you, some of these laws obviously weren't enforced exactly as written (eg. your child can be put to death if they curse you) even back then.
Just pointing it out, there. I still disagree with a lot of the laws, but they weren't senseless.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 15, 2015, 08:59:40 pm
I'm just wondering, did your opinion about the church change slowly over time, or was there just one epiphany that changed your opinion?Wow that's a bit scary to be honest. I always imagined that America was past that kind of thing.Nooo, no. I had to attend Wednesday Bible classes for about a year and a half, or two years. When I was in a low place and staying with a grandparent. And when I was little and my brother and I visited her, we went to Sunday School.
Sunday School isn't like a drill instructor, mainly because that would scare people off. It's fun and games and hey Christ loves you and crafts.
Makes me sick in retrospect, and I'm honestly uneasy around any church now.
Regardless, I'll be praying for you.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 15, 2015, 09:35:02 pm
Nothing is the same as peace except peace. People are ignorant of Islam, and in recent years often hateful. What it seems like you've been implying, and that might be misinterpretation is that they're right to be hateful. The start of Islam was a lot like the start of Christianity. It was popular because it was favorable towards the lower classes, and eventually worked it's way into society, and then spread violently once a critical mass was reached, a lot like Christianity. Every philosophical doctrine has extremists. Religion is a form of philosophical doctrine.
That is not like the start of Christianity at all, and if we are to be so anachronistic and characterize it as a working class revolt that's not true either since its initial founding was that of powerful merchants rivaling powerful merchants, powerful clans rivaling powerful clans. Heck, the wealthy Jews of Medina were supposed to have been a part of the Ummah in order to gain their support but were struck out when they did not accept Muhammed as their prophet. Poets who criticized Muhammed were murdered, the Jews killed or expelled and Muhammed himself led the raids on Mecca and the battles to individually crush neighbouring tribes who if left alone would gather together to resist him. The inceptions were very different, if you want to compare the two the comparison is false. Don't be fearful of one dishonesty and hate only to commit to another dishonesty and hate, if you want to play a team game where all you've done is switch the colours you're playing a game where you're willing to brush off killing infidels as an issue of cultural difference. Personally, do what you will, don't lie though. Peace under Dar Al-Islam is not the same as peace. This is what the majority of the Muslim world follows whether you count that in terms of nations or people. I don't really care what value judgement you personally make about that and it's against the thread rules anyhow; it's mainstream, it's successful and it is. “Only they forge the lie who do not believe in the signs of Allah.” I'm not the first person to jest that the Christians you are afraid of would find all they sought for by converting to Islam.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rolan7 on November 15, 2015, 09:45:07 pm
I'm just wondering, did your opinion about the church change slowly over time, or was there just one epiphany that changed your opinion?Thanks for that, I do appreciate it. (Sometimes it can come across as fake and passive aggressive, but that's not the case here)
Regardless, I'll be praying for you.
Unlike a lot of atheists I don't think I was ever Christian. I went to youth group yeah, but I never really "got" that it was more than the fairy tales I was being taught around the same time. Mother Goose I mean.
Oddly my parents are both sorta Christian, but... not typical ones.
My dad... is private about his beliefs. I, wow. I don't often think about what he believes. I revere him a lot, but honestly rarely thought about his religion.
He's generally sarcastic and exceptionally skeptical. He constantly plays devils advocate. Even if we stated something he agreed with, he often pretended to disagree - to challenge us to defend the position.
(Edit: It was often maddening, because he played the roles very convincingly and adopted some "problematic" positions to test us. I accepted the challenge. My brother...)
I did once, when he was drunk (which was very, very rare back then), learn something. He does believe in demons. Whenever someone's soul rots away, and they lose the innate respect for fellow human life... He suspects that a demon has merged with them.
I get my skepticism from him. And... yeah, the demon thing stuck with me. He taught me specifically to never to give up hope, because that's when the demons move in.
My mother is also rather reserved about belief. Definitely a Christian, but she doesn't read or care for the Bible. She was raised in a strict Baptist way, so she believed that Jesus died for our sins. She seems to believe that I'm fine as a nonbeliever, though, and she's a kind person. She must believe that Jesus's sacrifice counted for all people, or at least those willing to shed their sins. Joining a certain religion on Earth, not required.
As I mentioned earlier, I might not be willing to let go of my sins. But she doesn't know that.
She's also the source of my actual "religion", of sorts. I take it more seriously than she did. She told me of the Little People, the spirits of the woods where we grew up. And the ghosts that inhabited our house... Kind, protective spirits.
I believe that the dead linger on, however unscientifically, and maybe it's possible to feel them. And I believe more strongly that there are alien beings living in the dark corners of the earth, placing bets and toying with us. The Fey. Not malicious nor kind. Incomprehensible, fickle, and magical.
Well... She mainly told me of the mostly-kind ones, but I read her books and learned of the others. It makes more sense that the forces toying with us would be as malicious as they are kind.
I also, myself, found a book which described the planet a single superorganism (like an ant hive). The SimEarth Bible, with many quotes from James Lovelock's "Gaia Hypothesis". It seemed to explain so much, if all living things were part of a single, gestalt life form (and, I figured, the same would be true for souls). I didn't play Final Fantasy 7 until years later lol.
So yeah, no real moment where I became atheist. I was always skeptical for as long as I remember, and I gained my beliefs slowly over time and my parents tried to let me do it independently. Which is one reason why I suspect animism, the best name for my belief system, is the most natural belief system. I saw shapes in the darkness, my mom's books just suggested names for them.
Edit2: Probably shouldn't go into detail but my mom had a very hard life. It's *still* hard. My brother and I are both non-Christian, but we try to keep from discussing it around her. She doesn't think we're going to hell, but it seems to bother her when we're too rough on... Well, Christians. It's one thing to attack a idea, and another to attack a group of people, and my mom doesn't approve of the latter.
Edit3: (Despite her being, in a certain sense, a witch. Or Christian/pagan hedge-mage.)
I honestly don't know if I was ever baptized... I think probably so, as an infant.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 15, 2015, 09:52:27 pm
Second, I'd really like to see the source for that. I don't doubt you, I'm just curious as to whether that's the whole story; just from the first bits of me looking things up, from what I could tell those wars were viewed as liberating an oppressed people. If you want to talk about religious intolerance, let's talk about Christianity once it got it's feet under itself. You want to talk about conquest, let's look at the colonization of the Americas. I'm curious to see where you're getting the bit about the majority of the Muslim world following peace under Dar Al-Islam. As in, those countries that are mostly islamic? Or all Muslims? Cuz' that's a pretty damn big generalization to make of more than a billion people, and it'd be nice to see a source for it. And from those Qu'ran verses I've read, they have minimal foundation.
See, I think my issue is that you're implying very carefully that Islam is inherently awful, and so is anyone who follows it. Which is a massive generalization of countless people. You can come up with incidents of atrocities committed by Muslims or in the name of Islam. I can find incidents done in the name of God or communism or democracy, and I can find countless examples of faithful Muslims who aren't extremists and are good people. People are people. Some are nice, some are jerks, some commit mass murder. Doesn't really matter, a way is found.
Post by: Bohandas on November 16, 2015, 01:48:36 am
See, I think my issue is that you're implying very carefully that Islam is inherently awful, and so is anyone who follows it.
The second point does not follow from the first; plug in any religion or philosophy you want and it still won't follow. Isn't it possible for someone to be a good person not because of their religion but in spite of it?
Post by: Graknorke on November 16, 2015, 04:44:34 pm
you're implying very carefully that Islam is inherently awful, and so is anyone who follows itCould you find a quote where what you say happened happened? I don't think anyone's said that.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 16, 2015, 05:37:10 pm
I'm sorry, where did I say that killing people was okay?
Yeah, people get pissy when you do things their religion considers offensive. That's rather unsurprising. If you're trying to say only Muslims have been committing genocide, or even that only Muslims have been committing genocide in modern times, you'd be wrong. If you're wanting to say that Islamic Law violates human rights, I'd agree with you, when you look at international definitions and agreements about it. Different cultures have different views on that, though. I would argue that Abrahamic Law in general violates human rights, myself. Just a matter of whether people are interpreting it literally[...] it's quite obvious that Muslims don't appreciate having their religion insulted. And when someone puts up an image of Mohammad, knowing full well that Islam forbids it and finds it offensive, they are insulting it just as much as someone who tries to present themselves as a Christ-figure. It's just different cultural values and weights on freedom of expression.It's merely different cultural values and weights on freedom of expression.
Second, I'd really like to see the source for that. I don't doubt you, I'm just curious as to whether that's the whole story; just from the first bits of me looking things up, from what I could tell those wars were viewed as liberating an oppressed people.Liberating an oppressed people? Well, it's more like adding excellent statesmen, an ambition to spread the faith and put that next to a series of escalations, with each one changing the religion to a much more efficient political machine capable of taking on all enemies within and without. What they did was practical, and is the reason why the religion survived that initial tumult and then went on to conquer the world and attain its dominance today. Islam is the religion of practicality. Burmese and Japanese Buddhists aside, I'm reminded of that one dialogue between the Vietnamese Buddhist and a guerilla fighter, with the fighter questioning if the Buddhist would really be so nonviolent even if Buddhism itself was soon to be extinct by threat of violence - would he not defend himself then? The Vietnamese Buddhist merely replies if his religion is true, then sometime in the future someone will rediscover the truth in another form. Hadrat Mirza Bashirruddin Mahmud Ahmad in the Life of Muhammed sums up the big Abrahamic religions and their take on war; "Islam does not teach aggression as did Moses. Nor does it, like present day (and presumably corrupt) Christianity, preach a contradiction. It does not ask us to turn the other cheek and at the same time sell our clothes to buy a sword. The teaching of Islam fits into the natural instincts of man, and promotes peace in the only possible way. Islam forbids aggression, but it urges us to fight if failure to fight jeopardizes peace and promotes war."
Niccolo Machiavelli advises rulers that should the prospect of war loom ahead, they should commit to war as soon as they are ready - for being hesitant and delaying only means waiting until war comes to you when you are unprepared and your enemy is prepared. The Caliphate needed to invade all of the Byzantine and Sassanid lands across the Arabian peninsula, but they couldn't stop there - they had to drive further into the Meditteranean and build a new fleet there to crush the Byzantine navy and also drive east across the Persian mountains to finish off the still mighty Sassanid Empire. But of course when you consolidate these lands, they stop being buffer zones and start being worth defending, and so the expansion continues ceaselessly. That's before you factor in the political ambitions of leaders. You know how it goes.
Jokes aside I wouldn't know where to point you if you're looking for the whole story because it's a very long one and it has variations depending on whether a Sunni or Shia is telling you it. I don't know if it's still on but the Louvre in Paris did an excellent piece on Islamic art, metalwork and craftsmanship - in addition to showing by period the phases of expansion Islam underwent that spread its influence to all corners of the Earth. Read the Hadiths if you can spare the time (takes much time) and there's a lot of documentaries that have been uploaded on youtube, some by Western state institutions, some by Sunni Arabs, some by Armenian Shiites, those ones are easy (but fact check as you would with wikipedia, goes without saying). I forgot wikipedia too, ha. EB are good too if you want to be strictly academic, quite balanced. (http://www.britannica.com/biography/Muhammad) It is really interesting to see the evolution of a religion of the persecuted to the religion eradicating infidels.
If you want to talk about religious intolerance, let's talk about Christianity once it got it's feet under itself. You want to talk about conquest, let's look at the colonization of the Americas.If you want to make this a pissing match at the same time that Christian countries are building hundreds of mosques Saudi Arabia's top religious official issued a fatwa saying all churches on the Arabian Peninsula should be destroyed. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-saudi-christians-fatwa-idUSBRE82M1D720120323) If I want to talk conquest I've already been talking about how Persia's happy conquest and reconquest time but perhaps the Ghaznavid's take the cake for possibly giving the Hindu Kush mountains their name, meaning Hindu Kill, for captured slaves would not survive the cold. Or the race of indigenous people once ubiquitous to the mountain known as the 'kafir' though on bay12 we spell it as kuffar - infidel. They ran through looting and demolishing temples, utilizing burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures to keep the Hindus in check. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques, on occasion there were forced conversions - If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves. The Turkish ruler of Ghazni made it his mission to rid Peshawar of Hindus. Peshawar is now like Jerusalem or Persia, "established Muslim land" as you put it. Mahmud of Ghazni has this said by the historian Al-Beruni, who accompanied him on his conquest: 'Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims."
When you want to have a pissing contest between Nazis or Soviets because you can't fathom talking of Nazis or Soviets all that happens is everyone is made dirty. Most importantly, Islam's missionary spirit is stronger than ever, the white man's burden is in the past. Only one of these two religions is an active player anymore.
I'm curious to see where you're getting the bit about the majority of the Muslim world following peace under Dar Al-Islam. As in, those countries that are mostly islamic? Or all Muslims? Cuz' that's a pretty damn big generalization to make of more than a billion people, and it'd be nice to see a source for it. And from those Qu'ran verses I've read, they have minimal foundation.I think you are very confused on Islam. Dar al-Islam is not a branch or sect of Islam or Islamic jurisprudence (at least when Caliph Umar used it). It is a term to categorize the world, similar to how in the Cold War the world was categorized along the 1st/2nd/3rd world in regards to who they would fight for or if they would stay neutral in the event of a war, only with religious significance attached to continue the aim of spreading Islam. The Dar al-Islam is the Realm of peace and submission to God, the Islamic world, places where Islam rules. The Dar al-Harab is the Realm of War, places where infidels rule who should be converted, killed or if other Abrahamics maybe just forced to pay the jizya unless you're feeling particularly Ottoman. These terms were used by Caliph Umar but were expanded upon as international diplomacy became a thing and the Ottomans needed more terms than "our land" and "not our land." The Dar al-Harab takes on the role of the Realm of War, but its name translates to Realm of the West. Then there's the Dar al-Amn or Realm of Safety where it's non-Muslim land but Muslims are allowed to practice their religion there, or Dar al-Dawa or Realm of Invitation where Islam has only just been recently introduced, drawing a line between those who reject the Muslim faith in Dar al-Harab and those who are ignorant of its existence altogether in Dar al-Dawa. This is similar to the purgatory notion in Christianity for pagans who died before Christ was born. Most Muslims live under Dar al-Islam, it just means they live by Islam's rule ;) Although to add onto that it in the modern day it can also mean the state having Islam protected in law and so could exclude majority Muslim nations whose states have secular law like Turkey, or depending on if you're Sunni or Shia Iran for example can be Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kuffar. Also the Realm of War despite the name does not necessarily mean active war, as that can also be divided into two subrealms of realms at war with Islam and nations yet to be at war with Islam.
See, I think my issue is that you're implying very carefully that Islam is inherently awful, and so is anyone who follows it. Which is a massive generalization of countless people.I am not a very subtle person, if I don't like something you know it. Unless you mean awful in a moral sense to which I cannot stand the killing of infidels and don't particularly see anything controversial about that. The second statement and third statement really come out of nowhere. I should have you know if you think I look down on someone for not hesitating to use violence when necessary you have forgotten or do not know that I myself will not hesitate to use violence when necessary (internet tough guy). The only difference is our values in what we see as necessary. I don't for example, endorse violence upon moral degenerates.
You can come up with incidents of atrocities committed by Muslims or in the name of Islam. I can find incidents done in the name of God or communism or democracy, and I can find countless examples of faithful Muslims who aren't extremists and are good people.Communism is dead and there has not been a great liberal revolution since Napoleon. Islam is the most powerful ideology of our year, its followers highly moral, disciplined and unified with a rigor no other religion or even philosophy has yet matched, it's worth repeating no book secular or religious has been learnt off by heart by so many millions as the Quran has. You can find countless examples of faithful Muslims who are good people and aren't extremists, likewise so can I - this is generalizing. I'm not sure what that is supposed to do, but ok. I don't see it as good or bad people because I find good|bad to be a little to Disney for me, the real world is not like that. It's for me a matter of belief, will and success.
People are people. Some are nice, some are jerks, some commit mass murder. Doesn't really matter, a way is found.People are people. Some are nice. Some are jerks. Some commit mass murder.
Doesn't really matter. Heh. What is the way? Convert to Islam :D
Post by: Sheb on November 16, 2015, 05:53:43 pm
But what could such an idea be? The only one I see is some form of Nationalism, maybe in the Scottish sense. I wonder, is there any data of radicalization rate between Scotland and the rUK?
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 16, 2015, 05:58:15 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 16, 2015, 06:20:45 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 16, 2015, 06:22:44 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 16, 2015, 06:30:12 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 16, 2015, 06:32:08 pm
Well, one thing I will agree with you LW, is that we do need an ideology if we're to effectively fight Islam. You need to fight ideas with ideas, as Hitler used to say.76,000 Muslims live in Scotland
But what could such an idea be? The only one I see is some form of Nationalism, maybe in the Scottish sense. I wonder, is there any data of radicalization rate between Scotland and the rUK?
46,000 in Wales
3,800 in Northern Ireland
2,660,116 in England
They do not compare at all; we also already have sovereign nationalism which is what being British is, British is the sovereign nationality which everyone is who isn't ethnically English/Welsh/Irish/Scottish (who even then go by British unless trying to differentiate themselves such as during Commonwealth games). Scottish nationalism is just repackaged British nationalism. Oh, and it hasn't helped anything at all if our al-Britanis in Syria are anything to be gauged by, they just become British Islamists lol
Plus I'm skeptical on the notion that Islam can be challenged at all by the West. Ideologically there is no stronger ideology, practically Westerners have no want to challenge Islam, literally is going full Ottoman. On the numbers basis Muslims have gone from being 0.1% of religious people in England for example, to 5% and rising, we are now more Islamic than Kosovo or Kuwait :P
I think it's a bit too late now to decide Western Europe's affiliation with Islam, the two are sewn together now by the seams. I suppose Britain has the option to just open the gates to Nigerians and Indians more than usual to balance things out xD
The Scots are the Brits.Foreigners use English and British interchangeably, they don't know their Great Britains from their United Kingdoms and Northern Irelands and Englands and Wales and Londons and City of Londons in Greater Londons
To clear things up Britain is the main island holistically and a few chains of smaller islands nearby
Post by: SirQuiamus on November 17, 2015, 12:01:49 am
If you're wanting to say that Islamic Law violates human rights, I'd agree with you, when you look at international definitions and agreements about it. Different cultures have different views on that, though. I would argue that Abrahamic Law in general violates human rights, myself. Just a matter of whether people are interpreting it literally...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
it's quite obvious that Muslims don't appreciate having their religion insulted. And when someone puts up an image of Mohammad, knowing full well that Islam forbids it and finds it offensive, they are insulting it just as much as someone who tries to present themselves as a Christ-figure. It's just different cultural values and weights on freedom of expression.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think my issue is that you're implying very carefully that Islam is inherently awful, and so is anyone who follows it. Which is a massive generalization of countless people.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Islam is the most powerful ideology of our year, its followers highly moral, disciplined and unified with a rigor no other religion or even philosophy has yet matched, it's worth repeating no book secular or religious has been learnt off by heart by so many millions as the Quran has.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Well, one thing I will agree with you LW, is that we do need an ideology if we're to effectively fight Islam. You need to fight ideas with ideas, as Hitler used to say.
But what could such an idea be?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 17, 2015, 07:10:31 am
Post by: TempAcc on November 17, 2015, 07:45:02 am
But yea, why does every time someone starts talking about the inherent problems of Islam, someone always does the ~well what about all those awful religions/creeds/political groups/sandals/etc, why aren't you talking about them too? Thats problematic~ thing and do whatever they can do to shift the discussion away from the fact that Islam is driving force behind incredibly massive waves of violence, terrorism and war right now, and that it has constantly been like this (though at different levels) for the recent decades? This isn't even something thats discussed only by non-Muslims either, there are many Muslims who admit to this and call for a new Islamic movement that distances themselves from the warlike intolerant Islam that seems to dominate the most vocal groups in the religion, or is met with passive, silent support from others, either in the form of the strange sense of masochistic ~progressiveness~ that tolerates intolerance and that has infected every layer of western society, or actual intent in subjugating everything in favor of an Islamic view.
Post by: TD1 on November 17, 2015, 08:55:54 am
I don't think those are key aspects of it anymore - it used to be at least on par with Christianity, so the whole "Islam is still young!" argument really doesn't hold much weight.
Post by: TempAcc on November 17, 2015, 09:08:52 am
Islam has become more and more closed in regards to sciences since (apart from the whole "lets use our infinite oil money to fund some cool architecture" and generally making money), altough it is rather accepting of some things christianity will still bend its nose to, like sex change surgery, but thats due to some rather disturbing cultural/religious nuances and it doesn't mean muslim trans people are well treated (homosexuality is strictly condemned, but apparently a man changing into a woman is acceptable, altough a woman changing into a man is not acceptable, for some reason).
Post by: Teneb on November 17, 2015, 09:16:57 am
specially during the dark ages, when christianity was more about LETS BURN EVERYONE rather than developing philosophy and stimulating morality and charity.Actually christianity burning people was only from more or less the renaissance and onward. The Church's authority in Europe during the middle ages was pretty much absolute... so it didn't actually need to go around intimidating people. The cathars appearing was one of the points where "burn the heretic" started getting popular.
Not to say the Europe of that time wasn't backwards in terms of technology and such, but in other ways (poor hygiene, eating with hands, little-to-non-existent bureaucracy, etc).
Post by: SirQuiamus on November 17, 2015, 09:45:22 am
But yea, why does every time someone starts talking about the inherent problems of Islam, someone always does the ~well what about all those awful religions/creeds/political groups/sandals/etc, why aren't you talking about them too? Thats problematic~ thing and do whatever they can do to shift the discussion away from the fact that Islam is driving force behind incredibly massive waves of violence, terrorism and war right now, and that it has constantly been like this (though at different levels) for the recent decades? This isn't even something thats discussed only by non-Muslims either, there are many Muslims who admit to this and call for a new Islamic movement that distances themselves from the warlike intolerant Islam that seems to dominate the most vocal groups in the religion, or is met with passive, silent support from others, either in the form of the strange sense of masochistic ~progressiveness~ that tolerates intolerance and that has infected every layer of western society, or actual intent in subjugating everything in favor of an Islamic view.Well, there's this oft-linked article (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/) arguing that it may have something to do with the fact that both sides of the Islamism debate act as the opposing side's primary outgroup: Islamophobes act as the Progressives' outgroup, and vice versa. The debate is supposedly such an incestuous affair that the actual Islamists out there are rendered into featureless bogeymen or political hobbyhorses that have no connection with reality---hence the characteristic acts of exaggeration or dismissal perpetrated by each party, respectively.
That's just one theory, though, and there are probably more nuanced ones. Like, for example, there's this absolutely brilliant article (http://theamericanreader.com/jenesuispasliberal-entering-the-quagmire-of-online-leftism/) that I'm reading right now...
EDIT: One of the points in the American Reader article is that the less-than-liberal wing of the contemporary Left is looking at everything through the paranoid lens of structural injustice, to the extent that blatant and shameless injustice like terrorism seems less insidious---and therefore less dangerous[!]---than the omnipresent ills of organized society. There's a great quote from Marcus Garvey, the famous black activist:
Quote
I regard the Klan, the Anglo-Saxon clubs and White American societies, as far as the Negro is concerned, as better friends of the race than all other groups of hypocritical whites put together. I like honesty and fair play. You may call me a Klansman if you will, but, potentially, every white man is a Klansman, as far as the Negro in competition with whites socially, economically and politically is concerned, and there is no use lying.
I mean, that almost makes sense, doesn't it? Uncle Sam professes his love for you and stabs you in the back, whereas the Klansman waves a noose in front of your face and tells what he's going to do with it. The hypocrite Ivy League prof. preaches tolerance while groping female students and shitposting on Stormfront, whereas the terrorist wants to kill you dead along with everyone you love, and he's perfectly honest about it. Which of these adversaries would seem more "trustworthy" and less dangerous when viewed through the paranoid goggles of social criticism?
Post by: MaximumZero on November 17, 2015, 09:46:49 am
Post by: TempAcc on November 17, 2015, 10:15:19 am
EDIT: Food for thought (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34832023).
Keep in mind this is comming from the mouth of the second largest political party in England.
Post by: Graknorke on November 17, 2015, 12:24:56 pm
"That's a bit problematic." Fucking lost itYeah, got me too.
Post by: Bohandas on November 17, 2015, 05:42:47 pm
Reading bits of the article now, won't be able to read it completely right now, but its something I'll get back to when I get home.
EDIT: Food for thought (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34832023).
Keep in mind this is comming from the mouth of the second largest political party in England.
Personally I agree that we should try to avoid killing violent religious extremists. We don't want to make martyrs. Every effort should be made to take them alive and let them live out their time on earth in the dismalest dungeon allowable under the Geneva Convention
Post by: XXXXYYYY on November 17, 2015, 05:55:39 pm
We don't want to make martyrs.
dismalest dungeon allowable under the Geneva Convention...That's going to make martyrs just as much as just killing them.
Post by: TD1 on November 17, 2015, 06:34:04 pm
Besides, I think we should just leave them on their own. Did Britain find democracy because it was enforced on them by an external power/military?
The country will handle it by itself. As it is, we're a destabilising influence that gives the extremists a purpose.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 17, 2015, 06:44:50 pm
Also, didn't the instability in the Middle-East start after Western powers withdrew, leaving no stable government in place?
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 17, 2015, 06:58:49 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 17, 2015, 07:16:29 pm
Britain found democracy after hundreds of thousands of people died horribly. Combine that with modern weaponry and terrorists who hate other countries... that's not the sort of thing you want to leave on its own. Unless you like people getting killed, obviously.
Also, didn't the instability in the Middle-East start after Western powers withdrew, leaving no stable government in place?
And you think thousands of people aren't dying this way, and that an anti-West sentiment isn't growing? Yes. I would advocate leaving it alone. It's no business of ours, and we only make it worse. We impose democracy, leave, democracy collapses, come back, create a cycle. Instead let it run its course so they develop by themselves. As for the terrorists who hate other countries, why do they unless it's because we interfere so much?
Besides. If THEY declare war, then you act.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 17, 2015, 07:21:08 pm
they have declared war. ISIS (and the other terrorist folks) are already attacking Western countries. We're too far in to the cycle to just abandon the region completely.
Hell, the best option might be to just make the whole region a client state of the UN or something.
Post by: Frumple on November 17, 2015, 07:37:37 pm
And my cat is a tortoiseshell. Those don't come with nuts.
... also, why is this discussion happening here? Shouldn't it be in one of the politics threads, or armchair general or some shite?
Post by: TD1 on November 17, 2015, 07:48:48 pm
But yea, politics bad, four legs good.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 17, 2015, 07:52:07 pm
I guess the Europol thread got locked over this, but the discussion's stayed pretty cool here.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 17, 2015, 07:56:55 pm
Post by: Bohandas on November 17, 2015, 09:24:00 pm
But yea, why does every time someone starts talking about the inherent problems of Islam, someone always does the ~well what about all those awful religions/creeds/political groups/sandals/etc, why aren't you talking about them too? Thats problematic~ thing and do whatever they can do to shift the discussion away from the fact that Islam is driving force behind incredibly massive waves of violence, terrorism and war right now, and that it has constantly been like this (though at different levels) for the recent decades? This isn't even something thats discussed only by non-Muslims either, there are many Muslims who admit to this and call for a new Islamic movement that distances themselves from the warlike intolerant Islam that seems to dominate the most vocal groups in the religion, or is met with passive, silent support from others, either in the form of the strange sense of masochistic ~progressiveness~ that tolerates intolerance and that has infected every layer of western society, or actual intent in subjugating everything in favor of an Islamic view.Well, there's this oft-linked article (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/) arguing that it may have something to do with the fact that both sides of the Islamism debate act as the opposing side's primary outgroup: Islamophobes act as the Progressives' outgroup, and vice versa. The debate is supposedly such an incestuous affair that the actual Islamists out there are rendered into featureless bogeymen or political hobbyhorses that have no connection with reality---hence the characteristic acts of exaggeration or dismissal perpetrated by each party, respectively.
That's just one theory, though, and there are probably more nuanced ones. Like, for example, there's this absolutely brilliant article (http://theamericanreader.com/jenesuispasliberal-entering-the-quagmire-of-online-leftism/) that I'm reading right now...
I disagree with some of the terminology of that article. The "suspicious" axis would be better labeled "paranoid".
Basically the social justice movement is almost like a communicable form of paranoid schizophrenia, complete with delusions of persecution and the sense of vast faceless conspiracies lurking just betond the edge of preception. (The Islamophobes and radical islamofascists are like people who have somehow "caught" insanity too, though the islamofascists delusions are more of a grandiose variety and the Islamophobes delusionary bogeyman is actually merely the mispreception of several real conspiracies as being both a single monolithic entity and several orders of magnitude larger than they really are.)
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 17, 2015, 09:57:24 pm
Clearly this is because I am an excellent moderator.I love you dog faced orange wizard
As an aside, the Muslim religion was really quite something back in the day. Helped learning, furthered philosophy and medicine.And then Mongols
Suddenly very many Mongols
Reset the clock, it's Mongol O'clock
Well, there's this oft-linked article (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/) arguing that it may have something to do with the fact that both sides of the Islamism debate act as the opposing side's primary outgroup: Islamophobes act as the Progressives' outgroup, and vice versa. The debate is supposedly such an incestuous affair that the actual Islamists out there are rendered into featureless bogeymen or political hobbyhorses that have no connection with reality---hence the characteristic acts of exaggeration or dismissal perpetrated by each party, respectively.It has never ceased to bring wonderment to me how issues like court trials of suspected murder with absolutely zero political connections could become political partisan issues
I mean, that almost makes sense, doesn't it? Uncle Sam professes his love for you and stabs you in the back, whereas the Klansman waves a noose in front of your face and tells what he's going to do with it. The hypocrite Ivy League prof. preaches tolerance while groping female students and shitposting on Stormfront, whereas the terrorist wants to kill you dead along with everyone you love, and he's perfectly honest about it. Which of these adversaries would seem more "trustworthy" and less dangerous when viewed through the paranoid goggles of social criticism?From a practical standpoint you can respect an enemy without and they can respect you too merely from the viewpoint that if you leave each other alone, warring is worth more effort than armed peace - an enemy within has been the nightmare of all groups, states, analysts and armies since the first time group conflict was a thing and throwing open the gates was just as literal as it was a metaphor, as that is an enemy from which there is little defence
One only has to see the great military powers of the past to the present from the Ottomans to China all fearing treachery - even in Dante's Hell there is no greater sin
To be fair it's not coming from the second largest political party really - labour is divided and they're trying to get rid of Corbyn with a coup soon to be executed or failed some time in the future. Add to that, he's contrarian to the max and in favour of appeasing literally anyone who fights Britain from Malvinas to Syria; it's not really anything serious cos he'll never get any power. As for the topic of killing religious extremists, I'm reminded of the Italian firebrand priest who upset the Republics of Italy with an uprising. He preached of the decadence of the Republics, the corruption of the Papacy, warnings of foreign invasion (of course all three happened) and preached an austere, strict Catholicism. He preached that the bible was the sole source of authority on Earth, that poverty was a virtue and that all artworks and books that were not holy should be burned for being sinful distractions. When his prophesy of foreign invasion came true a French army was marching to Naples - this would take them through Florence. Florence itself was undergoing political turmoil and its ruler Piero (recently having taken office) surrendered spinelessly to the French, an affront that caused the Florentines to rebel against Piero themselves. This priest would take control of Florence and Florence would turn from one of the great centres of secular humanism to a book burning theocracy. The parallels to the Middle East are striking. The Papacy nearby recognized he was a far greater threat to Catholicism than humanist ideas and declared him a heretic and did everything in their power to ruin him. Eventually he is burned at the stake. Still a martyr to his followers, he was still nonetheless quite dead and incapable of threatening the Papacy in his ashen state. I suppose the modern day example would be killing Bin Laden or Jihadi John. If you have the luxury of capture go for it, otherwise if the option to kill them is available take it.Reading bits of the article now, won't be able to read it completely right now, but its something I'll get back to when I get home.Personally I agree that we should try to avoid killing violent religious extremists. We don't want to make martyrs. Every effort should be made to take them alive and let them live out their time on earth in the dismalest dungeon allowable under the Geneva Convention
EDIT: Food for thought (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34832023).
Keep in mind this is comming from the mouth of the second largest political party in England.
Not just as much.Well while the Magna Carta wasn't enforced by war it was enforced by the nobles in response to the aftermath of war and the economic constraints it placed on the nobles, and it gradually evolved over hundreds of years in steps - occasionally with mass protests in the modern age, or things like Cromwell running around earning the nickname 'God's Executioner.' Usually it wasn't imposed by war but a consequence of post-war developments.
Besides, I think we should just leave them on their own. Did Britain find democracy because it was enforced on them by an external power/military?
The country will handle it by itself. As it is, we're a destabilising influence that gives the extremists a purpose.
So it can go both ways really. On the topic of foreign imposed regimes, they can work; just have a fucking plan and don't walk in clueless :P
Post by: Descan on November 17, 2015, 10:14:30 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 17, 2015, 10:53:07 pm
Also, they actually had a single organized regime that could be defeated. And they were/are small (in terms of population, compared to the Middle East).
What about discussing why religions like Buddhism and the like never resulted in widespread crusades in the Abrahamic style? I mean, there was certainly infighting and war, but was it mainly because everyone just sorta went with converting? Or do I just know nothing about Asian history?
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 17, 2015, 10:59:03 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 17, 2015, 11:07:04 pm
That said, several of the major ones are somewhat considerably more accepting of integration than the abrahamic ones are -- both the vedic traditions (which more or less explicitly allows for new gods to pop up and new traditions to be integrated) and the buddhist ones (which is at its core largely atheist (or, perhaps more accurate, apatheist) in nature, and many of its principles can slot in fairly painlessly with other religious/theist beliefs) are fairly notable in that they fold in different sects with comparatively less trouble. Still plenty of history of them murdering each other over religious schisms, mind. Just... less theological issues. Conceptually.
That said, again, even the bloody jains (for whom non-violence is their highest principle and killing unforgivable in pretty much any circumstance) were the primary religion of expansionist et al empires and owe a fair amount of their spread to the sword.
Post by: SirQuiamus on November 18, 2015, 05:26:20 am
I disagree with some of the terminology of that article. The "suspicious" axis would be better labeled "paranoid".That's not much of a disagreement since those two terms are perfectly interchangeable in leftist academe.
Basically the social justice movement is almost like a communicable form of paranoid schizophrenia, complete with delusions of persecution and the sense of vast faceless conspiracies lurking just betond the edge of preception.The difference between a critic and a schizophrenic is that the former is never above suspicion even to him/herself, so you could say that online moralists are acting like schizophrenics, in a way...
But then again, there is also such a thing as justified paranoia, you know...
Mongol O'clock12:58 AM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_%281258%29) on the doomsday clock?
Reading bits of the article now, won't be able to read it completely right now, but its something I'll get back to when I get home.The context is lacking in that interview: "Shoot-to-kill" in what circumstances exactly, is the crucial thing here. When someone's waving an AK in public? Sure, put a bullet in his head before he pulls the trigger. But how about when someone who "looks like a terrorist" is guilty of "sudden moves" or "driving while Muslim?" Fuck No---we must not turn Europe into a police-state dystopia, no matter how scared we are.
EDIT: Food for thought (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34832023).
Keep in mind this is comming from the mouth of the second largest political party in England.
Post by: TempAcc on November 18, 2015, 06:41:15 am
Post by: SirQuiamus on November 18, 2015, 07:28:16 am
I suppose the modern day example would be killing Bin Laden or Jihadi John.Comparing Islamic fundamentalists to Savonarola is a pretty good analogy, but those two losers you mentioned are puny small fries next to the Original Bad Boys of religious zealotry. It would be much more accurate to compare the friar to al-Wahhab himself, in which case the only slight difference between the two would be that the latter's political legacy has weathered over two centuries of ceaseless conflict, and is currently as influential as ever. (And that is despite the fact that al-Wahhab is just as dead as Savonarola, although perhaps not quite as ashy.) Another slight difference is that less than twenty years after the friar went from ashes to ashes, this guy called Luthor or something took some of his ideas and started this thing called the Reformation. It doesn't look like Wahhabist ideas could ever motivate a similar movement from within contemporary Islamism, for various reasons...
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 18, 2015, 03:47:53 pm
What about discussing why religions like Buddhism and the like never resulted in widespread crusades in the Abrahamic style? I mean, there was certainly infighting and war, but was it mainly because everyone just sorta went with converting? Or do I just know nothing about Asian history?Buddhism never had crusades but I can think of a few times where it didn't spread by the sword, but had its path cleared for it by the sword. Such as when the great Emperor Ashoka slaughtered his way through India and had a crisis of conscience, famously observing the ruin he had brought his enemies and rhetorically asking is that what his victory looked like? Anyways he has a crisis of conscience and after failing to torture some Buddhists to death converts to Buddhism and forsakes violence, ceasing his campaigns and the like, spreading the teachings of Buddhism far and wide through India and all the world, even as far as Greece and China. Indian Buddhism spread into China through the Ferghana valley but after the Chinese were kicked out by invading Muslim nomads Indian and Chinese Buddhism lost their direct links and developed onto separate paths. Buddhism would be carried on eastwards just by people teaching it to others (India and China both having good education cultures) until it reaches warrior cultures like in Japan, where they found ways to rationalize violence. Or like in Burma where they likewise did too. I'm reminded of when Christianity expanded into the warrior cultures of the Germanics, hell became depicted as a cold place because they had difficulty imagining a burning place, and Jesus went from being the austere matyr to a noticeably Germanic warrior prophet. I reckon there were no great religious wars until the Muslims and Christians arrived because the Chinese had no problem causing gargantuan wars over heaven's mandate and India in religion or statehood was rarely united or organized. I suppose Buddhism had an advantage in that it didn't require you hold exclusive belief in it as the Abrahamics do with theirs, no my prophet is only prophet and so forth, the overlap between Buddhism and Hinduism or the Buddha being a deity in both Hinduism and Chinese spiritualism being a good example of this
Russians are so lucky the Mongols got too brilly and decided to go home before finishing the jobMongol O'clock12:58 AM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_%281258%29) on the doomsday clock?
Nuclear war is preferable to Mongol O'clock, Finngolia will rise again
Comparing Islamic fundamentalists to Savonarola is a pretty good analogy, but those two losers you mentioned are puny small fries next to the Original Bad Boys of religious zealotry.Reading Islamist materials on how they view Jews and Christians is very interesting, especially how they view Christianity as fundamentally broken twice; today it is weak and corrupt (there's a list somewhere of 1,700 years of European scholars interpreting the revalations passages in regards to the beast being the Papacy, not surprising) whereas before it was morality by force, with the strongest state deciding what form of Christianity was the correct one - culminating in WWI where all the protestants, catholics and orthodox nations warred with each other so brutally with each convinced they were the true Christians fighting heathens that the end result was all of the Christian faiths were broken and the populations gave up their faith in favour of secularism, hedonism or a bit of both :P
Especially hard hit were the countries whose first waves were always volunteers - threw away their most zealous into the meat grinder. Noticeably Russia is the exception to this, as its Orthodoxy has experienced some modern day revival, so maybe Islamist scholars are wrong on this or Russia is a special case. I find it odd that they acknowledge the Christian faiths broke each other but then also think warring with the Shia won't end up with the same fate for them ???
It would be much more accurate to compare the friar to al-Wahhab himself, in which case the only slight difference between the two would be that the latter's political legacy has weathered over two centuries of ceaseless conflict, and is currently as influential as ever. (And that is despite the fact that al-Wahhab is just as dead as Savonarola, although perhaps not quite as ashy.)I think assassinating Savonarola's character might have helped, when you discredit someone you kill their legacy as well as their life. Also very ashy.
Another slight difference is that less than twenty years after the friar went from ashes to ashes, this guy called Luthor or something took some of his ideas and started this thing called the Reformation. It doesn't look like Wahhabist ideas could ever motivate a similar movement from within contemporary Islamism, for various reasons...To be fair Martin's cheeky bants were going to happen anyways
Unless they had the foresight to set him on fire too hahaha
Post by: Graknorke on November 18, 2015, 03:52:31 pm
I find it odd that they acknowledge the Christian faiths broke each other but then also think warring with the Shia won't end up with the same fate for them ???Well no that's different because that was infidels fighting each other but this is The One True Faith™ fighting infidels so it's totally different.
Post by: Bohandas on November 18, 2015, 03:57:32 pm
But yea, why does every time someone starts talking about the inherent problems of Islam, someone always does the ~well what about all those awful religions/creeds/political groups/sandals/etc, why aren't you talking about them too? Thats problematic~ thing and do whatever they can do to shift the discussion away from the fact that Islam is driving force behind incredibly massive waves of violence, terrorism and war right now, and that it has constantly been like this (though at different levels) for the recent decades? This isn't even something thats discussed only by non-Muslims either, there are many Muslims who admit to this and call for a new Islamic movement that distances themselves from the warlike intolerant Islam that seems to dominate the most vocal groups in the religion, or is met with passive, silent support from others, either in the form of the strange sense of masochistic ~progressiveness~ that tolerates intolerance and that has infected every layer of western society, or actual intent in subjugating everything in favor of an Islamic view.Well, there's this oft-linked article (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/) arguing that it may have something to do with the fact that both sides of the Islamism debate act as the opposing side's primary outgroup: Islamophobes act as the Progressives' outgroup, and vice versa. The debate is supposedly such an incestuous affair that the actual Islamists out there are rendered into featureless bogeymen or political hobbyhorses that have no connection with reality---hence the characteristic acts of exaggeration or dismissal perpetrated by each party, respectively.
That's just one theory, though, and there are probably more nuanced ones. Like, for example, there's this absolutely brilliant article (http://theamericanreader.com/jenesuispasliberal-entering-the-quagmire-of-online-leftism/) that I'm reading right now...
I disagree with some of the terminology of that article. The "suspicious" axis would be better labeled "paranoid".
Basically the social justice movement is almost like a communicable form of paranoid schizophrenia, complete with delusions of persecution and the sense of vast faceless conspiracies lurking just betond the edge of preception. (The Islamophobes and radical islamofascists are like people who have somehow "caught" insanity too, though the islamofascists delusions are more of a grandiose variety and the Islamophobes delusionary bogeyman is actually merely the mispreception of several real conspiracies as being both a single monolithic entity and several orders of magnitude larger than they really are.)
I serendipitously found out today that there's actually a name for the phenomenon I described here, "folie a deux"
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 18, 2015, 04:55:54 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 18, 2015, 08:19:46 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 18, 2015, 09:52:07 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on November 18, 2015, 10:27:39 pm
Yeah, but beaucoup is used in reference to people (i.e. many people), whereas plusieurs is not. Unless that once French class I took ~4 years ago has failed me.
Yeah, nope. "Beaucoup" translates best as "Lots". "Plusieurs" is more like "Many". Its the difference between saying "The folly of lots" as opposed to "The folly of many". One sounds less awkward. You can use "Beaucoup" with regard to people, but usually with people after it. "Il y a beaucoup de personnes qui vient au volcan cette samedi" works, but you can't have it stand alone as well. "Plusieurs ont pris l'oppertunite de visite la volcan cette samedi" works, even though there's no mention of people anywhere.
Post by: Sheb on November 19, 2015, 01:17:44 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 19, 2015, 04:58:34 am
Quote
The same syndrome shared by more than two people may be called folie à trois, folie à quatre, folie en famille or even folie à plusieurs
Post by: TD1 on November 19, 2015, 06:35:26 am
Can't think of a reason why, though it may be that I'm being thick again, heh.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 19, 2015, 06:50:57 am
religious people do often state they're gonna ask about it to their preacher, but usually it comes off as a way to withdraw from the discussion and rarely come back with a reply(perhaps because the discussion moved on, or somebody else already gave the same answer). the secular alternative would be "i'll research the subject further and come back with a reply" i guess
Post by: Adragis on November 19, 2015, 06:57:22 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 19, 2015, 12:16:35 pm
Wait, what the fuck, is three actually spelt like that?
Post by: TempAcc on November 19, 2015, 12:21:48 pm
Its very easy to not understand people who dislike "X" when all you've learned about "X" seems positively great to you.
Post by: Graknorke on November 19, 2015, 12:34:29 pm
Or because the average person doesn't know everything ever.We have the internet. You could find material on just about any question you might have.
Post by: Adragis on November 19, 2015, 12:41:46 pm
Which is rather useless during arguments of opinion.Or because the average person doesn't know everything ever.We have the internet. You could find material on just about any question you might have.
Post by: Graknorke on November 19, 2015, 12:48:02 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 19, 2015, 12:52:31 pm
Post by: Shazbot on November 19, 2015, 08:28:57 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 19, 2015, 10:50:08 pm
If your opinion isn't based on facts then what is there to argue about?
Interpretation.
Post by: Graknorke on November 19, 2015, 10:56:33 pm
Then why would you need to pass it off to someone else? Surely you already know what your own thoughts are.If your opinion isn't based on facts then what is there to argue about?Interpretation.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 19, 2015, 10:58:56 pm
Some things are actually quite important. For example, if somebody misinterpreted Luke, and thought that you had to die on a cross to get to heaven, I would try to give him/her a better interpretation.Then why would you need to pass it off to someone else? Surely you already know what your own thoughts are.If your opinion isn't based on facts then what is there to argue about?Interpretation.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 19, 2015, 10:59:49 pm
Also, people can't stand other people being wrong. Which is really to say, people can't stand being wrong, and other people interpreting it differently than you means that you might be wrong, and that's unacceptable. So you try to convince them that they were wrong, and you were right.
Also, there's plenty of stuff one could argue that isn't about facts. Moral philosophy, for example. What is versus what ought.
Post by: Fenrir on November 20, 2015, 02:49:47 am
Post by: Dwarf4Explosives on November 21, 2015, 04:18:45 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 21, 2015, 06:39:08 pm
I'm sorry if that came across as jerkish.Not even close. You should see the anti-theists in this thread when they get going :P
But, yeah. Apathy towards religion in general is fairly standard, around here, at least. Most (or a very large minority of) people seem to say something along the lines of "I don't really think about it too much".
Post by: That Wolf on November 21, 2015, 08:05:51 pm
Could I get the anti-theists to assemble??
We really need a signal light
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 21, 2015, 08:19:00 pm
CHAIR
Post by: Rolan7 on November 21, 2015, 08:36:14 pm
You called?For atheists I think the signal light would be blank... Technically we're only united by not believing something.
Could I get the anti-theists to assemble??
We really need a signal light
A skeptic symbol would be... Something representing the scientific method, I guess? Maybe panel 2 of https://xkcd.com/242/
You antitheists could have the ghostbusters symbol
Unaligned theists having the ghostbusters symbol without the cross
While agnostics get a glowing green question mark
I sorta wonder if there's a word for people who believe in a god (theists) but specifically don't worship it. I think some Satanists would count, but that's specific to Christianity, and also apparently most "Satanists" don't believe in Satan. Just ideals based on his story, I guess *shrug*
When it comes to defying gods though, I like the Greek stories better. If you ignore the endings the priests wrote, anyway. There's a relatively short, and long completed, webcomic about Odysseus which retells the story as one of human defiance:
http://www.bigheadpress.com/otr
(Taking many liberties of course. Also, NSFW)
Post by: Graknorke on November 21, 2015, 08:51:46 pm
As to the salt about anti-theists, to my knowledge there haven't been any in this thread so far. Just because people know that your (and not even exclusively, as seen by the past few pages) holy book is wrong or immoral doesn't mean that they think the idea of any god at all is abhorrent.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 21, 2015, 09:38:44 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 21, 2015, 09:51:24 pm
(Sometimes I've argued that very harshly and in a rambling way)
Though I wasn't against the idea of believing in unproven things, or spirituality. I believe in fairies for flip's sake. Just organized religion.
And I try to keep a lid on it, but living in Southern USA I do really fear it a lot :/ I'm sure my perspective would be different if I was on the receiving end of missionary aid instead of legal oppression. In other words, Christians here are incredibly political and I worry that that's innate and inevitable with organized religion.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 21, 2015, 10:19:57 pm
Post by: TempAcc on November 21, 2015, 10:26:25 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 21, 2015, 10:28:25 pm
Nah, there's definitely been a little anti-religious stuff from... Dwarfy? Maybe Descan? I dunno, I can't really remember. Not salty, just thought it was funny in contrast with D4E worried about coming across jerkish.I'm anti-religious for sure.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 21, 2015, 11:14:38 pm
Pope Francis is the obvious example of a good thing, but I'd rather point at the rehabilitation of people in prison occurring through religion (by helping them 'find jesus'). Maybe it's a shortcut with repercussions (magical thinking), but it can't be denied that it works.
Post by: Arcvasti on November 21, 2015, 11:30:08 pm
Well... I've attacked religion before. Or, argued that it's dangerous in all forms.
(Sometimes I've argued that very harshly and in a rambling way)
Though I wasn't against the idea of believing in unproven things, or spirituality. I believe in fairies for flip's sake. Just organized religion.
And I try to keep a lid on it, but living in Southern USA I do really fear it a lot :/ I'm sure my perspective would be different if I was on the receiving end of missionary aid instead of legal oppression. In other words, Christians here are incredibly political and I worry that that's innate and inevitable with organized religion.
The thing is, power is hard. Organized religion[Or even unorganized religion, to a lesser degree] has power. Point or direct that power the wrong way and some pretty horrific shenanigans can ensue. Even when I was more religious, I never liked the fact that the Church as an institution had power. Pope Francis is generally pretty chill and them trying to use their influence to help combat climate change is good, but I dislike the fact that they even HAVE that influence, even if its being used for good. This isn't so much a dislike of organized religion as a dislike of organizations and one person having authority and power over another under any circumstances.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 21, 2015, 11:43:19 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 21, 2015, 11:48:38 pm
Pope Francis is the obvious example of a good thing, but I'd rather point at the rehabilitation of people in prison occurring through religion (by helping them 'find jesus'). Maybe it's a shortcut with repercussions (magical thinking), but it can't be denied that it works.He kinda' ain't, heh. Better at jawing than the last few popes, and largely much better at downplaying or lowballing the shitty parts of the catholic messages, but still very, very catholic, with the negatives that entails. Positives too, for what it's worth, but I'd call 'im good only in relation to, well, previous popes. He could probably manage better if he didn't have the yoke of his organization around 'is neck, ha.
The rehabilitative effect is also... somewhat overplayed. Often. It can't be denied it works, perhaps, but it very much can be denied it works well, or consistently. There's similar problems involved with alcoholism "treatment" -- there's a very heavy religious aspect to AA, in the states, as a representative example, and it... doesn't work too well. Just about any good that can manage on that front, can be managed significantly better with, y'know, a proper psych-founded treatment regime.
Post by: That Wolf on November 22, 2015, 12:02:09 am
GAY IS WRONG!
MUHAHAHA THE POWER OF JESUS FLOWITH THROUGH MY INTOXICATRED BODY!
the god of zombies all hail jesus who rose from the grave! He shall grant us eternal unlife.
Religion sucks and will always fall behind in morals and relevance.
Go eat some fruit
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 22, 2015, 12:03:57 am
The pope is a tool of satan, he supports gays.Source??
GAY IS WRONG!
MUHAHAHA THE POWER OF JESUS FLOWITH THROUGH MY INTOXICATRED BODY!
the god of zombies all hail jesus who rose from the grave! He shall grant us eternal unlife.
Religion sucks and will always fall behind in morals and relevance.
Go eat some fruit
:P
Post by: That Wolf on November 22, 2015, 12:12:16 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 22, 2015, 12:19:44 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 22, 2015, 12:21:37 am
(http://i.imgur.com/zGjQeUU.jpg)FAKE!!
Everybody knows the devil doesn't have horns.
:P
Post by: That Wolf on November 22, 2015, 12:25:05 am
Thats just obtuse
Post by: Rolan7 on November 22, 2015, 12:27:01 am
[snip]Yes that :P
But also, Pope Francis did say some relatively progressive-ish things. Even about homosexuality: “If someone is gay and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
Actually here's a whole article: http://time.com/3975630/pope-francis-lgbt-issues/
Basically Francis has said a whole bunch of relatively nice things about gay people.
... But, as far as I know, little of substance. I mean, even that quote is easily interpreted as "God will judge, not me."
I think he's better about other progressive issues, which is again (relatively) cool.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 22, 2015, 12:36:59 am
NYT article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/world/europe/pope-francis-in-sweeping-encyclical-calls-for-swift-action-on-climate-change.html
Actual encyclical (NYT says it's 184 pages): http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
There's similar problems involved with alcoholism "treatment" -- there's a very heavy religious aspect to AA, in the states, as a representative example, and it... doesn't work too well. Just about any good that can manage on that front, can be managed significantly better with, y'know, a proper psych-founded treatment regime.
I completely agree with you about AA, mostly because I've read articles about it already. Alcohol is pretty addictive, and their design isn't science-based and apparently isn't terribly effective.
I'm not so sure crime is the same. This might seem like evidence that religion can't do anything helpful, but, I get the impression that crime is often the result of structural failures in the system (e.g. you can't get a job because you've been arrested or convicted, or you lose your job because you miss work because you can't pay bail when you get arrested for walking while black in a bad neighborhood, which you happen to live in, etc). Other times it's the result of addiction (to drugs), feeling that you need to find a way to get more.
Perhaps it isn't just the religious conversion that helps. If I were going to speculate, I'd wager that their church connections help them find a home and job, and give them a support network willing to help them out: Fellow church members, their pastor / preacher, people they're introduced to through that network, etc.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 22, 2015, 12:41:30 am
Post by: Arx on November 22, 2015, 12:54:41 am
It's the same factor that allows surgeons and doctors to be Christians, compartmentalization.
Huh?
Post by: Rose on November 22, 2015, 01:24:27 am
It's the same factor that allows surgeons and doctors to be Christians, compartmentalization.
Huh?
A true Christian would let God heal the sick.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 22, 2015, 01:24:40 am
Compartmentalization determines how we perceive various roles, or compartments, in our lives. It is rare in the extreme that any person actually lives all or even any whole aspect of their life truly dedicated to a particular set of beliefs. Violating your own accepted standards depending on your circumstances triggers cognitive dissonance, compartmentalization defends against cognitive dissonance by mentally separating your "self" into the different roles you play.It's the same factor that allows surgeons and doctors to be Christians, compartmentalization.
Huh?
In this instance, a Christian doctor is an absolute oxymoron given the magnitude, demands, and promises of Christianity. There are a number of reasons why, the following is probably not comprehensive. Firstly, Christians are told not to rely on their own understanding but to trust in God with all their heart (Proverbs 3:5). Medical science is nothing but human understanding, not the best fulfillment.
Beyond that, Christians logically should have no competing interest in the universal preservation of human life, that which medical professionals do. The eschatological claims of the Bible show that the first death is, in fact, desirable for those who are in a state of grace as it both brings them to a state of either temporary unconsciousness followed by eternal paradise or immediate paradise depending upon your interpretation, and eliminates the possibility of future rejection of grace followed by inevitable torment, if you're of a sect that believes in resistible grace. It definitely follows from this that the deliberate extension of the mortal lives of Christians can only be a bad thing. Now, the Bible also says that only god can decide who dies and that suicide is bad, so Christian doctors couldn't go around killing people or having them kill themselves to attain paradise, but it certainly allows for leaving the survival of a saved patient to the will of god rather than imposing human will on them. Further, all medical efforts under that should rightfully only be directed towards non-Christians alongside constant incessant appeals to both the patient and the Holy Spirit to intercede and convert them.
Further still, Jesus Christ himself says that if you have as much faith as a mustard seed you can command a mountain to move and it will do so (Matthew 17:20), as well as that if you ask anything of him in the name of God the Father he will do it to glorify His Name (John 14:13). So even if you don't believe in the previous paragraph, it's all good, because medical science is useless! What good are gauze and hydrogen peroxide before the intercession of Almighty God? And certainly it qualifies, Christian doctors healing the sick and raising the dead would glorify God's name pretty well compared to the other efforts made over the years, it's even got a guarantee! And yet we do not see this kind of behavior (not even getting into how this further demonstrates Christianity is unreliable in a real v. fake sense, just the behavior of doctors).
This, among other things, makes the actions of Christian doctors writ large make no sense. You'd think at least a strong minority would understand this, and that the either literal or inspired word of God is way more important to follow than some bullshit human textbooks, but it just doesn't work out that way. "Christian doctors" don't really function like that, they're Christians when they're in that role and doctors in its own role. Neither changes the other the way it should if they absolutely believed either in all circumstances.
And that is why converting rapists and murders to Christianity so that they'll stop raping and murdering people is an invalid argument.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 22, 2015, 01:31:04 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 22, 2015, 02:28:05 am
Spoiler: Spoilered for WALL OF TEXT re: MSH (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 22, 2015, 02:42:35 am
And to me, at least, it makes quite a bit of sense. Whether or not the literal beliefs espoused by the Bible and the rational end product thereof is logically consistent is irrelevant, in this case, for most people, as can be seen by the actions of a vast plurality of people.
Actually, wait. Let me make a bit of a caveat here. I am quite good at doublethink. I take some amount of pride in my ability to hold multiple viewpoints simultaneously, or, to put it another way, to twist the methods of logic I usually take into something vastly different than their default. So when I say that it's irrelevant, I'm not arguing from the direct position of logic. I'm trying to argue from the standpoint (and I will make it very clear right now that I have never once read the bible in it's entirety, so I am in all likelihood shit at arguing any point concerning it, as I have only secondhand sources, regardless of the cultural saturation) of someone who would be religious and a doctor.
There is, of course, first off, the idea of taking the Bible figuratively. If you ask Jesus in your heart to do it in the name of God the Father, who is to say that His method is not via your hand? Or a Christian doctor's hand? The mountain will move, but many faithful might desire it to move.
Now here's where I could either make a quantum technobabble argument, a physics technobabble argument, a definitionbabble argument, or an actual at least decently legitimate argument, which I'll do because the first two fail to address any sort of point and don't actually help me fill my role here as God's Advocate (:P).
Jesus is not trying to trick us. Trying to say that he's purposefully using poor language is stupid. For one thing, it's an english translation of a latin collection of works nearly 2,000 years old, the earliest surviving copy we actually legitimately know of being from several hundred years after the events it describes, written by humans, who are innately fallible and sinful. So it's not His fault if we misinterpreted, unless you wanna go for a "God is Lazy, therefore Evil" argument, but that gets into free will and I already skirted that subject and my viewpoint on the matter is that it's essentially a null question anyway. (Good is described as Godliness. Thus, if God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, and everything is part of His plan, everything, eventually, will resolve in some good.) For another thing, it is entirely possible he was being metaphoric, and if text in the modern day with emotes and all doesn't translate irony or sarcasm well, then, well...I suspect ancient Latin will encounter similar problems. I also doubt Jesus, being the Son of God, was less capable of using figurative language than your average high schooler, and if I'm trying desperately to get people to listen to me of their own free will because I have a limited time on this Earth and those who don't must be bound into fiery condemnation for the rest of time...figurative language evokes emotion, and emotion is what allows us to connect with God. He is beyond our ken; attempts to apply puny human logic simply cannot apply. You might say, 'well isn't that convenient for your argument when all argument is useless', and I would respond 'yes, this is why faith is important; the application of logic, at it's purest form, leads to obviously poor rationals, even when done with the best intentions'. There is an eminent nature in humans, that while likely explainable by biology, is no less the important for it. If God led us to notice patterns, and thus use logic, he also led us to have emotions which can confound this logic, to what purpose it is hard to tell, at times. Perhaps it is to prevent either from keeping us from reaching God, whenever we may.
To put it, perhaps, more simply:
Yes, it seems illogical to accept any part of the set of rationalizations and beliefs that, when properly articulated, 'click' together coherently, when the world also clicks with none of them present. That is why it is called faith. The choice is to believe, or not to believe, and both, when initiated independently, seem perfectly rational. One simply happens to hold positive beliefs in something being, that, when some portion is called into question for one reason or another, causes the entire system to appear to fall apart, and so seems the less rational.
On the same note: Logic can be deceiving. The senses lie through their teeth, swearing up and down they're reporting the world accurately. Statistics can be biased, misread, or simply erroneous by no fault of the statistician. The argument that science has been wrong therefore it could be wrong therefore it likely is wrong is a logical fallacy. The argument that science has been wrong before, therefore it is likely to be wrong on some things now, and the possibility that these considerations are some of those, and that when you don't discount emotions and their purpose, this appears (I may be misrepresenting the logic process on this bit by not having considered some possibility, but if anyone could account for everything, they would be God) to present a different default from the typical assumption, that is also apparently sensible.
This has been me, attempting to present a credible presentation of a logical argument for Christianity, without knowing very much about the intimate details of the subject matter. I probably did a terrible job, as I know that I am confused by my wording, if nothing else, mostly because it was difficult to find accurate diction that doesn't skirt about the issue horribly.
Spoiler: EDIT (click to show/hide)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 22, 2015, 02:49:19 am
I decided to start at the beginning.You have completely and utterly missed my actual argument (hint: it's in the part you dismissed as euphoria). I'm happy as anyone else who plays at theology on the internet to go round and round the mutually contradictory doctrines of the Christian faith, but that's not even what's really important here. Indeed, the Bible could say literally almost anything about anything and still be a usable example.
The real takeaway is that the media-fueled stereotype of the 6'7" soft-spoken murder-turned-faithful-servant isn't the way the real world works or the way that humans contextualize their lives. If you want me to play at some bullshit golden mean I'll say that most atheists including myself who ascribe arbitrarily high probability of there being no afterlife also do not generally live their lives with that wholly internalized, otherwise both I and the rest would literally spend all our time either trying to acquire as much fun as possible or banking on immortality projects.
And since you brought it up, I do in fact think that the idea that we should rely on spreading religion to felons is both counterproductive and a bad thing, in the former because it is a popular public masking of our shitty hypocritical prison system and the latter for all the other reasons I find religious people morally questionable.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 22, 2015, 02:56:46 am
Also, many people might come to different conclusions about the 'I will die some day, and there will be nothing left save memory' bit. All about different ways of viewing the world (though ironically I'm going for the immortality project option myself).
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 22, 2015, 02:57:28 am
How many times? They are not contradictory.I decided to start at the beginning.You have completely and utterly missed my actual argument (hint: it's in the part you dismissed as euphoria). I'm happy as anyone else who plays at theology on the internet to go round and round the mutually contradictory doctrines of the Christian faith, but that's not even what's really important here. Indeed, the Bible could say literally almost anything about anything and still be a usable example.
...
And since you brought it up, I do in fact think that the idea that we should rely on spreading religion to felons is both counterproductive and a bad thing, in the former because it is a popular public masking of our shitty hypocritical prison system and the latter for all the other reasons I find religious people morally questionable.Rely? No, never. It's not reliable. I agree that prisons are shitty, but there's not much we can do about that. We can offer help to felons, why shouldn't we? Because the state should be doing more? That's counterproductive, then everyone ends up doing nothing.
The latter point is up for debate. Everyone is morally questionable in at least some capacity, whether or not they use religion to justify it is immaterial.
Post by: That Wolf on November 22, 2015, 03:22:08 am
The bible is all lies! eat some fruit you fucking psycho
Post by: Graknorke on November 22, 2015, 04:28:31 am
lol k
I am posting from a phone so can't really be quoting things, but they shouldn't be very hard to find some.
Post by: Arx on November 22, 2015, 05:14:33 am
For instance, in this case MSH seems to be wilfully ignoring the sanctity of life (amongst other things). Which is great, feel free to do that, but don't expect me to take you seriously. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously. OW is quite literally doing God's work, but I don't think I have it in me to try to argue with someone that's willing to ignore parts of the doctrine and blind themselves to more than first-degree consequences of actions.
Post by: Dwarf4Explosives on November 22, 2015, 06:47:43 am
Hoo boy D4E, you have just committed one of the biggest possible errors regarding thinking about infinity and probability. There's infinite real numbers between 1 and 10 but none of them are 11.What? My logic was pretty much infinity * random small number = infinity, albeit a smaller one than the first one.
Post by: SirQuiamus on November 22, 2015, 07:13:58 am
Sanctity of life is a very important aspect of Christian theology. A Christian failing to make the best effort to survive in a given circumstance is to disrespect the life God has given them. A doctor failing to do everything in their power to heal the sick is to disrespect the life of another - Jesus himself insisted that the greatest commandment is to love God and love your neighbour.If that really is a universal tenet of Christianity, why do some Christian fundamentalists approve of indiscriminate drone strikes and capital punishment? How do they cope with all that cognitive dissonance? Lobotomy?
The Scriptures are clear that we cannot know who is to be saved and who is not, so even if it were somehow acceptable to kill someone to send them to Heaven (which it isn't, see love, respect of life), you have a chance of doing them a grave disservice anyway.
Spoiler: Also relevant (click to show/hide)
Post by: Arx on November 22, 2015, 07:24:23 am
Lobotomy?
I sometimes think so. I've probably railed at length about how 'fundamentalist' 'Christianity' is, depending on the person, often only tangentially based off the Bible.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 22, 2015, 09:13:11 am
Post by: smjjames on November 22, 2015, 09:22:08 am
That's basically why the reformation happened.
I thought the reformation happened in part because the Church had essentially become corrupt?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 22, 2015, 09:28:18 am
Yes, people were not happy that the people in power (the pope, bishops) were the only ones that could actually read the bible, so they could basically get the people to do whatever they wanted by saying the bible allowed it. (For example, during the crusades, the pope said that the bible only forbade killing Christians, but killing Muslims was perfectly fine.) Then, when bibles were finally translated, people were like "oh crap! We've been lied to!" And then the reformation happened.That's basically why the reformation happened.
I thought the reformation happened in part because the Church had essentially become corrupt?
Post by: Sheb on November 22, 2015, 09:44:44 am
Yes, people were not happy that the people in power (the pope, bishops) were the only ones that could actually read the bible, so they could basically get the people to do whatever they wanted by saying the bible allowed it. (For example, during the crusades, the pope said that the bible only forbade killing Christians, but killing Muslims was perfectly fine.) Then, when bibles were finally translated, people were like "oh crap! We've been lied to!" And then the reformation happened.That's basically why the reformation happened.
I thought the reformation happened in part because the Church had essentially become corrupt?
Whig history as its finest.
Post by: SirQuiamus on November 22, 2015, 09:49:31 am
Amerifundies need to read some St. AugustineYou mean the part where he tells you to keep interpreting the bible over and over again until it starts to mean what it should mean if it had been written by proper Scotsmanned Christians and not a bunch of mushroom-eating, goat-humping, cave-dwelling crackpots? Sounds about right.
Take heed, fundamentalists: Exegesis is how you turn spittle-flecked "holy books" into self-consistent religious doctrines that foster good behaviour instead of justifying lunacy, and it is therefore no bloody wonder that certain religious groups without viable exegetical traditions are causing so much bloody trouble in the world today.
Post by: That Wolf on November 22, 2015, 09:59:39 am
I am wrathful and my revenge stew is almost ready to be served, now what starch do you want? Potatoes or Rice?
Tremble before my flavour full revenge that has been slow cooking for 4 hours the meat of it is falling apart and my juliene carrots are aldente, screw you man screw you.
Post by: SirQuiamus on November 22, 2015, 10:05:08 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 22, 2015, 11:54:06 am
You're not even trying.
You know what's a lot more difficult than 'hurrhurr Christians are dumb' or 'Some christians think this way, therefore all Christians are terrible people'?
Steelmanning your opponent's argument, and then proving it wrong. Have you tried that? Try acting as though you are a devout, intelligent Christian. It is entirely possible to be very intelligent, and still religious. They are not mutually exclusive.
Also to note: there are 2 billion Christians in the world, in a vast number of different sects, and there have been several wars and many many instances of persecution between those sects. Trying to say 'well all Christian fundamentalists believe X way' is just as much a Scotsman argument as 'no True Christian'. Just in the reverse direction.
Post by: Graknorke on November 22, 2015, 12:32:00 pm
You're assuming there is a chance of it at all. For all you know it could be literally impossible. It could also be entirely inevitable. Depending on the types of universes that can exist (since we're already assuming there's every possible one, which might also not be a thing) and how you define 'god-like' (Since AFAIK there's no dictionary limit besides being worshipped).Hoo boy D4E, you have just committed one of the biggest possible errors regarding thinking about infinity and probability. There's infinite real numbers between 1 and 10 but none of them are 11.What? My logic was pretty much infinity * random small number = infinity, albeit a smaller one than the first one.
Post by: Bohandas on November 22, 2015, 01:00:58 pm
"The "Problem of Evil" disproves most orthodox descriptions of the Christian God. God is generally held to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, and this is inconsistent with the existence of evil. For evil to exist god would either have to be unable to stop all of it (in which case he would not be omnipotent), not care about stopping all of it (in which case he would not be omnibenevolent), or not know about the instances he doesn't doesn't stop (in which case he would not be omniscient). Some, in order to get around this, would redefine evil to be synonomous with the absence of god, but this would require that god not be omnipresent"
Post by: SirQuiamus on November 22, 2015, 01:01:54 pm
You know what's a lot more difficult than 'hurrhurr Christians are dumb' or 'Some christians think this way, therefore all Christians are terrible people'?Where did you get that from?
Steelmanning your opponent's argument, and then proving it wrong. Have you tried that? Try acting as though you are a devout, intelligent Christian. It is entirely possible to be very intelligent, and still religious. They are not mutually exclusive.Okay, I'll do just that, except for the "proving it wrong" part: If I were a devout, intelligent Christian/Muslim fundamentalist, I would keep reading the bible/koran over and over and over again until I'd have formed a self-consistent religious worldview that guides me towards tolerance and good behaviour instead of abject lunacy and mass murder.
"Take up and read" is the word, not "shut up and obey."
EDIT:
Here's something I just wrote for a Yahoo Answers question challenging people to disprove the Christian god.There's nothing quite as boring as arguments for/against God's existence.
Post by: Arx on November 22, 2015, 01:37:34 pm
Post by: Rose on November 22, 2015, 01:48:25 pm
How many people here arguing for Christianity are believers, and how many are playing Devils advocate?
Post by: Descan on November 22, 2015, 03:30:53 pm
What, because someone killed a guy on purpose once they've inexplicably become unable to hold reasonable positions in society without doing so again, even when there are demonstrable changes in their behavior and values as demonstrated by religion or faith? Or is it just that you find the prospect too risky? (I may be misinterpreting you heavily; I apologize, I feel mentally exhausted after the doublethink)Mostly his point was that using their religion or faith, as in just the sheer existence of them having it OR coming to it while in prison, AS a demonstration of change in future behavior was... 'risky.' I'd say idiotic or batshit myself, but let's just go with risky.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 22, 2015, 03:32:48 pm
I have a question:I am a believer.
How many people here arguing for Christianity are believers, and how many are playing Devils advocate?
Post by: Dwarf4Explosives on November 22, 2015, 03:44:11 pm
EDIT:Here's something I just wrote for a Yahoo Answers question challenging people to disprove the Christian god.There's nothing quite as boring as arguments for/against God's existence.
Eh, I'd define it as simply a being of a power level of the kind associated with Greco-Roman type gods. Like being able to spontaneously generate lightning, having the ability to tell when people are talking about you, arbitrarily long lifespan and maybe nigh-invulnerability. Definitely possible, although not particularly likely to naturally occur.Especially ones that have been presented a million times before and rejected by a noticeable proportion of the vocal Christians in the thread.
Could someone please post a link to one of the counterarguments that have been presented? I've heard that argument brought up quite often, but I've not seen a reasonable counterargument yet.You're assuming there is a chance of it at all. For all you know it could be literally impossible. It could also be entirely inevitable. Depending on the types of universes that can exist (since we're already assuming there's every possible one, which might also not be a thing) and how you define 'god-like' (Since AFAIK there's no dictionary limit besides being worshipped).Hoo boy D4E, you have just committed one of the biggest possible errors regarding thinking about infinity and probability. There's infinite real numbers between 1 and 10 but none of them are 11.What? My logic was pretty much infinity * random small number = infinity, albeit a smaller one than the first one.
Post by: TD1 on November 22, 2015, 03:51:33 pm
As far as I can see, the only thing that makes a god a god is their ability to make life, and their ability to supply an afterlife. Given enough time we could do that. We could make a sentient robot, for example, and when its component parts are falling apart upload them somewhere nice.
What is the line between divinity and humanity? Given enough time, humans could become the divine.
Post by: Frumple on November 22, 2015, 04:08:27 pm
I have a question:Most of the people that've been arguing in its general favor have been... well, if not believers (We've got a catholic agnostic/atheist in here, iirc), then at least professed christians. Not been many devil's advocates, heh.
How many people here arguing for Christianity are believers, and how many are playing Devils advocate?
Post by: sprinkled chariot on November 22, 2015, 04:28:12 pm
Post by: Sheb on November 22, 2015, 04:30:24 pm
Catholic agnostics/ atheists, excuse me, what?
Hi!
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 22, 2015, 04:37:27 pm
You know what's a lot more difficult than 'hurrhurr Christians are dumb' or 'Some christians think this way, therefore all Christians are terrible people'?Where did you get that from?
That Wolf for the first part. Second part just seemed to be kinda the general sentiment about religion by some of the people here.
Ah, and DwArfy1? I would posit that what separates divinity from humanity is humanity's inability to become divine.
Though I also really like the idea that a god is defined as something capable of existing in two places at the same time, which comes from a book series. If you try and dissect the words or whatever, then it becomes meaningless, but that's what happens when you try to pull language out of context and dissect it.
Also possibly existing on a different level of dimensions than we do, which is so far beyond the way our brains have been made to understand the world it is difficult to physically conceive of in a meaningful way.
Post by: Graknorke on November 22, 2015, 04:39:46 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 22, 2015, 04:44:07 pm
You know what's a lot more difficult than 'hurrhurr Christians are dumb' or 'Some christians think this way, therefore all Christians are terrible people'?Where did you get that from?
That Wolf for the first part. Second part just seemed to be kinda the general sentiment about religion by some of the people here.
Ah, and DwArfy1? I would posit that what separates divinity from humanity is humanity's inability to become divine.
Though I also really like the idea that a god is defined as something capable of existing in two places at the same time, which comes from a book series. If you try and dissect the words or whatever, then it becomes meaningless, but that's what happens when you try to pull language out of context and dissect it.
Also possibly existing on a different level of dimensions than we do, which is so far beyond the way our brains have been made to understand the world it is difficult to physically conceive of in a meaningful way.
So anything that makes a clone of itself or transcends into a different dimension you would call a god? What is there about being able to go somewhere others can't that makes you divine? My nephew can fit into smaller places than me, doesn't mean I worship him. Although I do give him offerings of Haribos now and then...hmmm...:P
Post by: Adragis on November 22, 2015, 04:45:59 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 22, 2015, 04:49:44 pm
I can replicate, even duplicate, a chair, and have it be identical down to the atomic level, to the subatomic level. It is still two chairs, not a single chair.
Although if you want to talk about what makes you worthy of being worshipped, that's another matter, and a more utilitarian one; a supremely powerful being exists that rewards those who pay homage to it, and punishes those who do not. Which is the more logical of the two actions, speaking from a standpoint of self-interest?
Divinity just happens to mean that such a being rewards or punishes infinitely, and thus no suffering or reward that is physical can compare to or dissuade your action of paying homage to it.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 22, 2015, 04:55:12 pm
No; duplication is not the same as a single object or being existing in two places simultaneously.This sounds like the Banach-tarski paradox (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA)
I can replicate, even duplicate, a chair, and have it be identical down to the atomic level, to the subatomic level. It is still two chairs, not a single chair.
Although if you want to talk about what makes you worthy of being worshipped, that's another matter, and a more utilitarian one; a supremely powerful being exists that rewards those who pay homage to it, and punishes those who do not. Which is the more logical of the two actions, speaking from a standpoint of self-interest?
Divinity just happens to mean that such a being rewards or punishes infinitely, and thus no suffering or reward that is physical can compare to or dissuade your action of paying homage to it.
Post by: TD1 on November 22, 2015, 05:05:50 pm
Divinity just happens to mean that such a being rewards or punishes infinitely, and thus no suffering or reward that is physical can compare to or dissuade your action of paying homage to it.
As I said, humans could do this with robots. We could upload them to a program that infinitely punishes or rewards. Being a judge, being able to do powerful things or go strange and exciting places does not make you divine. It maybe makes you the highest step on the ladder, but that's not saying much. So was Julius Caesar, and various other emperors who made their subjects worship them.
Post by: Dwarf4Explosives on November 22, 2015, 05:29:45 pm
1: The kind caused naturally by quantum physics or general relativity.
2: Distributed consciousness a la ants nests.
3: Two brain-like systems running in parallel.
4: A single brain, but with multiple bodies.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 22, 2015, 05:31:55 pm
Wow, no. Nobody is saying that Christians are bad people. We're criticizing ideas, which is utterly different.You know what's a lot more difficult than 'hurrhurr Christians are dumb' or 'Some christians think this way, therefore all Christians are terrible people'?Where did you get that from?
That Wolf for the first part. Second part just seemed to be kinda the general sentiment about religion by some of the people here.
If you have a problem with that "general sentiment", keep in mind that one of the underlying ideas in Christianity is that *all* people are terrible. Most atheists disagree with that, claiming that humans are generally moral without requiring divine intervention.
Which means, *technically*, Christians are saying that we're terrible and we're saying that they aren't. Which is a silly way of putting it, but technically true.
But seriously, I think you're mistaking arguments over beliefs for personal attacks.
Keep in mind that I don't understand what That Wolf is saying 90% of the time. I think there's a language barrier? He might be insulting people for all I know.
Ah, and DwArfy1? I would posit that what separates divinity from humanity is humanity's inability to become divine.That would explain a lot. I think we've had long arguments about what it means to really be "outside" the universe... If something can reach into our observable universe, there's no reason to think we couldn't someday reach out. Even if it's just communication. And, like probing a black box, we could gain understanding of this outside entity by observing its interactions with us and our universe.
Though I also really like the idea that a god is defined as something capable of existing in two places at the same time, which comes from a book series. If you try and dissect the words or whatever, then it becomes meaningless, but that's what happens when you try to pull language out of context and dissect it.
Also possibly existing on a different level of dimensions than we do, which is so far beyond the way our brains have been made to understand the world it is difficult to physically conceive of in a meaningful way.
Only problem is, we can't observe those interactions because we don't have any solid data on them. As if they don't exist, or are actively hiding from verification. Otherwise we'd have a whole field of study for "Extradimensional Psychology".
I'm not mocking - I kinda believe in the latter. That there are bizarre entities which avoid scientific scrutiny for mysterious reasons. I call them "fairies" or "little people", though, not gods.
One difference is that gods, according to ancient people, appeared often and performed great miracles so that they *would* be seen and believed. Including Jehovah. Fairies have always been secretive, often even allergic to science. Which is a convenient excuse for why we can't find them, but also consistent. Modern religions claim that the gods gradually stopped performing miracles, and rarely explain why.
An exception might be Norse mythology. I don't know much about modern day practice, but one could explain the silence of the gods by saying they were killed in Ragnarok. Like fairies, consistent with the lore.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 22, 2015, 05:38:23 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 22, 2015, 05:40:22 pm
In my book, anyway.
Post by: Bohandas on November 22, 2015, 05:44:41 pm
You know what's a lot more difficult than 'hurrhurr Christians are dumb' or 'Some christians think this way, therefore all Christians are terrible people'?Where did you get that from?
That Wolf for the first part. Second part just seemed to be kinda the general sentiment about religion by some of the people here.
Ah, and DwArfy1? I would posit that what separates divinity from humanity is humanity's inability to become divine.
Though I also really like the idea that a god is defined as something capable of existing in two places at the same time, which comes from a book series. If you try and dissect the words or whatever, then it becomes meaningless, but that's what happens when you try to pull language out of context and dissect it.
An electron can be in two places at once
Also possibly existing on a different level of dimensions than we do, which is so far beyond the way our brains have been made to understand the world it is difficult to physically conceive of in a meaningful way.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
No; duplication is not the same as a single object or being existing in two places simultaneously.This sounds like the Banach-tarski paradox (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA)
I can replicate, even duplicate, a chair, and have it be identical down to the atomic level, to the subatomic level. It is still two chairs, not a single chair.
Although if you want to talk about what makes you worthy of being worshipped, that's another matter, and a more utilitarian one; a supremely powerful being exists that rewards those who pay homage to it, and punishes those who do not. Which is the more logical of the two actions, speaking from a standpoint of self-interest?
Divinity just happens to mean that such a being rewards or punishes infinitely, and thus no suffering or reward that is physical can compare to or dissuade your action of paying homage to it.
I think Banach-Tarski is more relevant to the feeding of the multitude
EDIT:Here's something I just wrote for a Yahoo Answers question challenging people to disprove the Christian god.There's nothing quite as boring as arguments for/against God's existence.Eh, I'd define it as simply a being of a power level of the kind associated with Greco-Roman type gods. Like being able to spontaneously generate lightning, having the ability to tell when people are talking about you, arbitrarily long lifespan and maybe nigh-invulnerability. Definitely possible, although not particularly likely to naturally occur.Especially ones that have been presented a million times before and rejected by a noticeable proportion of the vocal Christians in the thread.
Could someone please post a link to one of the counterarguments that have been presented? I've heard that argument brought up quite often, but I've not seen a reasonable counterargument yet.You're assuming there is a chance of it at all. For all you know it could be literally impossible. It could also be entirely inevitable. Depending on the types of universes that can exist (since we're already assuming there's every possible one, which might also not be a thing) and how you define 'god-like' (Since AFAIK there's no dictionary limit besides being worshipped).Hoo boy D4E, you have just committed one of the biggest possible errors regarding thinking about infinity and probability. There's infinite real numbers between 1 and 10 but none of them are 11.What? My logic was pretty much infinity * random small number = infinity, albeit a smaller one than the first one.
This ties into what I said before about technology delivering miracles. Throwing lightning bolts is basically a simple parlor trick now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-vz82dx6gQ
Wow, no. Nobody is saying that Christians are bad people. We're criticizing ideas, which is utterly different.You know what's a lot more difficult than 'hurrhurr Christians are dumb' or 'Some christians think this way, therefore all Christians are terrible people'?Where did you get that from?
That Wolf for the first part. Second part just seemed to be kinda the general sentiment about religion by some of the people here.
If you have a problem with that "general sentiment", keep in mind that one of the underlying ideas in Christianity is that *all* people are terrible. Most atheists disagree with that, claiming that humans are generally moral without requiring divine intervention.
Personally I believe that everything's empty and meaningless either way. God does not remove the terror of science.
Though technically I'm an agnostic due the the dodge about what constitutes a god being poorly defined and the low barriers to entry in ancient pantheons.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 22, 2015, 05:52:39 pm
Terrible is a bad way to put it. More like, everybody is messed up.Everybody is utterly depraved?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 22, 2015, 05:53:35 pm
You know what? Nevermind. This is going to end up derailing the thread.Terrible is a bad way to put it. More like, everybody is messed up.Everybody is utterly depraved?
Post by: TD1 on November 22, 2015, 05:54:43 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 22, 2015, 06:07:01 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 22, 2015, 07:05:51 pm
Post by: Graknorke on November 22, 2015, 07:07:47 pm
Original sin makes everyone irredeemably evil forever, regardless of action.
Post by: TD1 on November 22, 2015, 07:12:40 pm
Is this so hard to grasp? I've seen plenty of atheists write about why humans are greedy, short-sighted, xenophobic or tribal, violent, etc, usually giving an evolutionary explanation. Original sin is Christianity explaining the same thing. It's not saying humans are any more evil than they observably are.
No, but it's still saying you are bad. You are tainted forever by original sin. It is seminally present in all mankind. Secularists don't say that someone is evil, but they have redeemable qualities (in Christianity, belief in Jesus/God/whatever). Secularists tend to say people are both good and bad, and that their "redeemable" qualities are held against their bad ones, not that they're actually bad.
At least, that's what I've observed.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 22, 2015, 07:15:27 pm
Supporting that, regressives still tout the original interpretation: that we all deserve eternal, literal, fire. It's as common as it is disturbing, even if no one here believes in it.
Post by: TD1 on November 22, 2015, 07:47:19 pm
Quote
Some people think the planets are the world's on Yggdrasil's roots. After all, 9 planets (including Pluto). If you take into account the characteristics of each planet, you could see a pattern, provided you notice some things:What's everybody's take?
Mars could be Asgaard. It is the closest planet to us outside of Venus and there was evidence there was things there before us, such as water, a face on Mars, etc.
Jupiter, the home of the Giants as it is the biggest planet in our solar system and jotunheim WAS one of the bigger worlds. It also is next to Mars, so if Asgaard was Mars, it would mean they could go there easily.
Now the gas giants. We can't get on them because they're so different. Now there are three of them and three worlds that catered to different races: Dark Elves, Elves and Dwarves. If this is true, then this could mean that there could possibly have been land there and that it was destroyed.
Venus is quite obvious. Venus, being the hottest planet fits the bill for muspell. A burning planet that roasts everything that sets foot on it? Welcome to hell.
Pluto. That ice block planet? Nifelheim; home of he frost Giants and Hel. Frozen wastelands and farthest away from the gods (assuming Mars). When Hermod rode to Hel, the way was dark and cold, and it makes sense so far away out there.
Mercury is kind of an anomaly to me, as I forgot the last world and that's the one that is MIA to me
Edit: Don't worry, I asked before posting it.
Post by: TempAcc on November 22, 2015, 08:27:50 pm
Anyway, I personaly found myself distancing from religions that have concepts of ~eternal hell~ and of a heaven consisting entirely of placid contemplation, for reasons properly and fully explained on the book I linked earlier.
Post by: TD1 on November 22, 2015, 08:34:12 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 22, 2015, 08:35:24 pm
jupiter is in no way *next* to mars. for adjacent planets they're actually quite far from each other and i'm not even counting when they're on opposite sides of the sun
Post by: TempAcc on November 22, 2015, 08:45:19 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 22, 2015, 08:49:47 pm
Well nordic myth IS rather popular, like greek mythology. It has really cool elements built into it (gods that are badasses, huge battles, full of heroes and epic tales, etc), and had some really interesting syncretic interactions with christianity (at one point in norway, Jesus was worshipped alongside Thor, for example). Its no surprise it got used in some very famous operas and many other stuff in recent times. Lord of the Rings, for example, was inspired in nordic myth in many ways, though under a christianized view.The bible also has its fair share of huge battles. So it really isn't all that different in that sense.
Post by: TD1 on November 22, 2015, 08:53:33 pm
Post by: TempAcc on November 22, 2015, 08:55:33 pm
Post by: Rose on November 22, 2015, 08:59:45 pm
It's a lot easier to have make and have accepted a comic book character based off of a foreign and dead religion than one that the authors and readers actually practice,for example. Otherwise you'd have Jesus in the avengers.
Post by: TD1 on November 22, 2015, 09:00:57 pm
Quote
Otherwise you'd have Jesus in the avengers.Now that would be epic.
"Quick, Jesus! Walk over that water to defeat the foe with spontaneously appearing baskets of bread!"
Post by: TempAcc on November 22, 2015, 09:02:44 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 22, 2015, 09:13:22 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 22, 2015, 09:14:50 pm
Yeah, the bible definitely isn't a children's book.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 22, 2015, 09:18:01 pm
Yeah, a shame. I think Japa's right aboutthe reasoning.
Jesus would be the one black character whose brave self sacrifice lets everyone defeat the villain?
I remember reading a set of entertaining bit raunchy Norse stories. Skeggas Edda I think? Can't check atm. I think they were pretty NSFW at times though.
Of course I later learned that Frigg (Freya?) buying the Dwarven necklace was old canon not fanfic...
Post by: Graknorke on November 22, 2015, 09:21:03 pm
Otherwise you'd have Jesus in the avengers.No, Jesus is legitimately more boring. I think it's the lack of humanity in the character, which is ironic given his role in the narrative. No particularly strong (personal) likes or dislikes, no vices, never wrong or fooled by anything... just not something an audience could ever relate to or understand much.
In Norse mythology Thor does things wrong and has problems and isn't operating on his perfect plan all the time. And at the same time he's operating with understandable motives.
Ninjad: I guess Samson could count, but he was also very very murdery with nowhere near a good enough reason that I've ever been able to discern. He could work in a Michael Bay style film where everything's blown up and the plot doesn't matter.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 22, 2015, 09:24:07 pm
chapters 1-4 he's around 15 years old, then chapter 5 and he's suddenly 80-ish years. Whatever.
Post by: MaximumZero on November 22, 2015, 09:56:25 pm
No particularly strong (personal) likes or dislikes, no vices, never wrong or fooled by anything... just not something an audience could ever relate to or understand much.Hates traders in the temple (and broke out a whip to prove it,) liked alcohol and hanging with bums, pissed off by a fig tree that refused to bear him fruit out of season, stole a horse to teach his boys a lesson by having it destroy their clothes, and has a couple sweet one liners, like, "I bring not peace, but a sword." Let's face it, Jesus isn't in the Avengers because it would piss off most Americans, and Thor is regarded as mythology instead of mainstream religion. Maybe in the Avengers 3600AD.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 22, 2015, 10:01:23 pm
I have a question:I am a believer.
How many people here arguing for Christianity are believers, and how many are playing Devils advocate?
And Neil Diamond started singing in my head: "I couldn't leave her if I tried." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7OHK9vvhi0)
Is this so hard to grasp? I've seen plenty of atheists write about why humans are greedy, short-sighted, xenophobic or tribal, violent, etc, usually giving an evolutionary explanation. Original sin is Christianity explaining the same thing. It's not saying humans are any more evil than they observably are.
Original sin isn't even remotely comparable. http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene.htm
It's like if you invented a nanobot that could give any animal human-level intelligence, human-like vocal cords, and the ability to speak, and you injected said nanobots into a fruit. Then you sat it on the table, told your dog not to eat it, and walked away. Then, when you come back and it's gone, you throw a fit, tell him you only had ONE RULE and he BROKE IT, so that's it, he's OUT! FOREVER! Oh, and you're cursing the whole earth, and the plants, and him too, because you're just that furious. (For simplicity, I didn't try to include two dogs, fig leaves, or a fruit tree, although one expects they would go for the fruit tree just as well and it's just a matter of one dog not keeping the other dog from eating any :P)
Post by: Bohandas on November 22, 2015, 10:42:48 pm
They're also foreign, which I think lends them more to reinterpretation and usage.
It's a lot easier to have make and have accepted a comic book character based off of a foreign and dead religion than one that the authors and readers actually practice,for example. Otherwise you'd have Jesus in the avengers.
That was basically the premise of the final act of that South Park episode where they fight David Blaine
Post by: Bohandas on November 22, 2015, 10:51:56 pm
Post by: Bohandas on November 22, 2015, 11:16:38 pm
EDIT:
Also, identifying a deity with Jesus allows Christians to be drawn in more easily
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 22, 2015, 11:56:24 pm
Original sin makes everyone irredeemably evil forever, regardless of action.
I get almost exactly the opposite impression, unless you mean 'regardless of action that isn't returning to God'.
When you define Good and God as being the same, yes, it's convenient, but it's also consistent, more or less. Devil and Evil are fairly similar too, in fact.
As for the electrons thing; from what I know of quantum physics, they're never in a single place for longer than literally an instant. Perhaps we will find the Planck-space of time to be the amount of time an electron spends in a single location. And in any case, that's rather missing the point and arguing in bad faith ('well what about this specific instance that technically fulfills your definition's wording without fulfilling it's spirit').
And I only realized after typing that, the irony of arguing in bad faith on a religious thread.
Still, I like where the discussion's gone. Norse mythology is far more intuitive to me than Christian mythology.
I blame fantasy books.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 23, 2015, 01:18:08 am
Post by: scrdest on November 23, 2015, 04:07:50 am
I would love to see Samson in the Avengers. He killed a thousand Philistines with a donkey skull. How is that not awesome?And cracked a one-liner at the end.
Post by: That Wolf on November 23, 2015, 04:15:08 am
ass to meet you?
Ive been thinking of making an rpg set within a biblical setting.
I think it would be neat
Post by: scrdest on November 23, 2015, 04:22:02 am
Donkey punch?'With an ass jawbone I made asses of them'.
ass to meet you?
Ive been thinking of making an rpg set within a biblical setting.
I think it would be neat
Post by: Arx on November 23, 2015, 04:23:15 am
Samson was a bit of an idiot, though.
Post by: That Wolf on November 23, 2015, 04:39:32 am
The reason norse mythology is more intuitive is cause it doesnt stem away from true humanity, we are all killers and animals and norse mytho is like that christian mythology came later and evolved from it but declared being a humam is wrong and easy to debunk. but a god that came from a comic bovine that came from the abyss is hard to disprove.
Nobody truely owns anything but its a sin to steal?... ok sure sure buddy, sounds like a paranoid bunch of somethings wrote it.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 23, 2015, 06:06:40 am
christian mythology came later and evolved from itNot the case. In fact, much of what we see as being classical Norse mythology is in fact heavily influenced by Christianity. It wasn't written down much (if at all, I'm foggy on the details) before Christian missionaries arrived, and even then they did the classical Christian thing of commandeering local culture as part of the liturgy to make converting the heathens a little less onerous. We can't even know for sure if stuff like Ragnarok is purely Norse or born from Christian end-times influence.
Course, that's what happens when the only people who can write are heavily biased. History is written by the victor, and all that.
Post by: TempAcc on November 23, 2015, 06:37:14 am
I would't say norse mythology is ~more intuitive~ really. It was just built around the social values of the peoples that used it as a guideline for their lives, but had its own share of weirdness and contradictions. Worship of Odin, in fact, was very much counter intuitive in regards to old norse culture. Keep in mind that the peoples we know as "vikings" very much valued manliness and domination through sheer power, which is why Thor was easily the most popular god, since he epitomized strenght and manliness. Odin, on the other hand, despite being Thor's father and the unquestionable leader of the gods, was way more subtle, making constant use of subterfuge and magic (something considered very unmanly by known viking standards, magic was very much the domain of women in old norse culture, and wizards were often considered effeminated), showing himself as meek and inferior when it favoured his plans. In that way, Odin was very much a more powerful, less dickish Loki, a god who was almost universally reviled in norse tradition due to being an effeminated trickster, and was very often the butt monkey of many a tale.
This was considered okay, however, because it was Odin doing it, and not anyone else, a concession that wasn't made to any other god.
Hell, even Thor himself did some questionable things in his adventures with Loki, going as far up to crossdressing, something near unthinkable to your average norse warrior.
In regards to christian morals/the ten commandments, you have to take into consideration that it very much intended as a basic (emphasis on basic) set of rules to maintain a peaceful society. Its intended to work against the natural inclinations of people and make them better. Its even illustrated in the bible just how easy it is for people to fall into idolatry and chaos, as seen in the scene in which Moses comes down from the mountain with the ten commandments and finds his people worshipping a golden bull, doing orgies and all that fun stuff just because he left them to their own devices for a while, even though they had witnessed miracles and listened to Moses before.
Post by: That Wolf on November 23, 2015, 06:59:14 am
He was held in great esteem because of his valhalla ticket and being one of the first 3 gods but to get there you had to die in battle or somesuch. So that could be why wizards were treated lowly, and since magic probably never worked the warriors and farmers would have stayed away from it or be subject to humiliation during mead drinking times.
Women however are chaotic and have a stronger sense of intuition than men and could have a higher 'divination' sucess rate, men being men after all would have respected an old woman to some degree. Times arnt really any different now than they have been and will be.
Manly men will always look down on subtlty.
Stealth on the other hand, people fear a good shadow artist.
If a man wants to wear a dress, let the man wear one!
"Thor.. I see your hammer"
Post by: Cthulhu on November 23, 2015, 07:43:07 am
Mosaic law is about exclusion, about establishing who is God's people and who isn't through the ritualized creation of boundaries. Menstruating women are separate, sins are ritually cast out via scapegoat, customs associated with non-Yahweh tribes are prohibited and new customs like circumcision are created to distinguish Hebrews and Pagans, etc. etc.
Post by: Dwarf4Explosives on November 23, 2015, 09:12:11 am
It's like if you invented a nanobot that could give any animal human-level intelligence, human-like vocal cords, and the ability to speak, and you injected said nanobots into a fruit. Then you sat it on the table, told your dog not to eat it, and walked away. Then, when you come back and it's gone, you throw a fit, tell him you only had ONE RULE and he BROKE IT, so that's it, he's OUT! FOREVER! Oh, and you're cursing the whole earth, and the plants, and him too, because you're just that furious. (For simplicity, I didn't try to include two dogs, fig leaves, or a fruit tree, although one expects they would go for the fruit tree just as well and it's just a matter of one dog not keeping the other dog from eating any :P)This analogy would work better if you replaced the fruit with cheese. Dogs can easily be commanded not to get fruit, but they'll show A-grade parkour skills to get cheese.
Also:
As for the electrons thing; from what I know of quantum physics, they're never in a single place for longer than literally an instant. Perhaps we will find the Planck-space of time to be the amount of time an electron spends in a single location. And in any case, that's rather missing the point and arguing in bad faith ('well what about this specific instance that technically fulfills your definition's wording without fulfilling it's spirit').
Electrons are in only one space for only one instant when decoherence happens. After that, they're back to existing in a wide variety of spaces, determined by the waveform. Of course, this is only the Copenhagen interpretation, which leaves a lot to be desired.
Also, since people are talking about which religious character they think is the coolest, I think Quetzalcoat is pretty cool. Requirements: butterfly net, hot chocolate, peppers. Personality: the laid-back, relatively peaceful one of his pantheon, but still capable of severe badassery when needed. Looks: ridiculously adorable (look at the infamous happy thread snake picture (snaek) if you are foolish enough to disagree). All he asks for is the death of members of the horrible abomination that is Lepidoptera (http://bogleech.com/arachnophobia.html).
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 23, 2015, 11:08:11 am
My favorite biblical passage, personally.
Post by: Cthulhu on November 24, 2015, 05:21:12 pm
(http://www.newsmanity.com/resources/Supernatural/angel-trumpet.jpg) (https://youtu.be/-cZ7ndjhhps?t=11)
Post by: TempAcc on November 25, 2015, 06:44:05 am
I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what you're trying to say.
Mosaic law is about exclusion, about establishing who is God's people and who isn't through the ritualized creation of boundaries. Menstruating women are separate, sins are ritually cast out via scapegoat, customs associated with non-Yahweh tribes are prohibited and new customs like circumcision are created to distinguish Hebrews and Pagans, etc. etc.
Not quite, IMHO. I referred specifically to the ten commandments. While both protestants and many catholics refer to mosaic law as completely divine and thus immutable, I personally disagree with this. "Mosaic" law can be divided in two parts: The ten commandments, which is the core and most basic, generalistic part, supposedly dictated to Moses by God atop mount Sinai, and laws dictated by Moses himself either prior or after the ten commandments, that deal with far more specific cases and are the ones to actualy prescribe punishments to things, and are very much based around the jewish customs of the time, and aims to distance hebrews from pagan practices and customs by enforcing jewish customs while harshly punishing anything somewhat similar to pagan practices, and other things.
This last part is completely mutable and was only applicable at the time of Moses, and is incompatible to any different kind of society and culture. While Jesus talks of Moses in the new testament and says he received the law from God, he does not talk in specifics, which may mean he was referring to the ten commandments, which are divine in origin. Emphasis on "receive", meaning Moses did not create the law Jesus refers to, but rather received it from God. Jesus makes no references of other rules dictated by Moses. For example, while Moses prohibited his people from "summoning the dead" and "killing of a dangerous ox", Jesus says absolutely nothing of these things. These other laws were interpretations of the ten commandments and other elaborations Moses had to make to keep shit togheder in a big group that was formed out of several different other groups, in order to quell internal conflict and manage things more easily. In order to legitimize his power, he probably claimed these rulings were divine in origin as well, but thats just my interpretation of it.
Such laws make sense in the context of Moses, but not outside of it. For example, "summoning/communicating the dead" was something often done by pagans as means of fortune telling, something which Moses outlawed in order to keep his people away from pagan beliefs and customs that they were often being exposed to. Yet, communicating with the dead is something thats done by Jesus and the apostles, and in a way, is done even today in the catholic church, by praying to saints and asking for their intervention. Does this mean the catholic church, Jesus and the apostles are all in the wrong? Not really, since Moses' specific rulings are not applicable to them.
Post by: Cthulhu on November 25, 2015, 07:57:08 am
If I assume ahead of time that Mosaic law wasn't received then I guess if I'm pedantic about word choice Jesus didn't refer to it, but that's circular. Mosaic law isn't divine, therefore Jesus didn't mention it, therefore it isn't divine.
In any case, none of that actually says anything about what I said. Mosaic law is still a system of exclusion and separation designed to create a clear boundary between the chosen people and the pagans.
Post by: TempAcc on November 25, 2015, 08:02:53 am
Do you have any specific citations to support this idea that the law isn't received (from the perspective of a believer of course, I don't think any of it was received)? To me this sounds like you're making it say what you want to say. You're taking a preconceived, non-Biblical notion (Only the ten commandments are divine and the rest is made up) and then using that notion to interpret scripture to fit your notion.
If I assume ahead of time that Mosaic law wasn't received then I guess if I'm pedantic about word choice Jesus didn't refer to it, but that's circular. Mosaic law isn't divine, therefore Jesus didn't mention it, therefore it isn't divine.
In any case, none of that actually says anything about what I said. Mosaic law is still a system of exclusion and separation designed to create a clear boundary between the chosen people and the pagans.
IMHO
Can anyone or anyone authority, in any way, make a statement of fact in regards to the contents bible or the true nature of mosaic law? My statement is as valid as yours. Your opinion of mosaic law (which apparently includes the ten commandments) says it is exclusory in function, while mine says only the non ~ten commandments~ part of it had that function. We're essentialy both saying what we think of it, altough I seem to be the only one not outright claiming to be right about all this.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 25, 2015, 09:24:21 am
The commandments are only for the Israelites, and the first four mainly describe differences between them and other people. Particularly the first:
"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."
Only worship one god, have no idols, don't use his name in vain, and worship him on Sunday.
(How did people seriously get this into courtrooms and public areas)
Anyway those first four commandments basically keep ancient Israelites from sharing in the polytheistic faith of the time.
Post by: That Wolf on November 25, 2015, 09:35:19 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 25, 2015, 11:13:29 am
I'm still fairly well under the impression that a significant chunk of mosaic law was designed to codify the various things that were useful for not dying horribly. Like don't eat Shellfish, desert dwellers. It goes bad really fast, and will poison you.
Post by: Cthulhu on November 25, 2015, 11:15:44 am
Do you have any specific citations to support this idea that the law isn't received (from the perspective of a believer of course, I don't think any of it was received)? To me this sounds like you're making it say what you want to say. You're taking a preconceived, non-Biblical notion (Only the ten commandments are divine and the rest is made up) and then using that notion to interpret scripture to fit your notion.
If I assume ahead of time that Mosaic law wasn't received then I guess if I'm pedantic about word choice Jesus didn't refer to it, but that's circular. Mosaic law isn't divine, therefore Jesus didn't mention it, therefore it isn't divine.
In any case, none of that actually says anything about what I said. Mosaic law is still a system of exclusion and separation designed to create a clear boundary between the chosen people and the pagans.IMHO
Can anyone or anyone authority, in any way, make a statement of fact in regards to the contents bible or the true nature of mosaic law? My statement is as valid as yours. Your opinion of mosaic law (which apparently includes the ten commandments) says it is exclusory in function, while mine says only the non ~ten commandments~ part of it had that function. We're essentialy both saying what we think of it, altough I seem to be the only one not outright claiming to be right about all this.
What you said wasn't an opinion though. Yes, you can make fact statements about the contents of the Bible. I'd call your thing a supposition, you're saying something that either is or isn't true with nothing to back it up.
(response to removed post removed)
Post by: Frumple on November 25, 2015, 11:20:57 am
Post by: TempAcc on November 25, 2015, 11:30:53 am
When its specifically announced in the context of an opinion, as an opinion, its not an opinion :v?
(response to removed post removed)
Post by: Graknorke on November 25, 2015, 12:09:05 pm
Post by: Toady One on November 25, 2015, 01:06:38 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 25, 2015, 05:28:11 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 25, 2015, 06:10:21 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 25, 2015, 06:13:10 pm
... guessing youtube? Would be faintly surprised if there's actually a TV show by that title.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 25, 2015, 06:17:37 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on November 25, 2015, 06:22:00 pm
Post by: scrdest on November 25, 2015, 06:29:45 pm
Post by: Graknorke on November 25, 2015, 06:45:55 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 25, 2015, 06:50:28 pm
I mostly listen to TheBibleReloaded who are gradually doing a bible study. They also make fun of Chick tracks and Christian movies. They're very *crude*, but actually emphasize having respect for Christians and others. They just make dirty jokes about everyone (especially themselves).
For less crude (and maybe more insightful), AronRa is probably my favorite.
SecularTalk is okay too, but it's very political. In a way I agree with, but still - that's its purpose, discussing progressive issues related to secularism. An offshoot of The Young Turks.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 25, 2015, 07:01:09 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 25, 2015, 07:02:09 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 25, 2015, 11:03:53 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 26, 2015, 05:27:07 am
Out of curiosity, how many people here watch the amazing atheist?banana
Post by: TempAcc on November 26, 2015, 06:29:32 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 26, 2015, 07:24:11 am
(including inserting things into his butt on live video, apparently)...
......
.........
I don't suppose the video still exists somewhere?
Post by: TempAcc on November 26, 2015, 07:32:38 am
bananaThere's also, er, other things, but you don't want to know. I didn't want to know either.
Don't do it
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 26, 2015, 12:05:02 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2015, 12:52:18 pm
Ever since I first heard of theamazingatheist, I still have doubts on wheter he's a really insane militant atheist who's starved for attention or some sort of really persisting comedian who's really good at keeping his act. He's done some really weird stuff in the past though (including inserting things into his butt on live video, apparently), which led me to believe he's at least somewhat mentally unstable. But hey, its the internet :vTempAcc believes that butt stuff makes you mentally ill, confirmed.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 26, 2015, 12:54:06 pm
TempAcc believes that butt stuff makes you mentally ill, confirmed.You haven't seen bananas
You could never know
Such butt ravaged madness
Illness of mind and body
Post by: TempAcc on November 26, 2015, 12:56:54 pm
Or the advent of the boiling oil, or the comments about lowering the age of consent to 13, or the everything :vTempAcc believes that butt stuff makes you mentally ill, confirmed.You haven't seen bananas
You could never know
Such butt ravaged madness
Illness of mind and body
Post by: Bohandas on November 26, 2015, 02:26:50 pm
Do you have any specific citations to support this idea that the law isn't received (from the perspective of a believer of course, I don't think any of it was received)? To me this sounds like you're making it say what you want to say. You're taking a preconceived, non-Biblical notion (Only the ten commandments are divine and the rest is made up) and then using that notion to interpret scripture to fit your notion.
If I assume ahead of time that Mosaic law wasn't received then I guess if I'm pedantic about word choice Jesus didn't refer to it, but that's circular. Mosaic law isn't divine, therefore Jesus didn't mention it, therefore it isn't divine.
In any case, none of that actually says anything about what I said. Mosaic law is still a system of exclusion and separation designed to create a clear boundary between the chosen people and the pagans.
"2. Some Pharisees came to test Him. “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” they inquired.
3 “What did Moses command you?” He replied.
4 They answered, “Moses permitted a man to write his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because your hearts were hard.""
-Mark 10:2-5 (BSB)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 26, 2015, 02:53:04 pm
Post by: Graknorke on November 26, 2015, 03:21:43 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 26, 2015, 03:40:00 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 26, 2015, 03:51:17 pm
Because it would insult what Jesus did. It would be like someone offering to buy you dinner, then you buying the most expensive thing on the menu.
There are those that would argue that not doing that would make you a moron. :P
Post by: TempAcc on November 26, 2015, 04:43:24 pm
Its like assuming someone who paid for your bail once will do so everytime you get arrested.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 26, 2015, 05:55:18 pm
Because it would insult what Jesus did. It would be like someone offering to buy you dinner, then you buying the most expensive thing on the menu.
Clearly you haven't been to one of those churches where they tell you that the only thing you need to do to be saved is to ask Jesus to be your personal savior. (I attended one one time, on an invitation)
Methinks there are quite a few people who fail into this segment of Christianity, since it is literally effortless and their Jesus apparently forgives everything.
Post by: Graknorke on November 26, 2015, 05:58:26 pm
Jesus did not exempt anyone from being a good person, just from old laws/customs that made no sense anymore and the old sins of humanity. You can still screw yourself over :vDid he ever explicitly say which ones you're exempt from though? I don't know of there being an exhaustive list of specifics but maybe there is.
Its like assuming someone who paid for your bail once will do so everytime you get arrested.
Post by: TempAcc on November 26, 2015, 06:06:24 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 26, 2015, 06:16:33 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 26, 2015, 06:34:55 pm
Did he ever explicitly say which ones you're exempt from though? I don't know of there being an exhaustive list of specifics but maybe there is.For the churches that actually care about that sort of thing, there's normally a distinction made between moral, civil, and ceremonial Mosaic law.
The moral law is stuff like the Ten Commandments. Broad, nonspecific, "don't do this stuff, it's bad". These laws are a general expression of how God wants us to act.
Civil law is the ridiculously specific stuff that you get in Leviticus, that sets rules for slave ownership and property rights and all that. These were relevant to ye olde nation of Israel, basically God's divinely ordained legal system. You can argue that we should use these as a basis for modern law, but there's not really any point. I mean, who has slaves any more, geez.
Similarly, ceremonial laws are for the priesthood, sacrifices, and other religious... ceremonies. These were specifically relevant to Judaism, and were absolutely made redundant by Christ. When these laws are cited in a modern context it's usually to defend the idea that we should be building big, fancy churches, and generally putting a lot of money and effort into worship. Which has some merit IMO, but if it gets in the way of, say, providing for the poor, then you're flagrantly missing the point.
So basically, moral law is always relevant. Do not murder, do not lie, provide for those in need, hold God in the highest esteem.
Civil law is arguably relevant (but not really). Sell your land after seven years, don't keep your slaves forever (unless they want to stay), killing someone by accident is forgiveable if you go to this city afterwards.
Ceremonial law is redundant and only vaguely relevant for modern worship. Sacrifice X animal on Y day, sprinkle blood here, there, and everywhere, an aroma pleasing to the Lord, etcetera.
Post by: TheDarkStar on November 26, 2015, 06:41:12 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2015, 07:20:14 pm
By what metric is honoring the Sabbath a moral issue and slavery not? How does a prohibition against unclean meats not tickle god's fancy anymore, but man who lies with man an abomination? And since that is considered a "moral law" by most Christians, how can they then go on to ignore the attached qualifier of stoning homosexuals? What, the statement is moral but then it redshifts into civil when describing the penalty?
Spare me. It's nearly as invalid as the ontological argument.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 26, 2015, 07:25:56 pm
The homosexuality thing was reiterated in the New Testament (or not, depending on how you think the Greek should be translated) but also ties in to the purpose of marriage. Personally I don't think it's terribly major, but it's contentious because... reasons, probably.
The distinction isn't arbitrary, but it is quite debatable. The important bits are clear enough.
Post by: TempAcc on November 26, 2015, 07:41:13 pm
I personally consider it as something we should do away with, since it lost its contextual importance, but I'm a heretic, soooooo
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 26, 2015, 07:48:25 pm
How is "God is All-Good/Perfect" and "God is Jealous About His Stuff" reconciled, typically? Or, rather, not typically, but reasonably?
Because I usually don't think of Jealousy as being a Good Thing; or at the very least it seems bad when connected to Wrath, which is sorta what God ends up doing. I get how it works if you decide that Good=God and any other measure is false ideals, but since debates/discussions must be made on common ground, and I don't really think that 'I was created by X, thus I should love them' is a valid reasoning, personally*, I'm not sure how to come at this.
Is it just a fundamental difference in ideals/values that leads me to these conclusions, or am I misunderstanding things?
I always thought the forbidding of homosexuality came from the fact that STDs are more easily spread via anal sex due to the tissues not being exactly well adapted for it (being Ye Olden Times and lube being rather not invented yet probably didn't help), and you need people making babies for the species to continue with the levels of death/disease and whatnot, before getting to the other stuff like 'they're different from the majority' and 'might screw around with the couples dynamic that we've been trying to get going here'.
We're having problems with too many people at this point, though, so....
Spoiler: *Mini-Rant (click to show/hide)
Post by: Graknorke on November 26, 2015, 07:50:05 pm
And doesn't the Bible implicitly condone anal sex between married couples? At least, it explicitly forbids it for everyone else, so the omission comes across as not an oversight.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 26, 2015, 08:12:30 pm
In the case of God being jealous, this is in relation to worship. As far as God is concerned, he is the only one deserving of our praise and worship, and is jealous when we treat another thing as more important than he.
...
And doesn't the Bible implicitly condone anal sex between married couples? At least, it explicitly forbids it for everyone else, so the omission comes across as not an oversight.Biblically, the only kind of sex that is forbidden is that which involves people outside of marriage. Song of Solomon basically encourages couples to get it on in whatever way strikes their fancy.
Post by: Frumple on November 26, 2015, 08:55:20 pm
Post by: Graknorke on November 26, 2015, 08:56:21 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 26, 2015, 09:38:15 pm
Worshipping gods other than God is expressly forbidden. My phrasing was wonky because I also had in mind the thing about keeping God first in everyday life (e.g. going to the rugby instead of church) where it's less of a "never do this" and more of a "there's a time for this and a time for that".
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2015, 09:42:08 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 26, 2015, 10:07:47 pm
The Jealousy Isn't Good thing is typically reconciled by distinguishing between jealousy for what is rightfully yours. If someone gets something through underhanded means, and you are jealous because it should have gone to you, then that is fine and reasonable. If a person is jealous because their spouse is cheating on them, that too is reasonable.I get the distinguishing between envy and jealousy thing. I suppose my question is about the nature of that. If I am denied what is 'rightfully' mine (and I have qualms about the idea of that too as it ends up being about entitlement, somewhat, as well), because of underhanded means, then my frustration would be as much or more about the underhandedness of it as losing what I felt should have been mine. I'm only gonna touch on the spouse thing cuz' that's gonna just be a difference of values, what with being codified in the bible and all.
In the case of God being jealous, this is in relation to worship. As far as God is concerned, he is the only one deserving of our praise and worship, and is jealous when we treat another thing as more important than he.
So then, I guess now my question is sort of about why God either needs, wants, or feels entitled to our worship/praise, to the exclusion of all else. To me, at least, 'I made you' isn't a good enough reason, nor is 'I can unmake you'. That might just be me reacting against authority/power dynamics that appear (from my perspective) as unwarranted or unearned. From a perspective of him being omnibenevolent and/or one seriously concerned about getting into His good Grace(s), I can see why that might differ.
Post by: wierd on November 26, 2015, 11:10:32 pm
The Jealousy Isn't Good thing is typically reconciled by distinguishing between jealousy for what is rightfully yours. If someone gets something through underhanded means, and you are jealous because it should have gone to you, then that is fine and reasonable. If a person is jealous because their spouse is cheating on them, that too is reasonable.I get the distinguishing between envy and jealousy thing. I suppose my question is about the nature of that. If I am denied what is 'rightfully' mine (and I have qualms about the idea of that too as it ends up being about entitlement, somewhat, as well), because of underhanded means, then my frustration would be as much or more about the underhandedness of it as losing what I felt should have been mine. I'm only gonna touch on the spouse thing cuz' that's gonna just be a difference of values, what with being codified in the bible and all.
In the case of God being jealous, this is in relation to worship. As far as God is concerned, he is the only one deserving of our praise and worship, and is jealous when we treat another thing as more important than he.
So then, I guess now my question is sort of about why God either needs, wants, or feels entitled to our worship/praise, to the exclusion of all else. To me, at least, 'I made you' isn't a good enough reason, nor is 'I can unmake you'. That might just be me reacting against authority/power dynamics that appear (from my perspective) as unwarranted or unearned. From a perspective of him being omnibenevolent and/or one seriously concerned about getting into His good Grace(s), I can see why that might differ.
You are thinking about this from a decidedly obtuse viewpoint.
Think more:
"Look, I bought my dishes from the store, so that I could eat dinner on them. That's what I purchased them for, and I dont want them being used for anything else. The fact that the dishes happen to be sentient does not give them permission to run away with the flatware, no matter how cute that spoon is."
EG, The christian god created human kind to worship him. That is the purpose the humans were created for. What the humans want to do is moot-- god had a specific purpose in mind, and wants us to fulfill that purpose.
Much like how you might be angry to learn that all your dishes ran away with cute little spoons one day when you are just to eat something, the christian god gets a bit angry when the humans he created to worship him instead decide to run off and do their own things.
Basically.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 27, 2015, 01:04:32 am
When you accept christ, the Holy spirit comes in you and slowly makes you a better person. Accepting Christ is all you need, and being a better person is a result of that.Because it would insult what Jesus did. It would be like someone offering to buy you dinner, then you buying the most expensive thing on the menu.
Clearly you haven't been to one of those churches where they tell you that the only thing you need to do to be saved is to ask Jesus to be your personal savior. (I attended one one time, on an invitation)
Methinks there are quite a few people who fail into this segment of Christianity, since it is literally effortless and their Jesus apparently forgives everything.
Quote from: Galatians 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Post by: Bohandas on November 27, 2015, 01:53:15 am
There is substantial evidence to suggest that Judaism began as a polytheistic religion, of which Yahweh was only one god. Eventually, shifts in society lead to him being declared first an predominant god and then the one and only god.
I got the impression that it was less of a smooth shift and more a matter of increasingly fanatical henotheistic sects hacking away at each other until there was only one left who suppressed the other deities as an expression of contempt
Post by: Shadowlord on November 27, 2015, 02:23:10 am
When you accept christ, the Holy spirit comes in you and slowly makes you a better person. Accepting Christ is all you need, and being a better person is a result of that.Because it would insult what Jesus did. It would be like someone offering to buy you dinner, then you buying the most expensive thing on the menu.
Clearly you haven't been to one of those churches where they tell you that the only thing you need to do to be saved is to ask Jesus to be your personal savior. (I attended one one time, on an invitation)
Methinks there are quite a few people who fail into this segment of Christianity, since it is literally effortless and their Jesus apparently forgives everything.Quote from: Galatians 5:22-23But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Rebuttal: Creflo Dollar.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 27, 2015, 06:31:36 am
"The fact that the dishes happen to be sentient does not give them permission to run away with the flatware, no matter how cute that spoon is."Rather than talk about hypothetic sentient dishes that you bought from a store, you could build a scenario around legitimately acquired slaves deciding for themselves to serve a different master, might be more plausible. Or better yet, your daughters marrying someone of their own choosing rather than marrying
e: i've another idea, since you could argue that gods sentience is superior while masters\slaves\fathers\daughters are roughly the same class of creature, being pissed at your young children because they prefer the company of their favorite uncle rather than your own
Post by: TempAcc on November 27, 2015, 06:47:08 am
Even the bible itself, depending on translation, admits that we don't really know God, and due to His qualities, its impossible for us to truly know God. In being unable to understand God, we attributed to Him the kingly qualities of the time.
Quote from: Job 36:26
Behold, God is great, and we know him not (as in beyond our knowledge), neither can the number of his years be searched out.
This is also a theme thats explored in hinduism. At one point, vishnu, as one of his avatars (I think) shows his true self to a woman, who cannot help but beg that he turns back into human form, because its supposedly so utterly absurdly unthinkable her mind literally suffers from trying to grasp it.
Post by: TD1 on November 27, 2015, 09:29:44 am
There is substantial evidence to suggest that Judaism began as a polytheistic religion, of which Yahweh was only one god. Eventually, shifts in society lead to him being declared first an predominant god and then the one and only god.Could you give some examples? I don't doubt, just curious.
Post by: wierd on November 27, 2015, 10:03:14 am
"The fact that the dishes happen to be sentient does not give them permission to run away with the flatware, no matter how cute that spoon is."Rather than talk about hypothetic sentient dishes that you bought from a store, you could build a scenario around legitimately acquired slaves deciding for themselves to serve a different master, might be more plausible. Or better yet, your daughters marrying someone of their own choosing rather than marryingyouthe husband you chose for them
e: i've another idea, since you could argue that gods sentience is superior while masters\slaves\fathers\daughters are roughly the same class of creature, being pissed at your young children because they prefer the company of their favorite uncle rather than your own
Ironically, the "dishes running away" thing has a biblical counterpart, with the parable of the potter and the clay. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+18%3A1-10&version=HCSB)
It is still essentially the same idea-- The clay rebelling against the potter, and the potter choosing to crush the pot he was working on and start over. The potter has a specific goal in mind, and when the clay is unwilling to uphold the shape directed by the potter, he does not give in to the demands of the clay, but instead smashes it all up, and recasts it into a new pot.
There are numerous references to this metaphor in the bible. I just decided to make it a little more cute, and collude it with the fairytale nature I see it possessing. The core meaning remains the same though: The creator has a specific purpose in his work of creation; when the creation rebells against the purpose for which it was created, isn't it natural for that creator to get a bit mad at the creation?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 27, 2015, 10:17:08 am
Rebuttal: Creflo Dollar.I don't know what that means.
Post by: TD1 on November 27, 2015, 10:35:32 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 27, 2015, 11:44:14 am
Like, it just seems like He's setting himself/humanity up for failure, here, as compared to doing what He made them for.
Plus, you could ask why God feels the need to create a species specifically with the purpose of worshipping him in mind. Doesn't seem, at least, like the best motives, but maybe that's just me.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 27, 2015, 12:02:23 pm
The plates thing would make sense, but then why does he bother giving us free will?He also created us to love us. In heaven, we will keep our free will, but there would be no more desire to sin. So we still have free will after death.
Like, it just seems like He's setting himself/humanity up for failure, here, as compared to doing what He made them for.
Plus, you could ask why God feels the need to create a species specifically with the purpose of worshipping him in mind. Doesn't seem, at least, like the best motives, but maybe that's just me.
Post by: TD1 on November 27, 2015, 12:14:21 pm
He limits your ability to choose.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 27, 2015, 02:31:18 pm
What you're saying is he takes away "the desire to sin."We will no longer have a sinful nature, and sinning is foolish, so we won't do it.
He limits your ability to choose.
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 27, 2015, 02:32:26 pm
Post by: Bohandas on November 27, 2015, 02:47:34 pm
The plates thing would make sense, but then why does he bother giving us free will?
Like, it just seems like He's setting himself/humanity up for failure, here, as compared to doing what He made them for.
Even more than that is that we have the desire to sin. It wouldn't be a problem if we weren't designed to enjoy the forbidden stuff more.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 27, 2015, 02:56:26 pm
If he can take away our desire to sin while preserving our free will, why not do that from the start?Because Adam and Eve sinned.
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 27, 2015, 03:21:12 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 27, 2015, 04:37:07 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 27, 2015, 05:59:43 pm
I meant before that even. Why create Adam and Eve with the desire to sin?Satan gave them the desire to sin. He tempted them. In heaven, there will be no temptation.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 27, 2015, 06:31:44 pm
Wasn't he originally in Heaven? If there was/is no temptation to sin in Heaven, why did Lucifer break away from God?
And if all Heaven does to 'purify' you, so to speak, is freedom from temptation, and even the original creations of God could be tempted, is the only thing that makes one good that one is not exposed to temptation?
I suppose another way to put it; if Human sin stems from Adam and Eve, and their sin came from Lucifer's temptation, who tempted Lucifer?
Also, less relevant, why did God leave that tree lying about in the first place? Or allow Lucifer to taint his creations/garden? If he's Omniscient, he would have known what would happen.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 27, 2015, 06:37:52 pm
Why did Satan sin?I do not know why Satan sinned, I'll do some research and get back to you on that. About the tree, God put it in the garden so we would have free will. I assume that there will be similar things in heaven, but there will be no temptation to sin. So we still have free will. If that makes sense.
Wasn't he originally in Heaven? If there was/is no temptation to sin in Heaven, why did Lucifer break away from God?
And if all Heaven does to 'purify' you, so to speak, is freedom from temptation, and even the original creations of God could be tempted, is the only thing that makes one good that one is not exposed to temptation?
I suppose another way to put it; if Human sin stems from Adam and Eve, and their sin came from Lucifer's temptation, who tempted Lucifer?
Also, less relevant, why did God leave that tree lying about in the first place? Or allow Lucifer to taint his creations/garden? If he's Omniscient, he would have known what would happen.
Post by: Teneb on November 27, 2015, 07:35:07 pm
Though I guess there is no answer to that since I highly doubt anyone but the most self-deluded would think they know what a divine entity thinks.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 27, 2015, 07:50:20 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 27, 2015, 07:52:53 pm
I'm just gonna add that the Serpent is not identified as Lucifer or Satan, who are also both identified as different entities (the lightbringer and the accuser). Also, the story of a fallen angel being responsible for hell and its demons is from Dante, not from any actual biblical story.I have never head something like this. Can you give a source?
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 27, 2015, 07:55:41 pm
The serpent in Eden is pretty obviously supposed to be Allegory Satan, unless you're being intentionally obtuse about it.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 27, 2015, 08:11:31 pm
OW cited Lucifer already, and Satan is in Job, where he's never identified as a fallen being and is in fact in heaven with God. This is because in the lore of the time "Satan" was not a demon but one of God's angels who was given the task of prosecuting humans for their sins. This is why God asks Satan to consider Job, and Satan takes the position that Job for all his virtue only worships God because of the blessings he has garnered, and has no selfless faith at all.I'm just gonna add that the Serpent is not identified as Lucifer or Satan, who are also both identified as different entities (the lightbringer and the accuser). Also, the story of a fallen angel being responsible for hell and its demons is from Dante, not from any actual biblical story.I have never head something like this. Can you give a source?
As for the Serpent, open Genesis and look for yourself, you will find no textual reference that the Serpent is linked to either of these titles. As for the position that it is an allegory of the devil figure, it may be but I am not wholly convinced. The Serpent is specifically cursed during the Fall to lose its legs (also the Serpent had legs) and writhe upon the ground in much the same way that many other origin myths explain the reasons the world is the way it is, in this case why snakes have no limbs.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 27, 2015, 08:17:03 pm
There's also a bunch of passages in the Epistles AFAIK that make the connection Serpent to Satan.
...
If you're still not convinced, how about some textual references from Genesis? God says to the serpent in Genesis 3:
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
Anyone who isn't really going out of their way to be obnoxious can see the connection to Christ and the devil there.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 27, 2015, 08:21:03 pm
I hate using Revelation as a reference, but Paul explicitly describes Satan as the Serpent, and also mentions a war in Heaven after which Satan is cast down to Earth.Full preterism ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) and yeah, but Revelation was written in what was probably a drugged up haze quite a while after the others. I am, perhaps, suspicious that Revelation is even more fanfiction than the rest of the Bible.
...Or it's just about the conflict between humanity and nature. I don't think that's going out of the way to be obnoxious, Genesis is very much a poetic origin story of why the world is the way it is in the same vein as other cultures'. Right before this it goes into why women suffer in menstruation and childbirth while men suffer in labor, why death exists, and afterwards eventually describes the origin of murder.
If you're still not convinced, how about some textual references from Genesis? God says to the serpent in Genesis 3:
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
Anyone who isn't really going out of their way to be obnoxious can see the connection to Christ and the devil there.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 27, 2015, 08:26:50 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 27, 2015, 09:45:39 pm
Yeah I'm not sure I really get why there's so much contrast between, say, Galatians 3:28, and 1 Timothy 2:11-15? And what about all the people who weren't the descendants of Abraham? Are they just sorta boned, or what?
I get I'm not being quite as eloquent as before, but I kinda went over the eloquent questions, and at this point I'm just trying to figure out how to reconcile the bits of the bible that, I'll just say it plainly, are in my view immoral.
Post by: wierd on November 27, 2015, 09:50:12 pm
Group that follows the creed believes that by following that creed, they are special.
Being so special, they get special treatment by the divine.
News at 11.
(Note, you will even find it in NON religious creeds.)
The older the religious creed, the more likely that you are will find this little tidbit in a prominent location.
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 27, 2015, 10:03:54 pm
Lucifer is a translation error, actually. I'm pretty sure you'll only find him mentioned in KJV-based versions of the Bible.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 27, 2015, 10:07:16 pm
I also want to bring up that while I get the idea that it's totally women's fault now for something the first woman did several thousand years ago99% of churches will tell you that it's equally the fault of both Adam and Eve, to avoid exactly this scenario. Eve for taking the fruit in the first place, Adam for going along with it.
That said, there's still a fair bit of stuff about the roles of men vs. women in the Bible, but I don't really want to get into that.
...
Lucifer is a translation error, actually. I'm pretty sure you'll only find him mentioned in KJV-based versions of the Bible.Yeah, true. Supposed to be "morning star" or somesuch. We've discussed it in the thread a fair bit but I can't really remember all too much.
Post by: Frumple on November 27, 2015, 10:20:28 pm
Honestly, none of the appellations for the adversary are actual names. Critter's never given an actual name in the biblical texts. Satan's a translation corruption, lucifer's a translation corruption, the list more or less just goes on. It's vaguely amusing, really, given how much personality et al non-canonical sources and common interpretations and whatnot give the thing(s)...
Post by: Adragis on November 28, 2015, 01:44:48 am
the angelic -el naming patternIsambard Kingdom Brunel for being an angel confirmed.
I KNEW the Channel Tunnel was kept up by faith!
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 28, 2015, 02:47:16 am
Post by: Adragis on November 28, 2015, 04:28:37 am
Post by: scrdest on November 28, 2015, 06:04:19 am
Mmhmm. Was morning star (also known as venus :V), then got corrupted over time from the... greek translation, iirc. It mostly just sounds fancy, really. Probably doesn't hurt it's fairly close to the angelic -el naming pattern -- fits with the fallen angel bit that's of questionable dubiousness.It's not even a corruption. It's a straight up translation, it's just that the title is taken to be a single (supernatural) person. It translates from Latin to English as 'Lightbringer', by the logic that 'Morningstar' is the first star that heralds (i.e. brings about) the morning (i.e. light).
Honestly, none of the appellations for the adversary are actual names. Critter's never given an actual name in the biblical texts. Satan's a translation corruption, lucifer's a translation corruption, the list more or less just goes on. It's vaguely amusing, really, given how much personality et al non-canonical sources and common interpretations and whatnot give the thing(s)...
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 28, 2015, 01:35:58 pm
Also, I read something recently that I find hilarious and possibly blasphemous, but I'm not certain.
Jesus said that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.
Jesus was a carpenter.
He died by being nailed to a piece of wood.
Post by: Frumple on November 28, 2015, 01:52:26 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 28, 2015, 06:33:08 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 28, 2015, 06:37:11 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 28, 2015, 06:39:03 pm
Post by: Ghazkull on November 28, 2015, 06:49:52 pm
Christian Cosmology (Cosmogony? I'm getting that stuff confused) has three types of angels as far as i know:
Standard Angels - aka those that stayed with god after the war in heaven.
Grigori (Fallen Angels?) - im not even sure where those guys are attestated. So far i've heard different versions: one that they left with Satan but didn't stay with him and one that they left before/after Satan and were subsequently expelled form heaven for having fun (the sexual kind) with humans and had children.
Fallen Angels - The Kind that left with Satan. Basically now demons.
now to my question: How is it handled in the Quran? I think iread something that that entire Djinn thing actually comes from there and that there are three different kind of demons, the Hellish Kind, the Djinns (which may or may not be good depending on situation) and a third kind i don't know.
Are these in any way related to angels like in Christian Cosmology/Mythology?
Generally how is the make up of Angels, Demons other Supernatural beings?
Post by: Rolan7 on November 30, 2015, 02:14:09 am
Furthermore... The most recent Oglaf (http://oglaf.com/throne-heaven/) has me wondering about fallible gods.
No offense to Christians meant, but the creed makes a lot more sense if God isn't *literally* all powerful. Otherwise everything would be as he wished, yeah?
I mention Christians because they speak here most often (far behind atheists, sadly) and Christian doctrine *seems* to describe Jehovah as ALL-powerful. But maybe some Christians don't believe that?
But I'd love any discussion on fallible gods. External manipulators or creators who might have limits and who, with time and dedication, humanity technically might have a chance of surpassing.
Post by: wierd on November 30, 2015, 02:52:43 am
God wants more than just an automaton that shouts "praise!" all the time. He seeks a willing mind that chooses to praise him instead.
Because of this need for his worshipers to have free minds, so that they can choose for themselves to worhip him, and thus have genuine reverence, he has to leave his hands off, unless things get so out of hand that this ultimate goal is imperiled. Under such circumstances, he intervenes-- sometimes quite coarsely.
As a consequence of this, things can and do go in directions that displease him. Usually he is quite patient with his process, but his patience is not infinite.
It is thus, not that god is "unable" to directly control everything, and thus make sure everything goes the way he wants it to, it is that doing that is counter to his own wishes, and would make no sense for him to do. Instead, he tries to manouver the consequences of human rebellion to demonstrate why following his instructions is for humanity's own benefit, in the grander scheme of things. Basically, he wants you to come to that conclusion, so that then you will worship him willingly.
As for the islamic version of celestial beings, I am afraid I dont know too much about that.
Post by: sprinkled chariot on November 30, 2015, 03:02:48 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 30, 2015, 03:06:06 am
But why perfect being would need worship, especially worship of imperfect beings, who sometimes worship Trump or Hitler. And why would he spend all his life convincing those beings to love him.You shut your heathen mouth, He Who Fires The Pantywaists is the one true god!
Post by: TempAcc on November 30, 2015, 06:13:44 am
Satan's primary supporters in the Rebellion: Hell's Bels.
Also, I read something recently that I find hilarious and possibly blasphemous, but I'm not certain.
Jesus said that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.
Jesus was a carpenter.
He died by being nailed to a piece of wood.
Some interpreters actualy say that the bits pointing out Jesus being a carpenter were actualy mistranslated, and that he was actualy a mason. As in, a stone mason, the kind that builds houses with his bare hands. Meaning Jesus could've looked quite imposing, physically :v
Which would kind explain his ability to go all hulk smash on the market at the temple grounds, flipping tables arounds and etc, since those tables were supposedly huge and made of stone.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 30, 2015, 08:51:46 am
Like if we were created by an advanced spacefaring race who left us a while ago. Or the gods do live on another plane of existence, but it's one we can reach. What are the implications if it turns out we outpace the gods and ever have them at our mercy? Imagine the Greek pantheon I guess. If we met Poseidon, would we have a duty to shoot him? Try to coexist as equals? Or give him/them tribute for our existence, even though it's a rough and often unfair existence?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on November 30, 2015, 09:45:59 am
Does anyone know where the idea of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute actually came from? It's certainly not in the Gospels, and I doubt any of the Catholic fanfics suggest it with her being a saint and all. Is it just Dan Brown to blame or something?It's because her story is right next to a story of an unnamed prostitute who cleaned jesus' feet. People who read to quickly assumed it was mary.
Post by: TempAcc on November 30, 2015, 10:43:32 am
Sorry, I wasn't clear there at all... I wasn't mainly trying to argue that Christianity must have a fallible god (that was meant as an aside). I was more curious in what people think about the implications of a fallible god or gods.
Like if we were created by an advanced spacefaring race who left us a while ago. Or the gods do live on another plane of existence, but it's one we can reach. What are the implications if it turns out we outpace the gods and ever have them at our mercy? Imagine the Greek pantheon I guess. If we met Poseidon, would we have a duty to shoot him? Try to coexist as equals? Or give him/them tribute for our existence, even though it's a rough and often unfair existence?
Welp, if we were created by a god or a group of fallible gods (as in, beings that are not perfect but have powers that make them godlike), my feelings about them would largely depend on their disposition towards humanity and if they achieved their godlike status through some means or have somehow been born the way they are. If they are indiferent or benevolent towards humanity, then they deserve our respect , if they're hostile, then they must be combated, especially if they claim they are actualy perfect. If they weren't always godlike, then we must study how they became godlike, so we can also achieve that :v
The problem with that hypothesis is that, if one or several fallible godlike beings somehow created us, then what created them? How did they come to be? Did they create the entirety of existence or just humanity?
In a certain way, there's still room for faith in a truly perfect God, even if such deity hasn't directly created humanity. In a way, this is how spiritism deals with humanity's relation with God. According to spiritism, there is one, truly perfect God that created (and still creates) everything, with Earth just being one not so important world thats part of creation and serves as a middle tier world for (mostly) middle level spirits to incarnate. God, however, never actualy acts or shows his intent on specific happenings, locations and people, and so he delegates specific parts of creation to groups of highly advanced spirits which are tasked with its development and of all spirits inferior to them. And so entire systems are built, managed and developed by beings other than God, but that have powers that easily makes them seem godlike. The only thing God actualy does by himself (and that nobody else can do) is create souls/spirits, and not even the highest level spirits understand just how he does it.
Post by: Frumple on November 30, 2015, 11:05:04 am
Imagine the Greek pantheon I guess. If we met Poseidon, would we have a duty to shoot him? Try to coexist as equals? Or give him/them tribute for our existence, even though it's a rough and often unfair existence?Most of the greek pantheon would be bastards we would very much need to kill if it were possible, and the fundamental forces of existence didn't require them existing. Or imprison/cripple/sideline, etc. This remains true for almost every divine entity described by human religions throughout history. There are very, very few described gods that aren't complete bastards from the human perspective -- pretty much every one of them are, at best, things we would lock up for life were they human. Most of them we would just straight up kill, because they're mass murderers, serial rapists, etc., etc., etc. The divinities described by humanity over the years are largely overpowered immoral filth that are credited with maybe occasionally doing nice things.* They are not things we want living and interacting with us, if it is at all possible to fix that situation.
As to the "what created it" thing, that's always a silly line of questioning. Eventually you either end up cyclical or at a thing that came from nowhere. And either of those explanations can explain pretty much anything -- if omnigod "just was", then a world without omnigod can also "just be". At some point in the chain of causality you draw an arbitrary line, y'know? Personal preference is to draw the line as early as possible, if there's no substantial reason to draw it later. There's "room" for a (perfect) god(s), but there's only need for existence, and reality appearing whole cloth is frankly more reasonable than a god(s) appearing whole cloth and then creating reality -- they've both got just as much proof, and the former has less assumptions, heh.
*And yes, you can claim that humans are the same way, but you'll note that the common human moral failings generally don't involve killing people, rape, torture, and so on. The common divine moral failings very much do. The gods are monsters, from the human perspective. Maybe not all of them, but definitely the vast majority.
Post by: Bohandas on December 03, 2015, 01:41:36 pm
My understaning is that it goes a bit like this:
God wants more than just an automaton that shouts "praise!" all the time. He seeks a willing mind that chooses to praise him instead.
Because of this need for his worshipers to have free minds, so that they can choose for themselves to worhip him, and thus have genuine reverence, he has to leave his hands off, unless things get so out of hand that this ultimate goal is imperiled. Under such circumstances, he intervenes-- sometimes quite coarsely.
As a consequence of this, things can and do go in directions that displease him. Usually he is quite patient with his process, but his patience is not infinite.
Which is inconsistent with omnibenevolence
Post by: Frumple on December 03, 2015, 02:49:38 pm
You can't exactly be inconsistent with that -- bloody thing's basically self-referential. It's a pretty effective trick! Bloody annoying part of theological study, though.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 03, 2015, 03:09:37 pm
As a basic hypothetical, imagine if God ended the Earth and gave everyone the exact same eternal happiness after death (ignoring the logistics of making people happy equally). That would be benevolent, but would it be fair? Or just?
A benevolent God would do that, but a "just" one - one who followed a certain set of moral guidelines - probably wouldn't.
Of course, if I were given ultimate power, that is what I would do. All people who actually exist would be happy. Suffering would only happen in fiction - and it would happen a lot there, because it's interesting, but it wouldn't be real. That's because my personal morality is about maximizing happiness. Even if terrible people share in the benefits. But that's because I believe evil is a product of one's environment... And punishment is only just (or useful) when it prevents further evil.
So I think that benevolence IS the best morality. But that's a personal belief many don't agree with. I *think* it was John Stuart Mill who popularized that?
But I need to replay Socrates Jones to be sure, and to see what the counter-arguments were. Damn that's a good game.
The SMBC cartoon was amusing but I don't think it's an a solid counter-argument
But uh yeah. Many people would say that a bad person needs to be punished, for justice to be done. Even if it doesn't increase overall happiness.
Post by: Bohandas on December 03, 2015, 03:14:41 pm
But uh yeah. Many people would say that a bad person needs to be punished, for justice to be done. Even if it doesn't increase overall happiness.
To be fair schadenfreude is a type of happiness.
Post by: breadman on December 03, 2015, 04:09:28 pm
No offense to Christians meant, but the creed makes a lot more sense if God isn't *literally* all powerful. Otherwise everything would be as he wished, yeah?I can't speak for Trinitarian Christians, but it was once described to me that the power of God is Honor. As in, the spirits of everything in existence Honor Him as long as He doesn't violate their trust. In essence, they set rules that He must follow, in exchange for obeying His commands. One of the main things that would violate their trust would be allowing a spirit that disobeyed His commands back into His presence, except that Christ was so beloved by everything that they allow Him to vouch for people. God also voluntarily limits His power to avoid taking away our ability to choose, as part of a plan to help us grow up to be like Him.
I mention Christians because they speak here most often (far behind atheists, sadly) and Christian doctrine *seems* to describe Jehovah as ALL-powerful. But maybe some Christians don't believe that?
So yes, not exactly all-powerful, but powerful enough to do accomplish His purposes.
I once wondered whether spirits affect the material world by deciding how quantum states collapse, which also provides an interesting limit on how much they can achieve.
But I'd love any discussion on fallible gods. External manipulators or creators who might have limits and who, with time and dedication, humanity technically might have a chance of surpassing.
A fallible god being would be very scary indeed. How could a being have created us without also having the power to destroy us? Would we be treated more like toys, like lab rats, like pets, or like children? Would we be destroyed out of boredom, fear, or mercy?
After all, we are as gods to the dwarves we watch over. We create their planets, guide their actions, and destroy them at a whim. Who is to say we are not living in a similar simulation?
That said, this is a popular topic of fiction. There's always the "Gods need prayer" trope, wherein we created gods instead of the other way around, and defeat them through agnosticism, though belief in something else often creates a new kind of god. Star Trek is fond of talking godlike beings out of destroying a ship, planet, or civilization. Other science fiction works show us struggling to overcome species who have manipulated or subjugated us in the past, and returned just as we got powerful enough to resist them. (Any sooner or later and it doesn't make nearly as interesting a story.)
Magic: the Gathering postulates god-like beings both from other universes, some of whom created their own universes, and from the æther between universes, who can enter a universe only partially. Oh, and one universe has the "Gods need prayer" variety, while another has powerful spirits from a companion universe. All types have been overcome to greater or lesser degrees.
Good point except that there's a difference between "benevolence" and "morality". The right thing isn't always the nice thing.
As a basic hypothetical, imagine if God ended the Earth and gave everyone the exact same eternal happiness after death (ignoring the logistics of making people happy equally). That would be benevolent, but would it be fair? Or just?
A benevolent God would do that, but a "just" one - one who followed a certain set of moral guidelines - probably wouldn't.
Of course, if I were given ultimate power, that is what I would do. All people who actually exist would be happy. Suffering would only happen in fiction - and it would happen a lot there, because it's interesting, but it wouldn't be real. That's because my personal morality is about maximizing happiness. Even if terrible people share in the benefits. But that's because I believe evil is a product of one's environment... And punishment is only just (or useful) when it prevents further evil.
But uh yeah. Many people would say that a bad person needs to be punished, for justice to be done. Even if it doesn't increase overall happiness.
I'm not sure it's possible to take us as we are and make us perfectly happy all the time. Granted, there are probably a few simple things that would have significantly reduced misery, but contentment halts progress, and our individual desires come into conflict a bit too often.
I once believed that punishment in the afterlife would consist mainly of being too ashamed of one's actions to face one's God, family, and peers, all of whom would have a perfect knowledge of everything that had been done, leaving one to desire nonexistence or at least anonymity.
Sometimes I wish I still could.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 03, 2015, 04:27:24 pm
Post by: TD1 on December 03, 2015, 04:31:27 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 03, 2015, 04:34:17 pm
But according to you he does. He zaps it out when you die and go to heaven.No. In heaven, our free will will be intact, so there must be the possibility of acting foolishly, but I believe that we will all be wiser once our sinful nature is gone. So there will be no sin, but we will still have free will. Adam and Eve were tempted, but I also believe that there will be no more temptation in heaven either, which removes that possibility. I hope that makes sense.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 03, 2015, 04:38:54 pm
God could do just one more miracle, and it would count a million times more than the ones he already did. 99% of the world would be saved, free will intact.
@breadman
Your post is very interesting but I can't make a proper response just now. Sorry, hopefully someone will.
Post by: TD1 on December 03, 2015, 04:39:20 pm
Post by: Frumple on December 03, 2015, 05:05:19 pm
As always, it beggars of the question of why not just do that now, but *shrugs*
That's been a question beggared since about a half generation after the first eschatology-focused religious belief failed to manifest its apocalypse (several thousand years ago), I rather imagine. Next year, we promise!
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 03, 2015, 05:06:33 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 03, 2015, 05:11:57 pm
Over time he's kinda become a champion for (hopeless) rebellion against an arbitrary tyrant. A tyrant whose morals don't match human common sense.
(With most "satanists" not even believing in Satan or Jehovah, just worshiping an ideal of freedom. Kinda confusing, I know.)
Post by: Frumple on December 03, 2015, 05:16:29 pm
And last I checked, Rol, that was mostly Milton (Paradise Lost, probably doing more to confuse christian idealization of the devil than any other text written* :P). (The) Satan(s) motivations are pretty much entirely untouched in the bible itself, so far as I can recall.
*The Divine Comedy would be second, ha.
Post by: Telgin on December 03, 2015, 05:18:54 pm
So, if you try to stick to the story in the popular interpretation of it, either he's very, very unintelligent or God created him specifically to end up betraying him and getting tossed out of heaven to cause mischief for humans.
@origamiscienceguy
God could do just one more miracle, and it would count a million times more than the ones he already did. 99% of the world would be saved, free will intact.
This is a big thing that I don't understand. I can get that God wants people to follow Him out of choice, but why even make it possible to doubt His existence? It makes it vastly more likely that any given person will fail the tests of mortal life and end up with the ensuing punishment, whether you believe that to be eternal Hell, destruction or some kind of vacuous existence away from God or whatever.
I could imagine that if God were much more obviously real and involved with people, whatever free will exists would be maintained while you could then say that people who still did evil things genuinely deserve whatever punishment they get. You'd have to be insane or really evil to defy an all powerful deity that tells you not to do something and who you know exists and can't possibly miss you doing something bad.
If you then say that it effectively removes free will then... sure, I agree. But you know, you kind of have a choice: give people the ability and not unreasonable motivation to doubt your existence and punish them for it, or make it really hard for them to deny you and your rules and lose most of whatever you get out of them choosing you willingly.
Post by: TD1 on December 03, 2015, 05:40:52 pm
The source is Satan. I don't know why/how he sinned at first. Does anybody have any ideas?God created and controls the enemy, from what I can tell. Anything Satan does is permitted by God.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 03, 2015, 05:56:56 pm
When the world contains so many different religions all claiming that theirs is the One True God and that you must worship theirs to be saved in the afterlife, while also claiming that every other religion is either a lie or a predecessor to theirs... I don't really see why anyone thinking logically can conclude that one particular one is true when there is no real evidence for any of them, and even counter-evidence. E.g. The Christian bible itself contradicts (in genesis) discoveries about the birth of the universe, solar system, planets, life, and evolution, etc, proving its falseness.
Post by: Bohandas on December 03, 2015, 06:31:18 pm
What I've heard is, he was jealous of humans. I think that was the original reason - not that that was considered canonical for modern non-Catholic sects. Not sure if it's in Catholic apocrypha or not.
*shrugs* Given the nature of the metaphysics involved, and later action recorded in the bible, the answer is most likely "God told it to." Barring that, it would be "because that's how God made it". The devils are no more or less than how god made them, and could do no more than what god allowed. You can read between the lines, really.
And last I checked, Rol, that was mostly Milton (Paradise Lost, probably doing more to confuse christian idealization of the devil than any other text written* :P). (The) Satan(s) motivations are pretty much entirely untouched in the bible itself, so far as I can recall.
I think the same concept exists in Islam as well though
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 03, 2015, 06:36:25 pm
When the world contains so many different religions all claiming that theirs is the One True God and that you must worship theirs to be saved in the afterlife, while also claiming that every other religion is either a lie or a predecessor to theirs...I can't think of any religions claiming to be the One True Whatever other than the Abrahamic ones.
...
The Christian bible itself contradicts (in genesis) discoveries about the birth of the universe, solar system, planets, life, and evolution, etc, proving its falseness.Not as such. God could have quite easily done everything as recorded in Genesis, but made the world to resemble one that had been around for billions of years. Although I'm not sure why he'd bother, personally.
The book was written by people who had never even heard the word "science", and anyone who isn't a literalist is willing to accept that the Bible isn't a wholly accurate historical document. There are any number of explanations for why Genesis doesn't match up with physical evidence. But that requires the Bible to be true in the first place, so YMMV.
...
I think the same concept exists in Islam as well thoughTo be fair, Islam is basically Judaism, but more Arabic.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 03, 2015, 07:33:24 pm
When the world contains so many different religions all claiming that theirs is the One True God and that you must worship theirs to be saved in the afterlife, while also claiming that every other religion is either a lie or a predecessor to theirs...I can't think of any religions claiming to be the One True Whatever other than the Abrahamic ones.
Yes, I don't know enough about the other religions (such as Hinduism or Zoroastrianism) to know if they also consider themselves the only true religion, so I probably shouldn't have just assumed they did. Still, that's still three. Iirc, Islam considers Jesus a prophet rather than a savior, meaning anyone relying on Jesus would be fucked if Islam turned out to be the right religion. Same for Jews with both their derivative religions, yes? Basically all three consider the others heresies and Christians only support Israel because end-times prophecies require it to exist and stuff.
P.S. Buddhism, which doesn't have a deity, has reincarnation but if my understanding is correct, seems to say "life is suffering, and you can't end it because reincarnation. What we offer is a way to end that suffering by ceasing to exist, by ceasing to feel, by cutting off all attachments." If reincarnation is real, I wouldn't want to stop.
Post by: breadman on December 03, 2015, 07:40:58 pm
The source is Satan. I don't know why/how he sinned at first. Does anybody have any ideas?I grew up with a mythology in which Lucifer volunteered to be the Savior, but with a modification to God's plan that would have "saved" everybody, at the cost of our free will and eternal progression. A bit like doing a child's homework for them to ensure they graduate with perfect grades, but more invasive. God declined, and Lucifer argued back until he and his followers got kicked out forever. Now downgraded to Satan, he can't stand the thought of someone returning to God's presence when he can't, so he does all he can to prevent that.
This is a big thing that I don't understand. I can get that God wants people to follow Him out of choice, but why even make it possible to doubt His existence? It makes it vastly more likely that any given person will fail the tests of mortal life and end up with the ensuing punishment, whether you believe that to be eternal Hell, destruction or some kind of vacuous existence away from God or whatever.That can be sidestepped by not punishing people for what they don't know. It's kind of an issue of culpability vs. responsibility (http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=246). Did they mean to break your laws? Did they do so knowing full well what you desire of them? If not, don't sweat it so much.
I could imagine that if God were much more obviously real and involved with people, whatever free will exists would be maintained while you could then say that people who still did evil things genuinely deserve whatever punishment they get. You'd have to be insane or really evil to defy an all powerful deity that tells you not to do something and who you know exists and can't possibly miss you doing something bad.
If you then say that it effectively removes free will then... sure, I agree. But you know, you kind of have a choice: give people the ability and not unreasonable motivation to doubt your existence and punish them for it, or make it really hard for them to deny you and your rules and lose most of whatever you get out of them choosing you willingly.
Each person who knows for certain that God exists, and what He wants them to do, is on the hook for the absolute maximum punishment or guilt if they ever disobey. So a merciful God could minimize culpability by relaying messages through just a few good people. Unfortunately, that allows the messages to be garbled or ignored...
Alternatively, it could be that God is not in fact all-powerful and is only able to speak to the most faithful, except in very restricted ways.
Post by: Frumple on December 03, 2015, 08:10:53 pm
P.S. Buddhism, which doesn't have a deity, has reincarnation but if my understanding is correct, seems to say "life is suffering, and you can't end it because reincarnation. What we offer is a way to end that suffering by ceasing to exist, by ceasing to feel, by cutting off all attachments." If reincarnation is real, I wouldn't want to stop.That's... not particularly accurate. Like, a lot of the parts are there, but the framing and whatnot is just... off. Buddhism identifies the root of suffering (which isn't life in its entirety or anything like that, but the primary negative aspect of it) as desire (not, mind you, feeling), and offers a path towards stopping that. That, in turn, provides a means to step outside the cycle of reincarnation -- even if you actually do obtain the mastery necessary to separate yourself from the cycle, that doesn't mean you have to. If you want to continue reincarnating after obtaining enlightenment, buddhism also allows for that (hell, people considered to have done so are one of the more venerated figures among the various sects). Separation from the cycle of reincarnation generally isn't a matter of ceasing to exist, either, but rather entering a state of nirvana, separate from the cycle of reincarnation -- some conceptualizations of that is indeed nonexistence, from what I recall, but most aren't. More common is generally a dissolution of the self, iirc, but that's a notably different thing.
A better shorthand description would be, "There is suffering in life. Suffering is caused by desire. The way to escape this is to stop holding on to your desires, to cease finding those attachments to be an intrinsic part of yourself. In doing this, you obtain control over your place in the cycle of reincarnation." What those bits entail, exactly, differs based on the particular interpretation you're working with, heh.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 03, 2015, 08:30:30 pm
Although with some VERY loose interpretation of the bible, the minimum age of the earth is about 6000 years. This (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html) article explains pretty well the problems with a 6000 year earth.
As for me, I believe that God made the universe in 6 days. Any more explanation than that is pretty much superfluous and unnecessary especially since the bible doesn't say anything else about it.
Post by: Telgin on December 03, 2015, 08:53:29 pm
Quote from: breadman
That can be sidestepped by not punishing people for what they don't know. It's kind of an issue of culpability vs. responsibility. Did they mean to break your laws? Did they do so knowing full well what you desire of them? If not, don't sweat it so much.
Each person who knows for certain that God exists, and what He wants them to do, is on the hook for the absolute maximum punishment or guilt if they ever disobey. So a merciful God could minimize culpability by relaying messages through just a few good people. Unfortunately, that allows the messages to be garbled or ignored...
Alternatively, it could be that God is not in fact all-powerful and is only able to speak to the most faithful, except in very restricted ways.
That hinges on God having lesser punishments for people who just doubt His existence, which may well be the case but I don't think there's much support for that idea in general. Most Christians believe you'd go to Hell in some fashion anyway, although some certainly believe that Hell has various levels of punishment, despite there again not being a whole lot of evidence for that to my knowledge.
Post by: TheDarkStar on December 03, 2015, 08:57:22 pm
That hinges on God having lesser punishments for people who just doubt His existence, which may well be the case but I don't think there's much support for that idea in general. Most Christians believe you'd go to Hell in some fashion anyway, although some certainly believe that Hell has various levels of punishment, despite there again not being a whole lot of evidence for that to my knowledge.
It depends on what texts you consider scripture ;).
Post by: TheDarkStar on December 03, 2015, 09:11:13 pm
It depends on your definition of "day," I imagine. Hard to have "6 days" without an Earth, after all.
Apparently, the Hebrew word can refer either to a literal 24-hour day or to a generic "long time".
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 03, 2015, 09:14:28 pm
So, did it all sit around for a few billion years after He made it, or do you doubt the age that scientists have computed for the universe and Earth? If so, why? Specifically because the Bible says it was made in 6 days?I don't really care about the actual age.
I really don't want to get in an argument about this.
Post by: Bohandas on December 04, 2015, 12:04:37 am
So, did it all sit around for a few billion years after He made it, or do you doubt the age that scientists have computed for the universe and Earth? If so, why? Specifically because the Bible says it was made in 6 days?
It works out completely rationally if you assume that God comes from a planet that is tidally locked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) with it's sun.
Post by: Bohandas on December 04, 2015, 12:15:19 am
The source is Satan. I don't know why/how he sinned at first. Does anybody have any ideas?
On he contrary, if we take satan's existence and backstory as a given then that is all we need to conclude that sin can arise spontaneously
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 04, 2015, 05:38:20 am
Post by: TempAcc on December 04, 2015, 06:40:17 am
Hell, even the whole thing about lucifer being "the adversary" and the same thing as satan is a construction that showed up way later through the catholic church. The adversary, lucifer and satan are all mentioned separately and under different contexts. Lucifer and "adversary" are very likely to having been terms used to make reference to a certain babylonian king of the time, who may have persecuted jews, and probably had an honoriffic attached to his name that made him famous, IE "morning star".
Its also kind of funny how modern day christians are so attached to the idea of a hell, which is very much derived from the greek pagan idea of tartarus. The closest thing to hell hebrews believed in was sheol, which isn't exactly described as horrible or punishing, just as a place where the souls of the dead go to, both good and evil, and its sometimes described as not being eternal, being closer to an idea of purgatory rather than hell, and may have just meant "grave" rather than an actual realm of afterlife. Purgatory itself is a catholic construction, too.
Post by: Bohandas on December 04, 2015, 07:41:30 am
Its also kind of funny how modern day christians are so attached to the idea of a hell, which is very much derived from the greek pagan idea of tartarus. The closest thing to hell hebrews believed in was sheol, which isn't exactly described as horrible or punishing, just as a place where the souls of the dead go to, both good and evil, and its sometimes described as not being eternal, being closer to an idea of purgatory rather than hell, and may have just meant "grave" rather than an actual realm of afterlife. Purgatory itself is a catholic construction, too.
"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever" -Revelation 20:10
Post by: TD1 on December 04, 2015, 07:56:34 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 04, 2015, 09:17:44 am
Post by: TD1 on December 04, 2015, 09:19:43 am
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on December 04, 2015, 09:21:45 am
"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever" -Revelation 20:10
Revelations was written around Nero's time, if I remember correctly, or at least long after Christianity spread out from Judea and into the rest of the Roman Empire. As such that passage reinforces the idea that Hell is a Greek/Roman concept which was added to Christian thought. Though to be fair, Revelations is a weird book overall and up to at least the Reformation they thought about throwing it out of the Bible because it didn't fit in with the rest of the passages. Best to take it with a grain of salt.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 04, 2015, 09:24:38 am
Sooo....Cerberus?Nah, literally it sounds like a funky hydra; metaphorically that idea of 7 crowns means seven rulers or kingdoms/interpretations may vary
Post by: Dwarf4Explosives on December 04, 2015, 10:13:15 am
So he tolerates sin on earth to maintain free will, then when we die he takes away the sin and we still have free will?I think the idea is pretty much the moral equivalent of being distracted by shiny stuff. In this case, the shiny stuff is god.
Post by: breadman on December 04, 2015, 12:19:28 pm
Quote from: breadmanThat can be sidestepped by not punishing people for what they don't know. It's kind of an issue of culpability vs. responsibility. Did they mean to break your laws? Did they do so knowing full well what you desire of them? If not, don't sweat it so much.
That hinges on God having lesser punishments for people who just doubt His existence, which may well be the case but I don't think there's much support for that idea in general. Most Christians believe you'd go to Hell in some fashion anyway, although some certainly believe that Hell has various levels of punishment, despite there again not being a whole lot of evidence for that to my knowledge.
True, it doesn't fit with standard binary afterlife beliefs, which is one reason I haven't been able to get on board with any trinitarian Christian faiths. Interestingly, my original faith postulates a greater variety of levels in Heaven than in Hell.
Post by: TempAcc on December 04, 2015, 12:27:34 pm
Here's an example:
1-Prima kills a man. Prima has no particular reason for having done this, other than maybe disliking said man. Prima does not regret her act and does not ask for forgiveness.
2-Secunda kills a man. Secunda did this because this man has kidnapped her, kept her in captivity and tortured her for +5 years. Secunda does not regret her act and does not ask for forgiveness.
Now, if you asked pretty much any american pastor, he would say that both Prima and Secunda would go to hell, because regardless of the reason each of them had for commiting murder, they've committed murder, which is a mortal sin, and warrants condemnation to eternity in hell. Punishment is dealt in accordance to an almost Kelsenian view, in which the moral nuances are thrown aside in favor of a purely objectivist viewpoint. You committed a sin, you go to hell forever, period.
Now, in pretty much any reasonable court of law, the particularities of each case would be taken into account. Prima would most certainly receive greater punishment than Secunda.
All of this basically means that, by applying an outdated, nearly medieval concept of justice and making it divine, the most popular branches of christianity today are making God's justice seem unfair and inferior to (most) human justice systems.
Post by: Frumple on December 04, 2015, 05:29:41 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 04, 2015, 05:41:39 pm
justiceThat's... kind of missing the point a little.
The level of suffering in Hell varies depending on what level of sins one has committed. Jesus himself backs this up. Admittedly most of the other evidence comes from Revelation, but there's also some passages floating around in the epistles IIRC.
Now, remembering that the punishment in Hell is for every single sin one has committed, which is an insanely huge number, the contribution of suffering from one individual sin (even murder) is probably quite negligible.
What this means for Prima and Secunda is that (barring a later conversion) they will be suffering anyway. As you said, any reasonable verdict would consider Secunda's sin to be much less grave than Prima's, and so it is reasonable to assume that Secunda's punishment would be a bit more bearable.
E: Frumple pointed out that Secunda's crime probably wouldn't count as murder to begin with. Which is a fair point. Personally I'd debate that a little, but we don't really have enough details.
...
Interestingly, the biggest contributors to one's suffering would be blasphemy ("the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name", Exodus 20) and encouraging another person to sin ("it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea", Mark 9? I think? Jesus said it, anyway).
Post by: Telgin on December 04, 2015, 06:47:54 pm
Now, it could instead be interpreted as just another way of saying that misusing His name is a sin. "I won't hold you blameless" could be read as a fancy wording of "Don't do that." It certainly seems to be implied that it's unforgivable though.
The real question then becomes what blasphemy is / misusing His name. As I've mentioned before, some people I know believe that saying, "Oh my God!" is taking His name in vain and thus blasphemy and unforgivable. What would be a more reasonable interpretation though? Is claiming that God doesn't exist blasphemy? Could you then be forgiven by converting?
Post by: Bohandas on December 04, 2015, 07:06:11 pm
The passage about misusing His name is one that I've found pretty interesting too. It can be interpreted a few ways, but the version I'm most familiar is that it means that you can't be forgiven for blasphemy, and will suffer accordingly (eternal Hell or not).
The gospels seem to say that only blasphemy specifically against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable
... I'd fairly well disagree that most american pastors would consider #2 murder, or think Secunda was going to burn. Especially since it's pretty explicitly not murder in the biblical sense. KJV mistranslation or not, a great deal of the american faithful are bloodthirsty enough that killing like that wouldn't exactly trigger a 'thou hast sinned' reaction. Other parts of the situation might trigger ones, because a fair chunk of the church scene is misogynistic as fuck
Yes. Their grievance against her would more likely be something involving the phrase "traditional definition of marriage".
EDIT:
Deut 22:28-29
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 04, 2015, 07:30:27 pm
The real question then becomes what blasphemy is / misusing His name. As I've mentioned before, some people I know believe that saying, "Oh my God!" is taking His name in vain and thus blasphemy and unforgivable. What would be a more reasonable interpretation though? Is claiming that God doesn't exist blasphemy? Could you then be forgiven by converting?Blasphemy is insulting the name of God in some way. Using the name of God to justify something very much ungodly, for instance. Saying he doesn't exist is kinda blasphemy-ish, I suppose.
In the case of "Oh my God", I would say that's taking his name in vain (i.e. treating the name of God in too light a manner) but not blasphemy.
Both are very bad, basically. I don't think it's wholly unforgivable, which wouldn't really make sense re: Christ's sacrifice, but it's clear that God doesn't appreciate it.
Post by: Graknorke on December 06, 2015, 06:04:05 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 06, 2015, 06:11:04 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 06, 2015, 06:55:51 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 06, 2015, 07:09:51 pm
For selfish reasons, to avoid punishment and gain a reward? That seems...not very Christian. Or Islamic, for that matter, though it might be Judaic, if I am remembering/interpreting the little I know correctly.
Because He's just correct and therefore it becomes the right thing to do? It's consistent, at least, but I just can't really get behind it as a motivation.
In order to save others, not just myself, by becoming evangelist and spreading the Word? I can see that working in terms of logical reasoning, but I don't know how effective Evangelists really are, and saving others seems like something to aspire to, but that Jesus is infinitely better at, and interfering with good intentions will pave the way to damnation all the wider.
If God is truly Good, then my best course of action is to try to find what is truly Good, and act in that way. To claim that it is incomprehensible does not seem to match with scripture, given we only Sin because of Original Sin, which in turn came from an external agent deceiving and tricking us. In this case, claiming that God should have done X or Y is meaningless, because we can't understand his reasoning, but Sin (afaik) does not cloud our minds to the point where learning what is Good is impossible, nor acting on it, simply vastly more difficult.
And if all or most possibilities for the existence of the Divine, or any Divine being, are approximately equal in likelihood, then my best course of action is to concentrate on being and doing Good, rather than wasting my time praising the Most Good Being In All Of Existence. Such a being would, presumably (and obviously at this point my line of thought becomes presumptuous, apologies), desire for me to be Doing Good, rather than praising it. Once I'm Heaven there'll be plenty of time for self-congratulatory action, after the Rapture and everything. In the meantime what's important is helping people.
And if God would, will, and does condemn people to Hell for not praising his name and following his orders, well...that Heaven isn't really one I'd want to be in anyway, I would think.
Of course the other possibility is that God can't prevent people from going to Hell, he can only try and get them to do behavior that will get them to go to Heaven, but 'praising God' and 'various commandments God gives' don't really make too much sense as criteria, in that case. Maybe it's true anyway, but again, I'd rather focus on doing Good unto others, than accumulating Good for myself. Ideally speaking, anyway; I'm as flawed as anyone in reality, and am unlikely to manage to do that as well as I'd like.
If I've missed a line of reasoning here, I'd appreciate someone pointing it out to me. The only way to know your beliefs are true is to test them time and again.
Sidenote: Loud Whispers, going back to an earlier point with an article that illustrates my opposition to demonizing Islam beautifully, I think it'd be good if you read this (http://squid314.livejournal.com/329171.html).
Post by: Frumple on December 06, 2015, 07:53:59 pm
Still wouldn't really help much, though, s'far as I'm aware of trinitarian theology. They're still the same critter, even with the differentiated aspects.
Post by: Descan on December 06, 2015, 07:54:51 pm
So it'd be like saying you can't call out to warn someone of an impending truck because while your eyes can see the truck, your mouth has no vision, and while your mouth can call out, your eyes have no way to talk.
And even if they were seperate-but-in-the-same-business, they can just like... talk to each other. 'Hey, God, there's something going on over there.' "yeah? why should I care?" "COME ON DAD JUST DO IT" "ME DAMNIT JESUS FINE"
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 06, 2015, 08:12:13 pm
Post by: Telgin on December 06, 2015, 08:43:55 pm
Even if that did turn out to be the case, the trinity is still a confusing mess. The holy ghost almost feels like it's just a strange abstract concept that religious thinkers tossed into the Bible after the fact to try to explain what the "comforter" was, or whatever it's called in the Bible.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 06, 2015, 08:53:29 pm
Interestingly, dividing the omni- adjectives to the different parts of the trinity is almost what my preacher believes. He said that God has talked to him and basically told him that he'd kill his kids if he didn't convert to Christianity, but that when Jesus talks to him it's an entirely different experience and more pleasant. So, God isn't omnibenevolent and happy to kill anyone who crosses him, but Jesus is the one that is nice to everyone.Wait, God when he says God talked to him, is he implying that he got new revelations?
Even if that did turn out to be the case, the trinity is still a confusing mess. The holy ghost almost feels like it's just a strange abstract concept that religious thinkers tossed into the Bible after the fact to try to explain what the "comforter" was, or whatever it's called in the Bible.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 09:05:34 pm
(The new threat of hell complicates matters, but in general)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 06, 2015, 09:35:35 pm
Post by: Frumple on December 06, 2015, 11:26:04 pm
Wait, God when he says God talked to him, is he implying that he got new revelations?Presumably the more normal talking to god stuff. Not sure if your denomination considers it normal, but it's a fairly common thing among, at least, south-eastern US protestant groups, to believe that they fairly regularly converse with god/jesus/etc. I've met a fair handful of people that believe pretty sincerely they've held entirely legitimate, completely real conversations with god, Jesus, and/or various angels. And not feelings, vague directions, or whathaveyou -- straight up "Hello, my name is Bobael, do not worry your eyes will not melt." talks.
It's real damn common for evangelical priests, in particular, from what I've seen -- you can tune in to several of those televised ones and occasionally hear something along the lines of, "I was talking to god last night, and he told me xyz." Rather imagine quite a few of those particular con-men are lyin' out their teeth about it, but there's plenty that have experienced what they believe to be the divine talkin' to 'em.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 07, 2015, 12:12:33 am
Sidenote: Loud Whispers, going back to an earlier point with an article that illustrates my opposition to demonizing Islam beautifully, I think it'd be good if you read this (http://squid314.livejournal.com/329171.html).Criticizing Israel leads to Hitler
What a very nuanced take by squid 10/10 would read again, only a sith deals in full retard
Post by: Telgin on December 07, 2015, 12:13:51 am
Wait, God when he says God talked to him, is he implying that he got new revelations?Presumably the more normal talking to god stuff. Not sure if your denomination considers it normal, but it's a fairly common thing among, at least, south-eastern US protestant groups, to believe that they fairly regularly converse with god/jesus/etc. I've met a fair handful of people that believe pretty sincerely they've held entirely legitimate, completely real conversations with god, Jesus, and/or various angels. And not feelings, vague directions, or whathaveyou -- straight up "Hello, my name is Bobael, do not worry your eyes will not melt." talks.
It's real damn common for evangelical priests, in particular, from what I've seen -- you can tune in to several of those televised ones and occasionally hear something along the lines of, "I was talking to god last night, and he told me xyz." Rather imagine quite a few of those particular con-men are lyin' out their teeth about it, but there's plenty that have experienced what they believe to be the divine talkin' to 'em.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Well, in his case he was actually in the hospital with blood poisoning from a rusty nail in the foot, and he said that God told him that he'd heal him of it if he converted. Previously, doctors told him there was no hope.
The healing also came with the stipulation that if he didn't convert, not only would God let him die, he'd take his kids with him.
But, yes, what Frumple said. It's accepted among many Protestant denominations that average Joe Christians can talk directly to God, and He talks back. That never worked for me, and is part of what started breaking my faith. This is quite different among Catholics, from what I understand, and I've read of at least one Catholic saying that it made Protestants almost too holy and therefore kind of crazy.
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 07, 2015, 08:34:39 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 07, 2015, 08:37:03 am
and now he's like, totally christian and totally not just trying to get to heaven so he can take revenge on god for threatening his children. he would make a terrible action movie hero and suffers from Stockholm syndromeWait, God when he says God talked to him, is he implying that he got new revelations?Presumably the more normal talking to god stuff. Not sure if your denomination considers it normal, but it's a fairly common thing among, at least, south-eastern US protestant groups, to believe that they fairly regularly converse with god/jesus/etc. I've met a fair handful of people that believe pretty sincerely they've held entirely legitimate, completely real conversations with god, Jesus, and/or various angels. And not feelings, vague directions, or whathaveyou -- straight up "Hello, my name is Bobael, do not worry your eyes will not melt." talks.
It's real damn common for evangelical priests, in particular, from what I've seen -- you can tune in to several of those televised ones and occasionally hear something along the lines of, "I was talking to god last night, and he told me xyz." Rather imagine quite a few of those particular con-men are lyin' out their teeth about it, but there's plenty that have experienced what they believe to be the divine talkin' to 'em.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Well, in his case he was actually in the hospital with blood poisoning from a rusty nail in the foot, and he said that God told him that he'd heal him of it if he converted. Previously, doctors told him there was no hope.
The healing also came with the stipulation that if he didn't convert, not only would God let him die, he'd take his kids with him.
But, yes, what Frumple said. It's accepted among many Protestant denominations that average Joe Christians can talk directly to God, and He talks back. That never worked for me, and is part of what started breaking my faith. This is quite different among Catholics, from what I understand, and I've read of at least one Catholic saying that it made Protestants almost too holy and therefore kind of crazy.
I went to a Catholic school and I never heard anyone claim they've spoken to God. I assume Catholic God is too disappointed in everyone to talk to them.cath god cant talk to people cuz it would collapse the quantum trinity into some sort of heresy and break christmas
Post by: TempAcc on December 07, 2015, 08:40:10 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 07, 2015, 08:43:52 am
Post by: FallacyofUrist on December 07, 2015, 09:34:55 am
Catholics actually think it's possible for people to talk to God directly (they just know he won't talk back). Saints and Mary and priests are just there to be helpful.I can confirm this.
Well, He won't talk back most of the time. It's possible for Him to answer a prayer directly, He just doesn't do so very often...
Post by: Rose on December 07, 2015, 01:18:51 pm
He did for me once. Not in words, but in actions/events.Catholics actually think it's possible for people to talk to God directly (they just know he won't talk back). Saints and Mary and priests are just there to be helpful.I can confirm this.
Well, He won't talk back most of the time. It's possible for Him to answer a prayer directly, He just doesn't do so very often...
And the meaning was clear: don't bother Him.
Post by: TD1 on December 07, 2015, 01:25:59 pm
Post by: wierd on December 07, 2015, 02:46:40 pm
See, EG:
Quote
Romans 8:2-0
2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. 5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace;
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 07, 2015, 03:41:46 pm
I can't for the life of me remember where it is though
Post by: Dwarf4Explosives on December 07, 2015, 04:07:07 pm
Post by: TD1 on December 07, 2015, 04:19:28 pm
Actually, that applies to in vitro fertilisation babies too.
Post by: Dwarf4Explosives on December 07, 2015, 05:21:10 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 07, 2015, 05:39:47 pm
I know there is a verse that says something like: the spirit intercedes with groans.
Quote from: Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.
Post by: Dwarf4Explosives on December 07, 2015, 05:57:14 pm
Post by: Frumple on December 07, 2015, 06:17:45 pm
Huh. Isn't that more or less the exact opposite of a verse detailing a recalcitrant god? Definitely seems like a rough translation, but it does read as the spirit interceding for those whose troubles ("groanings") are so deep they can't be properly communicated.I know there is a verse that says something like: the spirit intercedes with groans.Quote from: Romans 8:26Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 07, 2015, 07:57:57 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 07, 2015, 08:00:45 pm
Post by: Frumple on December 07, 2015, 08:10:57 pm
I assumed that it was because the father will not be around sin, and we are sinners, so the holy spirit acts as a middleman. I don't know why it is groaning, maybe because of all the sin?Surrounding bits of verse seem to suggest it's just because of suffering, maybe or maybe not due to sin, near as I could parse. Bit of a headache, and at least the NIV translation of romans 8 is a goddamn misery to read.
Definitely doesn't seem to be suggesting the spirit as a middlecreature, exactly, though -- later bits of roman 8, at the least, seemed to be fairly explicit about the father-bits being happy to get involved. Pretty sure there's plenty of that aspect getting involved to various degrees of directness with sinners throughout the rest of canon, anyway.
Post by: Rose on December 07, 2015, 11:37:35 pm
Can you expand on what happened, or is it too private? What was it that indicated what you say, if you don't mind me asking?Oh, it was actually pretty silly.
I was in a paper airplane competition, and prayed for some wind to carry the airplane further.
I got a sudden gust of wind just as I launched it, ruining the launch and sending the plane tumbling.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 07, 2015, 11:45:24 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 07, 2015, 11:50:36 pm
Post by: TD1 on December 08, 2015, 03:53:45 am
Post by: i2amroy on December 08, 2015, 04:09:35 am
So basically I was playing Tales of Symphonia on the Gamecube and or really old TV and we were currently having a lot of difficulties beating the Summon Spirit of Lightning, Volt. After a few times losing to it I jokingly picked up our cat (who was a great sport for this sort of thing) and lightly tossed him onto the top bunk bed that was placed right over the top of the TV while saying "I make this sacrificial offering to the great god of lightning, Volt!". Instant the cat touches the bed there was a sudden power surge that made both the gamecube and tv turn off, along with all the clocks, radio, etc. (nothing was fried, they all just either turned off from the surge or did a reset). After laughing at it for a bit my brother and I restart the Gamecube and stomp the guy we were having so much trouble with without any of the problems we were having in previous fights against him showing up at all.
The experience didn't really effect my later choice of belief in life (which is atheism), but I'd guess you could say that it definitely stands for me as an example that sometimes crazy coincidences do happen, and just because they happen to occur right after you entreat some sort of a supernatural entity doesn't necessarily mean that said entity actually heard you and responded. (Alternatively I need to get in touch with the Tales of Symphonia dev's and find out which one of them has got an in with the powers that be. :P)
Post by: Rose on December 08, 2015, 04:42:40 am
But it did strike me at the time as a "Okay, here, now leave me alone" kind of answer.
Post by: Bohandas on December 08, 2015, 12:17:22 pm
I think I should avoid this thread when I'm sleepy. The way I interpreted that resulted in a train of thought that led to a "Yo momma" joke about Jesus.
So non-Catholic Christianity then
Post by: Bohandas on December 08, 2015, 12:21:13 pm
... ew.I know there is a verse that says something like: the spirit intercedes with groans.Quote from: Romans 8:26Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.
"Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh." -Isiah 16:11 KJV
Post by: SirQuiamus on December 08, 2015, 12:53:06 pm
Instant the cat touches the bed there was a sudden power surge that made both the gamecube and tv turn off, along with all the clocks, radio, etc.And that's why you gotta be careful with cats: their animal magnetism is very strong.
Post by: redwallzyl on December 08, 2015, 04:51:12 pm
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/08/458928720/icelanders-opposed-to-government-support-for-religion-form-a-religion-of-their-o
Post by: Bohandas on December 08, 2015, 04:53:44 pm
Wait, God when he says God talked to him, is he implying that he got new revelations?Presumably the more normal talking to god stuff. Not sure if your denomination considers it normal, but it's a fairly common thing among, at least, south-eastern US protestant groups, to believe that they fairly regularly converse with god/jesus/etc. I've met a fair handful of people that believe pretty sincerely they've held entirely legitimate, completely real conversations with god, Jesus, and/or various angels. And not feelings, vague directions, or whathaveyou -- straight up "Hello, my name is Bobael, do not worry your eyes will not melt." talks.
It's real damn common for evangelical priests, in particular, from what I've seen -- you can tune in to several of those televised ones and occasionally hear something along the lines of, "I was talking to god last night, and he told me xyz." Rather imagine quite a few of those particular con-men are lyin' out their teeth about it, but there's plenty that have experienced what they believe to be the divine talkin' to 'em.
Severe schizophrenia with auditory hallucinations and delusions of grandeur; That explains quite a lot.
all hail Zun the great sun god of Iceland! Praise the Sun! Praise it!
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/08/458928720/icelanders-opposed-to-government-support-for-religion-form-a-religion-of-their-o
The issues raised in the last few paragraphs could have been partially avoided if they went with an established parody/protest religion like Discordianism or FSMism (but not he Church of the Subgenius because part of their dogma actually explicitly involves not being a religion from a tax perspective)
Post by: Rolan7 on December 08, 2015, 04:56:50 pm
Why am I posting this here? Because of the group which wrote the pledge in the first place:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/08/24/anti-gay-marriage-group-nom-funded-by-catholic-donors-it-fought-to-keep-secret/
Just... When I say I'm *afraid of Christianity*, I'm not joking okay? And it's not an unreasonable phobia. As a gay atheist I have:
* Been called a noncitizen by the President of the United States (Bush Jr)
* Have to recite a pledge of allegiance which (thanks to relatively recent neocons) puts the country underneath a single God
* Have to use currency which does the same
* Am even less likely to be elected to office than a muslim
* Reached the age of 28 before my right to marry was recognized by the federal government
* Said right has been and is, as above, constantly attacked by the "moral majority". Real candidates for president are being applauded for promising to strip my basic right to marriage.
* ... It's actually illegal for gay people to have sex in 17 states, marriage or not:
Quote
Fourteen states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah. Four states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Oklahoma, Kansas[16][17] Kentucky, and Texas.
Do you see that? Four states, even now, *only* ban the acts between same sex couples.
This is the law of the country I live in. I *am* oppressed, by Christians, every day. I don't "hate Christians" I want BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES. I want them to let me live my life in peace! And I'm sure most Christians here are happy to let me do that, but please stop crying "persecution" or "hate" when people want to question the Bible, or suggest that American Christianity is dangerous. Being disagreed with is not persecution.
Went by the post office yesterday, it was sporting a giant Christmas tree and a santa sleigh. The US Post Office.
I mean, it's not the Ten Commandments, but this still makes me *uncomfortable* because I am *scared* of what it represents.
Sorta as an aside, something I'm conflicted about... My loud and proud atheist brother said he doesn't care about Christmas decorations, as long as there's no manger scene. Basically arguing that Christmas is practically secular nowadays. This made me conflicted. On the one hand, yeah, Christmas was formed from pagan rituals and is still highly pagan. And I enjoy Halloween, which is technically the same situation (formerly pagan, turned Christian, became secular).
But I don't want Christmas to turn secular? I just don't want to celebrate it. It's got Christ right there in the name, for one thing. I'd rather the federal government be secular, and keep dialing back the legislated Christian morality it forces on me.
Post by: Bohandas on December 08, 2015, 05:04:17 pm
* ... It's actually illegal for gay people to have sex in 17 states, marriage or not:QuoteFourteen states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah. Four states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Oklahoma, Kansas[16][17] Kentucky, and Texas.
I'm surprised that Utah is only on the first list. They are in general the most worthless and backwards state in the union.
I think that they should be forced to make that their motto, "Utah: The Worst State"
Post by: Rolan7 on December 08, 2015, 05:24:07 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 08, 2015, 05:33:13 pm
With regard to Christmas... I dunno. It's hard to say. I guess I'd prefer mainstream Christmas to be secular, and for us religious folks to mind our own business in church. Which is a weird opinion, I guess. I don't want anything to do with the trees and arbitrary gift-giving, but at the same time it makes a lot of people very happy and I don't want to say they're not allowed to be happy unless they first get God stuck between their teeth,
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 08, 2015, 05:42:23 pm
Post by: Teneb on December 08, 2015, 05:52:16 pm
all hail Zun the great sun god of Iceland! Praise the Sun! Praise it!Praise the lawbringer!
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/08/458928720/icelanders-opposed-to-government-support-for-religion-form-a-religion-of-their-o
Eh. My family, almost entirely atheist/nonreligious, put up a tree every year and stick an angel on the top instead of a star. Secular enough for us.Considering the Christmas tree itself is pretty pagan/non-christian, I'd say it's already quite secular (even if people are not aware of it).
Post by: Rolan7 on December 08, 2015, 06:01:49 pm
I want to say the problem is just a vocal Christian minority here in the US, but... It's not really a minority :/ While many American Christians are very liberal, the fact remains that "legislating Christian morality" is a hugely successful platform for conservatives to run on. And since we have a terrible 2-party system, a lot of progressives end up voting against "teh gay" or for "family values".
Like, a lot... So the issue isn't people here (in the thread), it's people here where I live. Mostly people who don't discuss religion, just live and vote it.
Legislating morality is also, ironically, lacking any Biblical support. Christians were never once intended to force their beliefs upon others. It's sort of contrary to the point of living in peace with everyone. Admittedly it's easier to do that if everyone's Christian, but it's hard to make everyone Christian without resorting to crusades.I didn't even think of that, but yeah good point. And sounds like we're on the same page about Christmas. I'm a little uncomfortable with it personally but if other non-Christians want to celebrate it, cool I guess.
With regard to Christmas... I dunno. It's hard to say. I guess I'd prefer mainstream Christmas to be secular, and for us religious folks to mind our own business in church. Which is a weird opinion, I guess. I don't want anything to do with the trees and arbitrary gift-giving, but at the same time it makes a lot of people very happy and I don't want to say they're not allowed to be happy unless they first get God stuck between their teeth,
Post by: Bohandas on December 08, 2015, 06:05:15 pm
Just want to reiterate that I really don't mean to attack anyone here with that post... I'm just really scared.
I want to say the problem is just a vocal Christian minority here in the US, but... It's not really a minority :/ While many American Christians are very liberal, the fact remains that "legislating Christian morality" is a hugely successful platform for conservatives to run on. And since we have a terrible 2-party system, a lot of progressives end up voting against "teh gay" or for "family values".
Ah "family values" the anchor that holds our society back.
Many are the great things we could have achieved if not for them.
In terms of things people need to stop dedicating themselves to and pointlessly promoting, family values are just as bad as organized religion and capitalism
Legislating morality is also, ironically, lacking any Biblical support. Christians were never once intended to force their beliefs upon others. It's sort of contrary to the point of living in peace with everyone. Admittedly it's easier to do that if everyone's Christian, but it's hard to make everyone Christian without resorting to crusades.I didn't even think of that, but yeah good point. And sounds like we're on the same page about Christmas. I'm a little uncomfortable with it personally but if other non-Christians want to celebrate it, cool I guess.
With regard to Christmas... I dunno. It's hard to say. I guess I'd prefer mainstream Christmas to be secular, and for us religious folks to mind our own business in church. Which is a weird opinion, I guess. I don't want anything to do with the trees and arbitrary gift-giving, but at the same time it makes a lot of people very happy and I don't want to say they're not allowed to be happy unless they first get God stuck between their teeth,
I like Revrend Ivan Stang's assessment of the season, "First a pagan holiday and now a shopping season, and I think iy=t was something else in between"
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 08, 2015, 06:08:14 pm
I want to say the problem is just a vocal Muslim minority here in the Eurabia, but... It's not really a minority :/ While many Yuropeanized Muslims are very liberal, the fact remains that "legislating Islamic morality" is a hugely successful platform for cosmopolitans to run on. And since no one is in control of anything anymore, a lot of progressives end up voting against "teh infidel" or for "shariah law."
Like, a lot... So the issue isn't people here (in the thread), it's people here where I live. Mostly people who don't discuss religion, just live and vote it.
Post by: Graknorke on December 08, 2015, 06:08:55 pm
I don't live under sharia law. But it's true, that would be about as bad. Worse, if enforced fully (but Christian law law isn't enforced fully either, anymore, here).Pretty sure sharia is harsher. RIP apostates.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 08, 2015, 06:10:33 pm
Gays off building roofs CHEEKI BREEKII don't live under sharia law. But it's true, that would be about as bad. Worse, if enforced fully (but Christian law law isn't enforced fully either, anymore, here).Pretty sure sharia is harsher. RIP apostates.
Ah "family values" the anchor that holds our society back.China holds family values, CHINA STRONK MORAL BACKBONE OF DECADENT AMERICA
Many are the great things we could have achieved if not for them.
In terms of things people need to stop dedicating themselves to and pointlessly promoting, family values are just as bad as organized religion and capitalismsmoek weed ayyy lmao
Post by: Bohandas on December 08, 2015, 06:13:51 pm
I don't live under sharia law. But it's true, that would be about as bad. Worse, if enforced fully (but Christian law law isn't enforced fully either, anymore, here).Pretty sure sharia is harsher. RIP apostates.
It's not harsher than christianity. Look up witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition
Just want to reiterate that I really don't mean to attack anyone here with that post... I'm just really scared.
I want to say the problem is just a vocal Muslim minority here in the Eurabia, but... It's not really a minority :/ While many Yuropeanized Muslims are very liberal, the fact remains that "legislating Islamic morality" is a hugely successful platform for cosmopolitans to run on. And since no one is in control of anything anymore, a lot of progressives end up voting against "teh infidel" or for "shariah law."
Like, a lot... So the issue isn't people here (in the thread), it's people here where I live. Mostly people who don't discuss religion, just live and vote it.
How are they progressive then? That's like the polar opposite of progressive.
And what does that comment about "no one is in control of anything anymore" mean and what is it's significance here?
Went by the post office yesterday, it was sporting a giant Christmas tree and a santa sleigh. The US Post Office.
I mean, it's not the Ten Commandments, but this still makes me *uncomfortable* because I am *scared* of what it represents.
Out of control Capitalism?
Post by: Graknorke on December 08, 2015, 06:17:37 pm
It's not harsher than christianity. Look up witch trials and the Spanish InquisitionI think we're talking about canonical laws (implied by "enforced fully")
Post by: Rolan7 on December 08, 2015, 06:18:33 pm
How are they progressive then? That's like the polar opposite of progressive.(He was mirroring my post)
And what does that comment about "no one is in control of anything anymore" mean and what is it's significance here?
The point is that religious progressives get convinced to vote for regressive religious stuff because of their religion. I can't speak to Europe with any authority, but I think LW is right that it happens there too.
Post by: Bohandas on December 08, 2015, 06:24:23 pm
Went by the post office yesterday, it was sporting a giant Christmas tree and a santa sleigh. The US Post Office.
I mean, it's not the Ten Commandments, but this still makes me *uncomfortable* because I am *scared* of what it represents.
I think that Santa and Christmas trees are more a symbol of capitalism than christianity (not that capitalism is a good thing either; It's preferable to Maoism or Stalinism, but it's still very bad).
It's not like they had a nativity scene or whatever.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 06:32:15 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on December 08, 2015, 06:41:42 pm
better watch out or saint nick is gonna punch all you naughty heretics in the face! and don't think he wont hes done it before! before long the Santa death squads will force you to give Christmas cheer or face death by beating with coal filled stockings to the tune of jingle bells! noting can stop his rise to power! mwahahaha!!!Went by the post office yesterday, it was sporting a giant Christmas tree and a santa sleigh. The US Post Office.
I mean, it's not the Ten Commandments, but this still makes me *uncomfortable* because I am *scared* of what it represents.
I think that Santa and Christmas trees are more a symbol of capitalism than christianity (not that capitalism is a good thing either; It's preferable to Maoism or Stalinism, but it's still very bad).
It's not like they had a nativity scene or whatever.
Post by: Icefire2314 on December 08, 2015, 06:47:44 pm
Rick Santorum, Senator Ted Cruz, Dr Ben Carson, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal have agreed to support a constitutional amendment voiding gay marriages, including existing ones.
Why am I posting this here? Because of the group which wrote the pledge in the first place:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/08/24/anti-gay-marriage-group-nom-funded-by-catholic-donors-it-fought-to-keep-secret/
Just... When I say I'm *afraid of Christianity*, I'm not joking okay? And it's not an unreasonable phobia. As a gay atheist I have:
* Been called a noncitizen by the President of the United States (Bush Jr)
* Have to recite a pledge of allegiance which (thanks to relatively recent neocons) puts the country underneath a single God
* Have to use currency which does the same
* Am even less likely to be elected to office than a muslim
* Reached the age of 28 before my right to marry was recognized by the federal government
* Said right has been and is, as above, constantly attacked by the "moral majority". Real candidates for president are being applauded for promising to strip my basic right to marriage.
* ... It's actually illegal for gay people to have sex in 17 states, marriage or not:QuoteFourteen states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah. Four states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Oklahoma, Kansas[16][17] Kentucky, and Texas.
Do you see that? Four states, even now, *only* ban the acts between same sex couples.
This is the law of the country I live in. I *am* oppressed, by Christians, every day. I don't "hate Christians" I want BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES. I want them to let me live my life in peace! And I'm sure most Christians here are happy to let me do that, but please stop crying "persecution" or "hate" when people want to question the Bible, or suggest that American Christianity is dangerous. Being disagreed with is not persecution.
Went by the post office yesterday, it was sporting a giant Christmas tree and a santa sleigh. The US Post Office.
I mean, it's not the Ten Commandments, but this still makes me *uncomfortable* because I am *scared* of what it represents.
Sorta as an aside, something I'm conflicted about... My loud and proud atheist brother said he doesn't care about Christmas decorations, as long as there's no manger scene. Basically arguing that Christmas is practically secular nowadays. This made me conflicted. On the one hand, yeah, Christmas was formed from pagan rituals and is still highly pagan. And I enjoy Halloween, which is technically the same situation (formerly pagan, turned Christian, became secular).
But I don't want Christmas to turn secular? I just don't want to celebrate it. It's got Christ right there in the name, for one thing. I'd rather the federal government be secular, and keep dialing back the legislated Christian morality it forces on me.
I am a gay Christian, so I think I can address this. Hopefully.
It's a very touchy subject. But homophobia is not exclusive to Christianity. I know homophobic religious people. I know homophobic atheists (and I would have to say, actually, I've met more homophobic atheists, or at least non-practicing Christians than homophobic Christians). Similarly I know religious people who don't give a damn either way, and the same goes for atheists or non-Christians.
I'm only 17, and still closeted, I know my experiences are small. I know things are different outside the veil I live under.
The problem technically originates from religion (depending on denomination and interpretation of Scriptures), but I wholeheartedly believe that people who claim that "God hates gays" or "I hate gays because God hates gays" (or other such things, I'm sure you get my point) are either:
A) True sheeple, lacking any intellect and just regurgitating what they are fed without any form of reason, logic or pondering up what they read (because unfortunately the Catholic church has an anti-gay marriage stance and people take this to extremes). Times aren't medieval, we are literate and we read the Bible. Many Christian denominations promote individual interpretation of the Scripture.
B) Non-practicing "Christians" who are homophobic and claim they are Christians because it is easier to say "I hate gays because my religion" than "I hate gays because I'm intolerant".
C)
(ie: Westboro Baptist Church. They claim to be followers of Christ but are more hateful than almost any other group that I can think of)
And I believe that because if Jesus truly told us to love one another unconditionally and God loves us unconditionally then there is no reason for hate crimes and intolerance.
Now I'm sure people may ask how I can be both Christian and gay. Well, simply put, if there is a God in the form I believe, He knows truly my own heart. I know I didn't choose to be gay. Therefore, if I didn't choose to be gay, and I simply am, then I was at the moment of my conception. I was made this way, by Him. And if He made me this way I cannot be such an abomination that may be sometimes purported.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 08, 2015, 07:03:03 pm
I do agree that there are many atheist homophobes (I was one, to an extent), and they do vote. But it's not the same. Pastors here in NC were directing their flock to vote against Proposition 8. Republicans, and even Democrats promise to defend "Christian values" by denying us rights. It's not just Christians, but Christians in America are far more likely to be taken in by such things. Because instead of just "Ew gross", they can rationalize it as "I love the gay, but what they're doing is
Also it's easier to believe that being gay is a choice, when you think that God doesn't want us to be gay. Regardless of the facts...
Rolan, I hope this isn't a personal question, but why do you care about public symbols of Christianity?They only really bother me when they're tied to the government. The government is supposed to be secular and represent people of all religions. I mean, imagine if the situation was different:
Money saying "Allahu Akbar" (Simply "God is great", but would Christians accept that?)
Pledge of allegiance saying "One nation, there is no god" (This isn't even atheist, it's anti-theist, but "we dunno if there are gods" sounds silly)
Courtroom having a statue of Satan outside next to the 10 commandments (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/devil-worship-group-unveils-satanic-statue-design-oklahoma-state-capitol-article-1.1568893)
I wouldn't be at all comfortable with the first two, even the second one, and the last one is only okay because it demonstrated that all religions are equal under US law... Theoretically. It'd still be weird, but work as a monument for religious liberty.
(As an aside, a Christian reacted to said statue by pretending to be Satanist and smashing the 10 commandments "In Satan's name". Which was silly because... These were the type of satanists who don't actually believe in Satan, just rejecting tyranny. And a quick investigation confirmed that the guy was a church-going Christian. And the actual Satanists responded by refusing to put up their statue until the 10 commandments were restored (http://www.metalinjection.net/satanism/satanists-put-oklahoma-statue-on-hold-after-christian-statue-destroyed))
But yeah I don't like the government openly supporting Christianity to the exclusion of other faiths, or non-faith. Heck, the 10 commandments is 3/10 "Believe in Yahweh and no other", and for a long time people thought this was an okay thing to have in courts of US law. I won't deny things have gotten better...
Post by: Bohandas on December 08, 2015, 07:06:24 pm
better watch out or saint nick is gonna punch all you naughty heretics in the face! and don't think he wont hes done it before! before long the Santa death squads will force you to give Christmas cheer or face death by beating with coal filled stockings to the tune of jingle bells! noting can stop his rise to power! mwahahaha!!!Went by the post office yesterday, it was sporting a giant Christmas tree and a santa sleigh. The US Post Office.
I mean, it's not the Ten Commandments, but this still makes me *uncomfortable* because I am *scared* of what it represents.
I think that Santa and Christmas trees are more a symbol of capitalism than christianity (not that capitalism is a good thing either; It's preferable to Maoism or Stalinism, but it's still very bad).
It's not like they had a nativity scene or whatever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9OEMKXtYP4
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 08, 2015, 07:46:27 pm
How are they progressive then? That's like the polar opposite of progressive.And so is crushing free speech or supporting FGM, doesn't stop them
If it's part of a culture (not held by Westerners or those of similar character), it's sanctimonious
(He was mirroring my post)Worse, unelected statesmen too :D
The point is that religious progressives get convinced to vote for regressive religious stuff because of their religion. I can't speak to Europe with any authority, but I think LW is right that it happens there too.
And what does that comment about "no one is in control of anything anymore" mean and what is it's significance here?European parliaments had their teeth pulled out but the European parliament is toothless
Only Britzerland remain
It's not harsher than christianity. Look up witch trials and the Spanish InquisitionLook up witch trials, purges in Anatolia, Arabia, Africa, Persia and India
Hell, look up Shariah Law
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Probably the biggest difference is in how keen Muslims are on Shariah law
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Lighter green = Shariah law is enshrined by the government and applies only to Muslims
Blue = Shariah law is not enshrined by the government but the majority of the population is Muslim, thanks to godless communists and Ataturk being cheeky
I didn't even include the nations where Shariah courts exist but are not recognized by the state, that would take much more time
Countries where Biblical or Talmudic law are enshrined in the state's law: 0
Of note is that Western Thrace in Greece has Shariah law, and some woman has gone to the European Court of Human Rights because she lost all of her inheritance under Shariah Law (http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/10/sharia-greece-human-rights-inheritance-law)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 07:49:02 pm
Post by: smjjames on December 08, 2015, 07:51:57 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 08, 2015, 08:00:19 pm
I can see whre those politicians are coming from, since the bible does very clearly say homosexuality is a sin. But they are making it out as if it is a bigger sin than any others. The very point of christianity is that everyone is a sinner. And Jesus died to save everybody, including the gays, rapists, liars, thieves, and blasphemers.Yeah...
And a lot of sins aren't illegal, like coveting someone else's things. Or blaspheming. So, maybe this should be legal too, and left to individuals instead of being government-enforced?
Not demanding an answer, just making a suggestion that hopefully fits with your views.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 08, 2015, 08:02:53 pm
Interesting that Tunisia, despite being a Muslim country, doesn't fall into any of those categories.Nah it's blue, shariah has no legal influence
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 08:04:28 pm
My view is that homosexuality is a sin, but that Christians should still love them as we are commanded to.I can see whre those politicians are coming from, since the bible does very clearly say homosexuality is a sin. But they are making it out as if it is a bigger sin than any others. The very point of christianity is that everyone is a sinner. And Jesus died to save everybody, including the gays, rapists, liars, thieves, and blasphemers.Yeah...
And a lot of sins aren't illegal, like coveting someone else's things. Or blaspheming. So, maybe this should be legal too, and left to individuals instead of being government-enforced?
Not demanding an answer, just making a suggestion that hopefully fits with your views.
Post by: Icefire2314 on December 08, 2015, 08:05:23 pm
I can see whre those politicians are coming from, since the bible does very clearly say homosexuality is a sin. But they are making it out as if it is a bigger sin than any others. The very point of christianity is that everyone is a sinner. And Jesus died to save everybody, including the gays, rapists, liars, thieves, and blasphemers.
Actually, the Bible says that the actual act of homosexual intercourse is a sin, not simply being gay. I don't remember who but I remember reading one Christian article that chaste gays are actually more pious than most Christians.
I still don't entirely agree even with that. If we are all made equal in God's eyes and sex is in fact pleasurable, I don't think God would deny one boon of life to a specific group He created, assuming that we are in fact created homosexual and it's not a choice (which I do believe).
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 08:07:59 pm
That is correct. I should have clarified that.I can see whre those politicians are coming from, since the bible does very clearly say homosexuality is a sin. But they are making it out as if it is a bigger sin than any others. The very point of christianity is that everyone is a sinner. And Jesus died to save everybody, including the gays, rapists, liars, thieves, and blasphemers.
Actually, the Bible says that the actual act of homosexual intercourse is a sin, not simply being gay. I don't remember who but I remember reading one Christian article that chaste gays are actually more pious than most Christians.
I still don't entirely agree even with that. If we are all made equal in God's eyes and sex is in fact pleasurable, I don't think God would deny one boon of life to a specific group He created, assuming that we are in fact created homosexual and it's not a choice (which I do believe).
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 08:10:20 pm
Quote
Matthew 5:28New International Version (NIV)
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Just substitute [gender] for [gender] as appropriate. Men who desire to have sex with other men, and look at men with the desire that they would love to have sex with them (but that makes baby jesus cry!, so they totally abstain from actually trying to get that booty) are committing this sin in their hearts, according to this verse.
The working theory, as proposed by the bible, is that humans in general have a sin-nature. That is, if you are gay, your desire to have sex with others of your own gender is part of your sin-nature. When you accept christ into your life and invite habitation by the holy spirit, that habitation begins to slowly alter your nature so that you no longer desire sinful things-- that is to say, you stop being gay, because you stop being attracted to men, due to the influence of the holy spirit.
In theory.
In practice, numerous studies have shown that sexual identity is not something that you can magic-wand away.
Post by: smjjames on December 08, 2015, 08:19:07 pm
Interesting that Tunisia, despite being a Muslim country, doesn't fall into any of those categories.Nah it's blue, shariah has no legal influence
Wierd that the space between Algeria and Libya that is Tunisia is blank rather than blue.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 08, 2015, 08:19:42 pm
Actually, the Bible says that the actual act of homosexual intercourse is a sin, not simply being gay. I don't remember who but I remember reading one Christian article that chaste gays are actually more pious than most Christians.Hence why the whole argument over whether homosexuality was innate arose in the first place.
I still don't entirely agree even with that. If we are all made equal in God's eyes and sex is in fact pleasurable, I don't think God would deny one boon of life to a specific group He created, assuming that we are in fact created homosexual and it's not a choice (which I do believe).How many situations can you think of where hedonism ends well?
Taking pleasure in an act is a basic bitch argument for morality if you pardon the bluntness, it's easy to take pleasure in doing evil things. Without such thinking we wouldn't have maximum edgy
Wierd that the space between Algeria and Libya that is Tunisia is blank rather than blue.What's weird about it?
Post by: smjjames on December 08, 2015, 08:22:12 pm
Wierd that the space between Algeria and Libya that is Tunisia is blank rather than blue.What's weird about it?
Because you're saying it's colored in with blue when it isn't colored in with anything. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek at you or something.
If it is what you say, then it's just an error on the part of whoever made the map.
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 08:23:30 pm
Post by: smjjames on December 08, 2015, 08:25:07 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 08, 2015, 08:26:20 pm
Because you're saying it's colored in with blue when it isn't colored in with anything. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek at you or something.That's what I was doing too
If it is what you say, then it's just an error on the part of whoever made the map.
Can you kids get a room or something? Arguing about the color of the drapes gets tedious aright? :PThis isn't arguing, though everything on the internet gets read in a more hostile tone
No inflections
Maybe it's like a Rorschach test where some people see things as jokes or others as attacks
Like ur mum
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 08:27:54 pm
Because you're saying it's colored in with blue when it isn't colored in with anything. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek at you or something.That's what I was doing too
If it is what you say, then it's just an error on the part of whoever made the map.Can you kids get a room or something? Arguing about the color of the drapes gets tedious aright? :PThis isn't arguing, though everything on the internet gets read in a more hostile tone
No inflections
Maybe it's like a Rorschach test where some people see things as jokes or others as attacks
Like ur mum
My mum has macular degeneration you insensitive bastard! (lol-- But no, she really does.)
Post by: Icefire2314 on December 08, 2015, 08:29:17 pm
I still don't entirely agree even with that. If we are all made equal in God's eyes and sex is in fact pleasurable, I don't think God would deny one boon of life to a specific group He created, assuming that we are in fact created homosexual and it's not a choice (which I do believe).How many situations can you think of where hedonism ends well?
Taking pleasure in an act is a basic bitch argument for morality if you pardon the bluntness, it's easy to take pleasure in doing evil things. Without such thinking we wouldn't have maximum edgy
I don't entirely agree. Heterosexual intercourse is also pleasurable even if done exactly as prescribed by the Church, and it is the same pleasure you get from doing it in the ways the Church is against. If it is the pleasure is the sin, then God created us wherein one sins during sex.
But it is not the pleasure which is the sin in this case, it is the act that it is done between a homosexual couple than a heterosexual couple, which brings me back to my original argument. If homosexuality is innate then it can't be a sin. If it is the act of same-sex intercourse, I don't believe God could consider that sin for the reasons I explained previously.
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 08:36:59 pm
Original Sin. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)
Simply because something is "natural", is not defense against it being sin. In short, under the doctrine of original sin, humans have a nature that drives or compels them to sin. This may, for instance, take form as homosexuality, or as being an adulterous rake.
Or just your garden variety liar.
It's all sin, and we are all compelled to do it, each in our own way.
Post by: Icefire2314 on December 08, 2015, 08:38:28 pm
Research topic of the hour:
Original Sin. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)
Simply because something is "natural", is not defense against it being sin. In short, under the doctrine of original sin, humans have a nature that drives or compels them to sin. This may, for instance, take form as homosexuality, or as being an adulterous rake.
Or just your garden variety liar.
It's all sin, and we are all compelled to do it, each in our own way.
Humans do have a nature driving them towards sin, but animals don't. Why then is homosexuality (including intercourse) observed in animals?
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 08:42:23 pm
One of the more dogmatic views I have seen tendered, is that animals do not get resurrected or have any promise of eternal life, but are still doomed to die a mortal death-- meaning that while they do appear to sin, their punishment is already delivered through nature.
Humans are intended to be resurrected for a higher purpose, and adhering to the sinful natures of the flesh is contrary to this directive. The holy spirit is intended to provide an alternative nature for these people to enjoy, which moves them away from worldly desires and towards spiritual desires, which naturally moves them away from sin.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 08, 2015, 08:43:12 pm
I don't entirely agree. Heterosexual intercourse is also pleasurable even if done exactly as prescribed by the Church, and it is the same pleasure you get from doing it in the ways the Church is against. If it is the pleasure is the sin, then God created us wherein one sins during sex.The difference is between making love and fucking, not pleasurable and banal
But it is not the pleasure which is the sin in this case, it is the act that it is done between a homosexual couple than a heterosexual couple, which brings me back to my original argument. If homosexuality is innate then it can't be a sin. If it is the act of same-sex intercourse, I don't believe God could consider that sin for the reasons I explained previously.We know what God has commanded and what is forbidden; it is the straight path and is the only way in which man can be safe and at peace, protecting his honour, his mind and his health, in accordance with the natural disposition with which God has created man. Something innate is not free from being innately sinful, just as someone being born innately with a penchance for violence or addiction is.
Some filthy modernist papal heretics have tried to attack Christianity and its rulings; they have denounced divorce and plural marriage and permitted alcohol. Look at the state of our societies to see the result - the state of misery which our societies have reached.
When we accepted divorce, murder took its place. When we rejected plural marriage, men started to take mistresses instead. When we allowed alcohol, all kinds of shameful and immoral actions became widespread.
Gays and lesbians both go against the natural order which God has created in mankind – and also in animals – whereby the male is inclined towards the female, and vice versa.
Whoever goes against that goes against the natural disposition of mankind.
The spread of homosexuality has caused man diseases which neither the east nor the west can deny exist because of them. Even if the only result of this perversion was AIDS – which attacks the immune system in humans – that would be enough.
It also causes the breakup of the family and leads people to give up their work and study because they are preoccupied with these perversions.
Lol jk that's not me, that's just Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid (https://islamqa.info/en/10050) paraphrased to make his arguments sound Christian
How would you counter cheeki Shaykh's arguments?
Quote
Both of them – fornication and homosexuality – involve immorality that goes against the wisdom of Allaah’s creation and commandment. For homosexuality involves innumerable evil and harms, and the one to whom it is done would be better off being killed than having this done to him, because after that he will become so evil and so corrupt that there can be no hope of his being reformed, and all good is lost for him, and he will no longer feel any shame before Allaah or before His creation. The semen of the one who did that to him will act as a poison on his body and soul. The scholars differed as to whether the one to whom it is done will ever enter Paradise. There are two opinions which I heard Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) narrate.”Top kek
He's too breeki
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 08:46:03 pm
I don't think that any of them have ever tried to have intercourse though. We really can't know what animals are thinking, they might b playing or something. (note: I am in no way an expert)Research topic of the hour:
Original Sin. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)
Simply because something is "natural", is not defense against it being sin. In short, under the doctrine of original sin, humans have a nature that drives or compels them to sin. This may, for instance, take form as homosexuality, or as being an adulterous rake.
Or just your garden variety liar.
It's all sin, and we are all compelled to do it, each in our own way.
Humans do have a nature driving them towards sin, but animals don't. Why then is homosexuality (including intercourse) observed in animals?
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 08:51:11 pm
With rather (alarmingly?) high statistical regularity, the formation of same-sex sexual pairings greatly exceeds random probabilities, and behaviors at breaking these pairings up strongly indicate that the animals experience anxiety and distress at the separation.
http://www.learnanimals.com/giraffe/
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/Y2nbrJyAR6RiM/200_s.gif)
(That does not even begin to cover the territory of Bonobos......)
Post by: Frumple on December 08, 2015, 08:59:23 pm
I don't think that any of them have ever tried to have intercourse though. We really can't know what animals are thinking, they might b playing or something. (note: I am in no way an expert)... what? No, homosexual sex (male and female, for what it's worth) is observed in animals, with all the particulars involved, to avoid being explicit about it. They ain't playin', they're screwin'. Or both, in some cases, but generally it's the latter. Unless you've got a really odd definition of intercourse, it's definitely something animals have gotten up to with same sex members of their species (and sometimes other species, too, for what that's worth).
It's fairly irrelevant, as animals naturally do a lot of things that are considered to be sin (and is ethically abhorrent besides, not that I class homosexual relations in that category) when done by humans, but it's certainly a thing that happens.
As to IF... keep it up, younglin'. You're going to be mangling the religion you're trying to live with, to get it to work for you on the subject in question, but I've said before and I'll say again, there ain't nothin' wrong with that. If God is, in fact, good, you'll be alright. If God ain't good, it ain't worth worship anyway, save for brute survival in the face of a threat, and that's not exactly the best of reasons to ruin your life over.
Post by: Icefire2314 on December 08, 2015, 09:01:20 pm
I don't entirely agree. Heterosexual intercourse is also pleasurable even if done exactly as prescribed by the Church, and it is the same pleasure you get from doing it in the ways the Church is against. If it is the pleasure is the sin, then God created us wherein one sins during sex.The difference is between making love and fucking, not pleasurable and banal
Then you say that gay couple are incapable of "making love", of feeling true love for a partner and any sexual act between them is an act of base lust?
Quote
We know what God has commanded and what is forbidden; it is the straight path and is the only way in which man can be safe and at peace, protecting his honour, his mind and his health, in accordance with the natural disposition with which God has created man. Something innate is not free from being innately sinful, just as someone being born innately with a penchance for violence or addiction is.
Some filthy modernist papal heretics have tried to attack Christianity and its rulings; they have denounced divorce and plural marriage and permitted alcohol. Look at the state of our societies to see the result - the state of misery which our societies have reached.
If we are going to say that being straight is the only way to be at peace then we can take a brief look at most of my childhood and look at the agony being gay has caused me (I am 17, up until last year when I found a way to reconcile my sexuality and faith, I had been in agony over my sexuality for anywhere between 6-9 years of self-torment). I will not go into specifics on how my pysche has been affected by constantly battling with myself over years when my pysche was still forming. Imagine what an infant, whose pysche is also still forming, would turn out like if it was abused.
Quote
When we accepted divorce, murder took its place. When we rejected plural marriage, men started to take mistresses instead. When we allowed alcohol, all kinds of shameful and immoral actions became widespread.How do gay humans deny the natural order God created in all other animals?
Gays and lesbians both go against the natural order which God has created in mankind – and also in animals – whereby the male is inclined towards the female, and vice versa.
Whoever goes against that goes against the natural disposition of mankind.
The spread of homosexuality has caused man diseases which neither the east nor the west can deny exist because of them. Even if the only result of this perversion was AIDS – which attacks the immune system in humans – that would be enough.
It also causes the breakup of the family and leads people to give up their work and study because they are preoccupied with these perversions.
AIDS does not exist as a result of gays. It is unfortunate chance that the first person to spread the disease was gay. If it was a woman to her husband who then went and slept with a prostitute that point wouldn't even exist.
If one is lustful, yes, it can destroy families and to lose works and studies. If one is a lustful straight person or a lustful gay person. If you're lustful and you like to fuck trees for all I care it would do the same. It is the lust not the "perversion".
So if we are gay we are better off dead, more so than those who would rape children or would abuse their wives?QuoteBoth of them – fornication and homosexuality – involve immorality that goes against the wisdom of Allaah’s creation and commandment. For homosexuality involves innumerable evil and harms, and the one to whom it is done would be better off being killed than having this done to him, because after that he will become so evil and so corrupt that there can be no hope of his being reformed, and all good is lost for him, and he will no longer feel any shame before Allaah or before His creation. The semen of the one who did that to him will act as a poison on his body and soul. The scholars differed as to whether the one to whom it is done will ever enter Paradise. There are two opinions which I heard Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) narrate.”Top kek
He's too breeki
And what innumerable harms homosexuality entails, I am quite curious.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 09:02:22 pm
Post by: Frumple on December 08, 2015, 09:05:15 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on December 08, 2015, 09:11:57 pm
I don't think that any of them have ever tried to have intercourse though. We really can't know what animals are thinking, they might b playing or something. (note: I am in no way an expert)Research topic of the hour:
Original Sin. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)
Simply because something is "natural", is not defense against it being sin. In short, under the doctrine of original sin, humans have a nature that drives or compels them to sin. This may, for instance, take form as homosexuality, or as being an adulterous rake.
Or just your garden variety liar.
It's all sin, and we are all compelled to do it, each in our own way.
Humans do have a nature driving them towards sin, but animals don't. Why then is homosexuality (including intercourse) observed in animals?
Homosexuality is totally an animal thing as well. Hell, I've witnessed penguins having gay sex in person. Ducks don't give a damn about the gender, willingness or even state of life of their partner and dolphins are even more indiscriminate. Male lions totally go for the butt-fun when no lionesses are available. And swans[Or maybe its geese? One of the big white feathery birds.], renowned for mating for life, take mates of either gender. And, IIRC, giraffes[Or was it zebras? Some african animal with silly looking legs, anyway] also did devoted homosexual relations[Rather then merely cavorting with no regard to gender or when no suitable mate of the opposite sex was available.]
Note: The below is personal, probably heretical, opinions. I might not know what I'm talking about.
Honestly, the main reason homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible[In my opinion, at least. Baseless xenophobia or dislike the homosexual rituals of nearby pagan religions are both other roots causes I've heard proposed] is the same as why a lot of stuff in Leviticus is forbidden or constrained: Health. Anal sex, IIRC, is more likely to result in STDs because of the higher number of veins in the rectum as compared to the genitals, especially when proper hygiene is not observed. Not that much of a problem today, with modern medical knowledge and hygiene, but it could have been a more serious problem back then. Just like pork products are safe to eat today but carried a deadly disease[IIRC, at least] back in those times. A fair amount of Leviticus is dedicated to hammering home extremely basic health stuff, but justified in divine ways. It also prescribes protocols for dealing with leprosy, odd rashes and lichen, among other things.
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 09:12:16 pm
See Romans 8, 5 through 11.
Quote
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[e] his Spirit who lives in you.
Basically, the stance taken of "adapting to suit the self" goes against this verse quite strongly, and the verse outright says that trying this kind of thing is NOT going to please god. In fact, the person taking this route is UNABLE to please god.
Again, this is a common fallacy I see with people arguing about the dogma of Christianity. They simply dont understand it on its own axioms, and instead make strawmen that they beat about.
The basic foundational principle in the christian dogma, is that the sin-nature of mankind makes humans unhappy when they try to abstain from sin on their own. That is why you need the intercession of the christ, and his gift of the holy spirit, which gives you a substitute nature, permitting you to feel true pleasure while also no longer being driven to commit sins. The purpose of this transformation is to make you into a spiritual being instead of a being driven by the flesh, and thus worthy of being immortal.
If you choose not to go that route, you are demonstrating being a sociopath (since the principles given by god, EG-- living a sin-free existence-- are necessary for a society of immortals to live together harmoniously for eternity, and going against this would mean that you consider yourself more important than the value of other people in such a future immortal society-- eg, sociopathy) and not worthy of being made immortal. The consequence, therefore, is for god to find you lacking, and make you dead, so you cant harm other people with your selfishness.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 08, 2015, 09:13:13 pm
Also I was going to reply to LW but I'm a bit confused about the "paraphrasing a muslim cleric" thing. Icefire seems to be doing fine.
And Icefire, going to second what Frumple said... Christian *establishment* is going to tell you you're a monster, don't let it get to you. Personal spirituality isn't a bad thing, with Jesus or otherwise. Just keep an open mind and don't follow demagogues, is all I'd ask.
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 09:24:47 pm
The better interpretation is, "I want to please god, but I am gay. I will ask Christ to intercede in my life, he will give me the Holy Spirit, and the holy spirit will slowly, over time, make me stop being gay any more, and I will be able to please god."
You can substitute [being gay] with [being a liar], or any other [sin].
This frames why the blasphemy against the holy spirit is unforgivable, because obvious paradox is obvious.
Post by: Icefire2314 on December 08, 2015, 09:29:09 pm
Be careful there-- That's falling into the trap of the "God of the self", as well as a few other things that the bible has some really harsh words about. :D
See Romans 8, 5 through 11.Quote5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.The basic foundational principle in the christian dogma, is that the sin-nature of mankind makes humans unhappy when they try to abstain from sin on their own. That is why you need the intercession of the Christ, and his gift of the holy spirit, which gives you a substitute nature, permitting you to feel true pleasure while also no longer being driven to commit sins. The purpose of this transformation is to make you into a spiritual being instead of a being driven by the flesh, and thus worthy of being immortal.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[e] his Spirit who lives in you.
Except I have been Baptized, Confirmed, recieved Eucharist, and been Reconciled within the Church. I haven't been Married, Ordained or Anointed. I am a full member of the Church and I am still attracted to men. I have tried to be attracted to women, but I don't feel love for them beyond a friendliness.
I have been saved by Christ through Baptism and the other Sacraments I've received and I have prayed for some 6-10 years for salvation and a taking away of a curse that plagued me. Nobody wants to be gay. I received no resolution.
Further, I may ask a question of, if sexuality were a matter of genetics, and homosexuality were, as Leviticus states, an "abomination", then how would homosexuality be a gene that one is born with? Either God created a gay gene or Satan did. All that God has created is good and the Devil cannot tamper with our bodies in such a physical sense.
If the Devil could tamper with the corporal world in such a physical sense, certainly the embodiment of all evil would have destroyed it.
Since we still exist it is safe to say that if sexuality is a matter of genetics then a homosexual gene exists a matter of creation by God. And all God has created is good.
I still think that is an incorrect interpretation, based on what is in scripture.
The better interpretation is, "I want to please god, but I am gay. I will ask Christ to intercede in my life, he will give me the Holy Spirit, and the holy spirit will slowly, over time, make me stop being gay any more, and I will be able to please god."
You can substitute [being gay] with [being a liar], or any other [sin].
This frames why the blasphemy against the holy spirit is unforgivable, because obvious paradox is obvious.
I was Baptized as an infant and Confirmed around the age of 10 and have gotten more gay, not less.
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 09:31:24 pm
I am arguing about what the faith's doctrines ACTUALLY SAY.
That is not an affirmation of truthfulness in what those doctrines say.
Again, I am an agnostic.
(To clarify--- When discussing Dr Suess's Cat in the Hat, the story says the Cat in the Hat "stood out there on the mat." My pointing out what is written inside that book does not in any way make the Cat in the Hat real, or imply that I believe that any such figure actually did stand out there on any actual mats.)
Post by: Icefire2314 on December 08, 2015, 09:32:27 pm
You are confused.
I am arguing about what the faith's doctrines ACTUALLY SAY.
That is not an affirmation of truthfulness in what those doctrines say.
Again, I am an agnostic.
Right, I misunderstood you. Apologies.
Still, however, my counterargument to that remains valid.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 09:32:37 pm
Post by: Icefire2314 on December 08, 2015, 09:35:03 pm
well baptism isn't what saves you, it is belief in Jesus as your savior. When did you make that decision?
Pope Francis on Atheists and Heaven (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists-you-don-t-have-to-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html)
EDIT: I meant to post more than just the link. In short Pope Francis says that Atheists can go to Heaven if they are good people but ultimately it is up to God to judge.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 08, 2015, 09:36:53 pm
The Bible forbids sex outside of marriage. Inside marriage, you're welcome to do whatever you and your spouse enjoy. Such is the purpose of sex. Whether or not marriage includes homosexual couples is up for debate.
Using "it's natural" to defend homosexuality from a Biblical perspective is wrong. Sin is the natural state of the world. It is natural for both humans and animals to lie, murder, and steal. That does not make any of these things okay.
Conversely, it is also natural to love, to show compassion, to be altruistic. These things are good. Natural and unnatural are not indicative of whether something is good or bad.
...
That's un-Biblical.well baptism isn't what saves you, it is belief in Jesus as your savior. When did you make that decision?Pope Francis on Atheists and Heaven (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists-you-don-t-have-to-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html)
EDIT: I meant to post more than just the link. In short Pope Francis says that Atheists can go to Heaven if they are good people but ultimately it is up to God to judge.
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 09:41:47 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 08, 2015, 09:43:20 pm
Also I was going to reply to LW but I'm a bit confused about the "paraphrasing a muslim cleric" thing. Icefire seems to be doing fine.What's confusing about being euphoric by my twenty blessings
Then you say that gay couple are incapable of "making love", of feeling true love for a partner and any sexual act between them is an act of base lust?Nah. And being straight is not sufficient, similar to how fucking and making love are not the same thing
If we are going to say that being straight is the only way to be at peace then we can take a brief look at most of my childhood and look at the agony being gay has caused me (I am 17, up until last year when I found a way to reconcile my sexuality and faith, I had been in agony over my sexuality for anywhere between 6-9 years of self-torment). I will not go into specifics on how my pysche has been affected by constantly battling with myself over years when my pysche was still forming. Imagine what an infant, whose pysche is also still forming, would turn out like if it was abused.
Empty vapid slaggyness is a burden to everyone's psyche
How do gay humans deny the natural order God created in all other animals?Obvious counterpoint here is that man alone was made in God's image, God sent the last prophet Muhammed to Earth to tell us what is right and wrong on behalf of God and God says no - moreover we have dominion over animals, we are not on the same level as them. God created much savagery and debasedness in animals; we do not follow their example.
AIDS does not exist as a result of gays. It is unfortunate chance that the first person to spread the disease was gay. If it was a woman to her husband who then went and slept with a prostitute that point wouldn't even exist.Yeah the point would just be the spread of HIV instead
If one is lustful, yes, it can destroy families and to lose works and studies. If one is a lustful straight person or a lustful gay person. If you're lustful and you like to fuck trees for all I care it would do the same. It is the lust not the "perversion".Lusting after trees is pretty mental m8, bad example
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
So if we are gay we are better off dead, more so than those who would rape children or would abuse their wives?Sheykh wants the former dead and the latter depends
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And what innumerable harms homosexuality entails, I am quite curious.Read some Arab or Indonesian news, fucking brutal
Post by: Icefire2314 on December 08, 2015, 09:45:36 pm
Ugh, this discussion is moving way too quick for me.Papal Infallibility.
The Bible forbids sex outside of marriage. Inside marriage, you're welcome to do whatever you and your spouse enjoy. Such is the purpose of sex. Whether or not marriage includes homosexual couples is up for debate.
Using "it's natural" to defend homosexuality from a Biblical perspective is wrong. Sin is the natural state of the world. It is natural for both humans and animals to lie, murder, and steal. That does not make any of these things okay.
Conversely, it is also natural to love, to show compassion, to be altruistic. These things are good. Natural and unnatural are not indicative of whether something is good or bad.
...That's un-Biblical.well baptism isn't what saves you, it is belief in Jesus as your savior. When did you make that decision?Pope Francis on Atheists and Heaven (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists-you-don-t-have-to-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html)
EDIT: I meant to post more than just the link. In short Pope Francis says that Atheists can go to Heaven if they are good people but ultimately it is up to God to judge.
Animals on Murder:Animals do not murder for the same reasons humans do. A carnivore may kill you to eat. A herbivore may kill you if it feels you may want to eat it. Humans may kill you because you disagree with them.
Animals on Theft: I hope I needn't be alarmed if my phone goes missing due to a passing bird. Animals typically steal food from humans. Humans also do that if they get hungry enough. If I am starving and steal a loaf of bread from a baker, am I condemned for my theft or he for his greed?
Animals on Lying: If an animal starts talking to me, let alone lying to me...
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 09:47:52 pm
Romans 6:23:well baptism isn't what saves you, it is belief in Jesus as your savior. When did you make that decision?
Pope Francis on Atheists and Heaven (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists-you-don-t-have-to-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html)
EDIT: I meant to post more than just the link. In short Pope Francis says that Atheists can go to Heaven if they are good people but ultimately it is up to God to judge.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Ephesians 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. not by works, so that no one can boast.
There are many more verses that would disagree with that.
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 09:48:33 pm
http://www.sodahead.com/living/muslims-blame-earthquakes-on-cleavage-do-you-believe-breasts-cause-tectonic-shifts/blog-303807/
Also, chimpanzees commit actual murder. FYI.
Post by: Telgin on December 08, 2015, 09:50:02 pm
Papal Infallibility.
I've been told that this only applies under very specific circumstances that I don't think the pope invokes very often. If a Catholic could elaborate on that, that would be pretty interesting actually.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 09:51:45 pm
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 09:53:28 pm
From a self-consistency of narrative PoV, Catholicism is a bit wobblier than a 2 legged stool in that respect.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 08, 2015, 09:53:55 pm
Basically, I have fundamental disagreements as to whether the principles given by God are in fact the necessary principles for a society of immortals to live harmoniously for eternity. I could talk about how conflict is inherent in human nature but that's easily dismissed as just being sin (I like debate and conflict of the mind, be it in games or speech; I know some people hate losing, but I just enjoy the process). Going against this, then means that I consider my views more correct than that of others, a fact true of literally everyone because otherwise they wouldn't hold those views in the face of anyone having a different one. You could say it means I hold myself above God, and I would disagree; I just hold an all-perfect being to a very rigorous standard, and will be gravely disappointed if he does not meet that standard. I have no frame of reference besides my own to base this standard off, so by definition I cannot hold God to His Own standards. That would defeat the point, anyway.
Christianity ends up looking self-referential if you try to base it on it's own assumptions, able to dismiss arguments in much the same way conspiracy theories do. Any evil humans do is evidence we have a sinful nature; when people who proclaim themselves to be true Christians do so, they were just liars or not very good Christians(I agree with that, by the way, since I still think Jesus was overall a pretty cool dude whether or not he was a lich); Christians who do good are evidence that God's work is at hand; Non-Christians who do good are evidence that He has left his mark on us, and that we are redeemable. Any time my beliefs of what is good differ from the Bible's, that proves that I am wrong, because God is perfect, and He knows best, because He said so. And since He is perfect and good, He would never lie, nor would He be mistaken.
That said, I grew up in a house relatively hostile to Christianity, where I am less liberal than my parents despite my goal in life being literally to achieve immortality, via nanobots. I may accidentally become the Anti-Christ if their hosts reject them leaving strangely spiral or six-shaped marks. *shrug*
Also, two things to note: 1, Religion has been shown to improve the psychoemotional health of people who have such beliefs. I'm guessing because knowing your purpose in life/the meaning in life/not worrying a shitton about death and nothingness like I might sometimes when I'm not distracting myself is more healthy than the alternative.
2, Mother Theresa may have been having an ongoing crisis of faith for the last fifty years of her life, based on her journals and the like.
As for people made uncomfortable by the less hospitable branches of the Christian faith; people are assholes. People will always be assholes. They will always find an outlet to be assholes. I find the sort of atheism that claims all religions are horrible and bad and you should feel bad for being religious and you effectively contributed to genocide and warmongering during the crusades and promote hate and intolerance by your implicit support for all the other branches of your religion including the bad ones, to be horribly dishonest, disrespectful, contemptuous towards people's beliefs and by extension (quite explicit extension, much of the time), the people who hold them, and generally also assholish. Christianity just has a persecution complex that tells them they're good people for being attacked in that way, so they don't get hurt emotionally as much. Key words being as much.
Religion causes wars and fosters hatred, and it creates community, encourages charity, and proposes answers to questions we cannot answer. Some of these can't be answer for the same reason I can't truly be certain a perfectly agile pink unicorn ghost is behind me, but they usually have somewhat more relevance to the human psyche.
Oh yeah, and for homosexuality: I'm pretty sure (I haven't actually read articles on it, but I get the general impression from adjacent studies) that while genetics plays a part in how susceptible you are to 'catching teh gay', it also has to do with environment. And simple errors in the code; I'm fairly sure being transgendered is basically a genetic defect that causes your mind's perception of gender and your physical gender to end up being desynchronized. Doesn't mean they're bad people, and it doesn't necessarily mean the fix is messing with their heads, but still. Environment plays a pretty big part. How I have no idea.
Bah this keeps getting longer: Animals do that too, Icefire! :P It's just that they disagree as to who is the leader of the pack, and then kill. Or whether you're allowed to look at it funny, like hippos do. Plenty of birds steal things because they're pretty (and you never asked the baker, so he's not exactly greedy :p). And plenty of animals deceive, whether in mating calls or just plain sneaking.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 08, 2015, 09:56:25 pm
LW, you are forgetting about how powerful exposed female breasts are, and how they can compel God to send earthquakes. ;)-Spoilt white girl goes to Muslim country, ignores local guide
http://www.sodahead.com/living/muslims-blame-earthquakes-on-cleavage-do-you-believe-breasts-cause-tectonic-shifts/blog-303807/
-Strips naked on sacred mountain, nothing is sacred everything skanky
-Mountain is offended
-Causes earthquake that kills loads of people
-Must provide 10 buffalo heads as peace offering (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/11665218/British-tourist-Eleanor-Hawkins-arrested-for-naked-photo-on-top-of-Malaysian-mountain.html)
Plate tectonics do not fuck around when you fuck around
Post by: Icefire2314 on December 08, 2015, 10:00:52 pm
Then you say that gay couple are incapable of "making love", of feeling true love for a partner and any sexual act between them is an act of base lust?Nah. And being straight is not sufficient, similar to how fucking and making love are not the same thing
If we are going to say that being straight is the only way to be at peace then we can take a brief look at most of my childhood and look at the agony being gay has caused me (I am 17, up until last year when I found a way to reconcile my sexuality and faith, I had been in agony over my sexuality for anywhere between 6-9 years of self-torment). I will not go into specifics on how my pysche has been affected by constantly battling with myself over years when my pysche was still forming. Imagine what an infant, whose pysche is also still forming, would turn out like if it was abused.
Empty vapid slaggyness is a burden to everyone's psyche
I would define making love to be an act of an actual love and in sexual context. Fucking would merely be lusted based sex.
Quote
If I am going to argue from a Christian perspective I can't debate with Muhammad. However, from a Christian perspective to say God created much debasedness in animals. All God has created is good according to Genesis.How do gay humans deny the natural order God created in all other animals?Obvious counterpoint here is that man alone was made in God's image, God sent the last prophet Muhammed to Earth to tell us what is right and wrong on behalf of God and God says no - moreover we have dominion over animals, we are not on the same level as them. God created much savagery and debasedness in animals; we do not follow their example.
Quote
I don't understand your rebuttal. AIDS and HIV are effectively the same virus just in different stages of terminality.AIDS does not exist as a result of gays. It is unfortunate chance that the first person to spread the disease was gay. If it was a woman to her husband who then went and slept with a prostitute that point wouldn't even exist.Yeah the point would just be the spread of HIV instead
Quote
No, my point was that it is not preoccupation with so-called "perversions", it is preoccupation with lust.If one is lustful, yes, it can destroy families and to lose works and studies. If one is a lustful straight person or a lustful gay person. If you're lustful and you like to fuck trees for all I care it would do the same. It is the lust not the "perversion".Lusting after trees is pretty mental m8, bad example
Quote
Being lustful and lusting after wrong things is two sinsSpoiler (click to show/hide)So if we are gay we are better off dead, more so than those who would rape children or would abuse their wives?Sheykh wants the former dead and the latter depends
Quote
He's pretty consistent, so yeahSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
The first thing that comes to mind from here is the gay men that ISIS pushed off a tower or building or some such. Being gay isn't asking to get pushed off a skyscraper, though I feel you may be referencing something else.And what innumerable harms homosexuality entails, I am quite curious.Read some Arab or Indonesian news, fucking brutal
In any case, I need to go do Calc homework, I've been preoccupied with this thread and now need to go do it so I can sleep :( I won't be on this thread at least the rest of this night.
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 10:02:13 pm
I approach this like discussing a work of fiction-- That work of fiction has certain "facts" about it-- or cannonicity. I am arguing positions from cannonicity, not from a standpoint of non-fiction.
When take in pure isolation, the axioms presented in the bible are the axioms presented in the bible. The fact that this is a tautology (as in, a literal honest to goodness one!) does not disqualify it.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 08, 2015, 10:05:16 pm
Especially when the sources giving one of those tautologies, contradicts itself in other places?
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 08, 2015, 10:06:47 pm
Papal Infallibility.... applies only to the Catholic Church (I'm (sort of) Reformed), and it only applies when the Pope is doing his fancy "I will now state the Word of God" routine, which that was not, and is rejected by everyone who is not Catholic.
...
Animals on Murder:Animals do not murder for the same reasons humans do. A carnivore may kill you to eat. A herbivore may kill you if it feels you may want to eat it. Humans may kill you because you disagree with them.I'm guessing your point here is "animals never do bad things", which is... bizarre. Suffice to say I vehemently disagree, and will be glad to provide all the evidence and theological justification at some point in future.
Animals on Theft: I hope I needn't be alarmed if my phone goes missing due to a passing bird. Animals typically steal food from humans. Humans also do that if they get hungry enough. If I am starving and steal a loaf of bread from a baker, am I condemned for my theft or he for his greed?
Animals on Lying: If an animal starts talking to me, let alone lying to me...
Still, though... Monkeys? Some make fake alarm calls to scare off their friends while they take food for themselves. Some will pay for pornography. Cats like to play with things they catch instead of killing them to eat. Mice, birds, weta. Because torture for amusement is okay?
Then there's the whole rampant infanticide thing, which is wholly unjustifiable under Christian morals.
E: So many ninjas.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 08, 2015, 10:10:09 pm
I believe the idea is that Animals cannot do Evil by definition. Only Humans can, because only Humans have Souls which give them knowledge of Good and Evil, and unknowing action cannot be True Evil, only Incidental Evil.Animals on Murder:Animals do not murder for the same reasons humans do. A carnivore may kill you to eat. A herbivore may kill you if it feels you may want to eat it. Humans may kill you because you disagree with them.I'm guessing your point here is "animals never do bad things", which is... bizarre. Suffice to say I vehemently disagree, and will be glad to provide all the evidence and theological justification at some point in future.
Animals on Theft: I hope I needn't be alarmed if my phone goes missing due to a passing bird. Animals typically steal food from humans. Humans also do that if they get hungry enough. If I am starving and steal a loaf of bread from a baker, am I condemned for my theft or he for his greed?
Animals on Lying: If an animal starts talking to me, let alone lying to me...
Still, though... Monkeys? Some make fake alarm calls to scare off their friends while they take food for themselves. Some will pay for pornography. Cats like to play with things they catch instead of killing them to eat. Mice, birds, weta. Because torture for amusement is okay?
Then there's the whole rampant infanticide thing, which is wholly unjustifiable under Christian morals.
E: So many ninjas.
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 10:12:04 pm
The animal world is of the flesh, and dies. God's judgement is baked right in, so the system is "good" in god's eyes.
However, humans are meant to be spiritual beings, not flesh ones.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2015, 10:13:00 pm
I don't understand your rebuttal. AIDS and HIV are effectively the same virus just in different stages of terminality.Medical offense, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus is a virus, Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome is a syndrome caused by that virus.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 08, 2015, 10:13:49 pm
If I am going to argue from a Christian perspective I can't debate with Muhammad. However, from a Christian perspective to say God created much debasedness in animals. All God has created is good according to Genesis.Ahah, this is the crux of the issue, isn't it?
The Garden was was good prior to the Fall. Not after it.
...
I believe the idea is that Animals cannot do Evil by definition. Only Humans can, because only Humans have Souls which give them knowledge of Good and Evil, and unknowing action cannot be True Evil, only Incidental Evil.I agree. Unfortunately Icefire is (I think?) trying to argue that homosexuality is justified before God because animals can be gay. Which I find to be bizarre.
Post by: Frumple on December 08, 2015, 10:17:35 pm
E: Well, and a bit of making the statement that they don't believe god would create people such as what they naturally are inclined towards (at least in regards to non-harmful sexual acts/relationships) is genuinely sinful, just as sex within marriage isn't. Bit of a dovetail. Which is, indeed, non-canonical/un-biblical, but hey, maybe god's changed its mind about what acts are appropriate for mankind again.
Post by: Telgin on December 08, 2015, 10:23:18 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 08, 2015, 10:28:38 pm
I believe the idea is that Animals cannot do Evil by definition. Only Humans can, because only Humans have Souls which give them knowledge of Good and Evil, and unknowing action cannot be True Evil, only Incidental Evil.I agree. Unfortunately Icefire is (I think?) trying to argue that homosexuality is justified before God because animals can be gay. Which I find to be bizarre.
Meh. I just go with the argument that a. 'natural' is meaningless anyway, since everything humans do is just part of our secondary phenotype, in the end, relating to our mental capacity, and thus as natural as a beaver building a dam, and b. unnatural=/=bad. natural=/= good. Penicillin is 'unnatural'. The bubonic plague was perfectly natural. Agriculture is unnatural (though there is an argument to be had for it being a bad thing to have invented for quality of life). Hell, religion is unnatural. Bears don't pray. Nor do Sharks, or even the smarter animals. Is that what proves they have no soul? Does that mean I have no soul?
Post by: Rolan7 on December 08, 2015, 10:34:49 pm
Relatively sure they just meant to argue it wasn't unnatural, unlike the common christian denouement of the acts state, and maybe got swept up by the discussion a bit.Yeah that's the impression I got. Basically that some of us are created homosexual, and why would God do that if it wasn't okay?
It's different from a person turning evil. That's... still hard to defend, but at least one can argue that a person has a chance to resist being corrupted by the world. But base sexuality is nature, not nurture.
Francis didn't say we would be saved by works. It's our conscience:Romans 6:23:well baptism isn't what saves you, it is belief in Jesus as your savior. When did you make that decision?
Pope Francis on Atheists and Heaven (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists-you-don-t-have-to-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html)
EDIT: I meant to post more than just the link. In short Pope Francis says that Atheists can go to Heaven if they are good people but ultimately it is up to God to judge.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Ephesians 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. not by works, so that no one can boast.
There are many more verses that would disagree with that.
Quote
“You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.
“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”
As I understand him, intentions do matter... If we regret the wrong things we do, and sincerely try to do good, God will forgive us even after death. It's a very reasonable stance, biblical or not.
As for the "wages of sin" quote, well, I don't understand the connection. But Francis was saying that the sin will be forgiven by God's mercy, even if we didn't have the good fortune to be raised in the correct denomination of the correct religion. So we'll have no sin.
(Also, the wages of sin being "death" is a lot better than Hell...)
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 08, 2015, 10:40:04 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 10:40:46 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 08, 2015, 10:43:05 pm
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 10:46:59 pm
AKA, death.
The whole "hell" thing is not very easy to substantiate within the biblical context. The most you will find are some obscure references in Revelations to the lake of fire. However, etymological studies of the original greek version of the text gives some clarification; the grammar used in that verse more accurately translates to "Burned without being put out"-- Not "Burning forever." EG, they are destroyed in the lake of fire, and there they are burned completely, and not spared.
Still death-- just specifying that it is death with prejudice.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 08, 2015, 10:52:26 pm
(Assuming that Christianity is true. It's obviously of pragmatic value for spreading the faith)
Francis basically solves that issue by saying that, if a person truly regrets being sinful, "go to Him with a sincere and contrite heart", then God'll still forgive you after death.
And... Does the Bible actually counter that, exactly?
Re: Hell
Quote from: John The Baptist
11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.Speaking about Jesus, presumably. In metaphor but... that's a harsh metaphor.
12 "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 10:56:31 pm
The fire is unquenchable-- It is never extinguished. That does not mean that the things disposed of inside it likewise persist eternally in a state of combustion.
Most old testament mistranslations are actually of the word "Sheol", which means "the grave"-- Lit, the place and state of being dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol
Note how it became a firey, terrible hellscape ONLY AFTER roman conquest of judea.
The description of it as being divided, with a good side, and a not so good side, is the view directly depicted in eg, the apocryphal book of Enoch.
Be that as it may, the new testament says that this place no longer gets used, because christ triumphed over it when he was raised from the dead.
So, whence do dead people go? "The wages of sin are death, and the wages of salvation is everlasting life."
So-- Obey Jesus, or die a mortal death and be no more.
Basically.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 11:01:23 pm
One of the big mysteries (from my perspective) of Christianity has always been "Why do you have to accept Jesus *before* you die, for his sacrifice to work?"Well, it is hard to accept jesus after death. (by hard i mean impossible since you can't think or talk anymore.)
(Assuming that Christianity is true. It's obviously of pragmatic value for spreading the faith)
Francis basically solves that issue by saying that, if a person truly regrets being sinful, "go to Him with a sincere and contrite heart", then God'll still forgive you after death.
And... Does the Bible actually counter that, exactly?
Re: HellQuote from: John The Baptist11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.Speaking about Jesus, presumably. In metaphor but... that's a harsh metaphor.
12 "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
The biblical counter to what pope said is that being sincere still doesn't save you if you still reject God. You need to "believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31)
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 08, 2015, 11:05:27 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 08, 2015, 11:06:50 pm
You lose sentience after death?
I thought we were supposed to persist as, essentially, ourselves. Just without "sinful desires of the body" and such.
Therefore we would be able to accept the offer of salvation... I don't think Francis's statement has been disproved by scripture yet.
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 11:08:40 pm
Quote
…4For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 11:09:06 pm
@origamiscienceguyI meant physical body and brain etc.
You lose sentience after death?
I thought we were supposed to persist as, essentially, ourselves. Just without "sinful desires of the body" and such.
Therefore we would be able to accept the offer of salvation... I don't think Francis's statement has been disproved by scripture yet.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 08, 2015, 11:10:08 pm
Are you 'locked' in place mentally once you die?
Why?
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 11:11:29 pm
The dead are no longer active in such concerns. They know nothing until they are raised again.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 08, 2015, 11:12:10 pm
@origamiscienceguyI can't remember where it was (probably a parable) where one guy spurned God and went to Hell. After that he begged... Jesus, I think, to tell his brothers about how spurning God was actually a really bad idea, but Jesus said something to the effect of "nope it's too late".
You lose sentience after death?
I thought we were supposed to persist as, essentially, ourselves. Just without "sinful desires of the body" and such.
Therefore we would be able to accept the offer of salvation... I don't think Francis's statement has been disproved by scripture yet.
...
Why would you need a physical body and brain to accept Christ's Love?It's kind of hard to think without a brain.
Are you 'locked' in place mentally once you die?
Why?
Post by: Rolan7 on December 08, 2015, 11:15:33 pm
Ecclesiastes 9, 4 through 6That's fucking terrifying. But it does counter my point, true!Quote…4For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
I'm out
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 08, 2015, 11:18:27 pm
Post by: wierd on December 08, 2015, 11:22:21 pm
The new testament basically says that this place is no longer used.
(see "harrowing of hell")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell
Here is the description of Sheol, by Enoch. (note, not in canon bible. Found in apocryphal books!) Just in case anyone is curious.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe025.htm
Post by: Bohandas on December 09, 2015, 01:13:55 am
On the contrary. Many studies have been made on Giraffes.
With rather (alarmingly?) high statistical regularity, the formation of same-sex sexual pairings greatly exceeds random probabilities, and behaviors at breaking these pairings up strongly indicate that the animals experience anxiety and distress at the separation.
http://www.learnanimals.com/giraffe/
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/Y2nbrJyAR6RiM/200_s.gif)
(That does not even begin to cover the territory of Bonobos......)l
Don't forget dolphins, penguins, and most especially desert grassland whiptail lizards (Aspidoscelis uniparens).
Also behavi0r arguably s0mewhat consistent with transsexualism has been observed in blenniidae and bluegill sunfish.
Post by: Grim Portent on December 09, 2015, 05:54:42 am
On the contrary. Many studies have been made on Giraffes.
With rather (alarmingly?) high statistical regularity, the formation of same-sex sexual pairings greatly exceeds random probabilities, and behaviors at breaking these pairings up strongly indicate that the animals experience anxiety and distress at the separation.
http://www.learnanimals.com/giraffe/
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/Y2nbrJyAR6RiM/200_s.gif)
(That does not even begin to cover the territory of Bonobos......)l
Don't forget dolphins, penguins, and most especially desert grassland whiptail lizards (Aspidoscelis uniparens).
Also behavi0r arguably s0mewhat consistent with transsexualism has been observed in blenniidae and bluegill sunfish.
Doves also engage in same sex pairings with fornication, at least between males, I do not know if female doves engage in lesbianism.
Koala females do though, they even have lesbian orgies. It's thought to be one of the reasons so many of them (about 70% of wild koalas I think) have Chlamidia. In captivity lesbian Koala acts outnumber heterosexual acts by 3:1, though it's unknown what the ratio is like in the wild. I'd assume it's similar since Koala's take pretty well to captivity.
Post by: Bohandas on December 09, 2015, 09:50:51 am
The romans 8 quote deals with this succinctly.
The animal world is of the flesh, and dies. God's judgement is baked right in, so the system is "good" in god's eyes.
However, humans are meant to be spiritual beings, not flesh ones.
"For who can prove that the human spirit goes up and the spirit of animals goes down into the earth?" -Ecclesiastes 3:21
Post by: Robsoie on December 09, 2015, 10:18:48 am
Ecclesiastes 9, 4 through 6That's fucking terrifying. But it does counter my point, true!Quote…4For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
I'm out
From a Christianity perspective it is not terrifying, because one of the fundamentals of Christianity is the Resurrection of the dead.
Matthew 22 (23 to 33)
And at the Resurrection the dead is not abandonned or forgotten, the believer , the ones that applied the Christ teachings will be raised, given life eternal as the Christ explains in John 6 ( 25 to 71 )
There are more precisions about this state and Resurrection in Corinthians 15 , the natural body that perish, the spiritual body that is raised, and how death in Christianity is not a finality, it is in fact considered as the "last enemy" that will be destroyed.
It's good to additionally point that angels/messengers that the raised will be similar to, as refered in the text from Matthew to aren't brainless/voiceless entities, through the bible they can discuss , they can interact.
Post by: Bohandas on December 09, 2015, 11:28:12 am
Ecclesiastes 9, 4 through 6That's fucking terrifying. But it does counter my point, true!Quote…4For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
I'm out
From a Christianity perspective it is not terrifying, because one of the fundamentals of Christianity is the Resurrection of the dead.
Frommthat perspective it explains even more. If you're a vegetable in heaven or hell that explains why you can't fall or repent after death.
Post by: Robsoie on December 09, 2015, 12:28:46 pm
Frommthat perspective it explains even more. If you're a vegetable in heaven or hell that explains why you can't fall or repent after death.No, you're simply ignoring what the Christ was saying about the subject, and so it is not "from that perspective", the Christian one i mean, but from your own.
Post by: breadman on December 09, 2015, 01:46:59 pm
Well, it is hard to accept jesus after death. (by hard i mean impossible since you can't think or talk anymore.)
Peter begs to differ:
Quote from: 1 Peter 4:6
For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.
Then again,
Ecclesiastes 9, 4 through 6Quote…4For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
Yeah. I stopped taking the Bible so seriously after actually reading it all the way through.
Quote from: Tommy Nomad, 10 Jan 2009
Religions—all religions—breed people at every end of the spectrum.
Some are tolerant, sensible people. Others are absolute nutters.
Pretending the second group doesn't exist does the first group no PR favours.
It can be helpful to realize that most people have a largely self-consistent worldview, and do things for a reason that makes perfect sense to them, though perhaps only on a subconscious level. In many cases, that worldview is dominated by a fear of outsiders, or a fear of being seen as an outsider. Unfortunately, group definition tends to be driven by the loudest people, who tend to be the nutters.
Is there any way out of this, without starting a new group with its own nutters?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 09, 2015, 03:36:48 pm
Post by: Graknorke on December 09, 2015, 03:44:50 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 09, 2015, 04:35:13 pm
But they were still given the teachings of Christ right? And since those happened after they died (duh) it must be possible to change after death.No. They believed in God's promise to send a savior while they were still alive. (God made the promise right after the fall) So they were already saved for the same reason that we are saved, through faith in Jesus.
Post by: Bohandas on December 09, 2015, 04:41:09 pm
Post by: Graknorke on December 09, 2015, 04:53:49 pm
But the gospel is specifically the teachings of Christ. How could they have heard it before he was even around?But they were still given the teachings of Christ right? And since those happened after they died (duh) it must be possible to change after death.No. They believed in God's promise to send a savior while they were still alive. (God made the promise right after the fall) So they were already saved for the same reason that we are saved, through faith in Jesus.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 09, 2015, 05:06:26 pm
Listening to the teaching of christ doesn't save you. Believing in Jesus the savior does.But the gospel is specifically the teachings of Christ. How could they have heard it before he was even around?But they were still given the teachings of Christ right? And since those happened after they died (duh) it must be possible to change after death.No. They believed in God's promise to send a savior while they were still alive. (God made the promise right after the fall) So they were already saved for the same reason that we are saved, through faith in Jesus.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 09, 2015, 09:56:24 pm
Post by: Graknorke on December 09, 2015, 09:58:28 pm
Listening to the teaching of christ doesn't save you. Believing in Jesus the savior does.That's not what the verse says though. It specifically says that the gospel was preached to them.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 09, 2015, 09:59:17 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 09, 2015, 10:05:36 pm
I can believe that Jesus was real, and if I'd been raised differently, I could believe he performed miracles and etc., and came down to Earth to be my Savior and relieve me of my sins...but he already did that. Like, 2000 years ago. Why shouldn't I sin now; not sinning would be making his sacrifice meaningless on a personal level. Why is it that it is more important to 'Believe' than it is to practice what is preached?
Why would God punish people who acted in accordance with His principles, though they did not realize, or did not believe for other reasons (trauma, say, at the hands of people purporting to be Christians, that leads to an irrational fear of Christianity), yet those who Believe are saved, regardless of whether they were actually living as good Christians?
Please don't say that only people who believe can act in accordance with his principles, as I find that to be a cop-out answer that does not sufficiently answer the question, and please do not say that those who do not live in a Christian way obviously don't believe, as Cognitive Dissonance is a thing that exists and is scientifically proven.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 09, 2015, 10:11:15 pm
To those who are now dead. So they heard it, then died. They didn't hear it while dead.Listening to the teaching of christ doesn't save you. Believing in Jesus the savior does.That's not what the verse says though. It specifically says that the gospel was preached to them.
EDIT: His teachings do matter, but being alive to physically hear them doesn't.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 09, 2015, 10:15:47 pm
Why does believing that Jesus is my Savior matter, but following His teachings doesn't?There are two sides to this. The first is that we are saved by grace, not works. The second is that faith without works is dead.
origami is stressing the first point, mostly because it's contrary to the idea being a "good person" somehow makes you worthy of Heaven.
Unfortunately, he's not stressing the second point, where we absolutely must strive to follow the Law, even though it's futile, as part of keeping that faith.
Hopefully that makes things clearer. I can go into more detail if you like.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 09, 2015, 10:24:57 pm
One may bring up the valid second point which I would agree with to some point, but I question the relevance of the Law if it has become futile. It's happened once, after all; People seem to say the Old Testament was made redundant many times, at least of the laws they disagree with. Is it so implausible that, in the following two thousand years, with the advent of technology those Christ spoke to would be hard pressed to even conceive of if shown, the relevance of some of those laws might have changed? It was written back when some things were probably very sensible, after all, and those things may have fallen out of being sensible. Like what to eat versus not to eat.
Is it impossible to hold Faith in God while believing Him to have inspired the Bible as appropriate for the Times, and that those Times have changed?
Oh, and tangentially related; other than selfish reasons, if given the choice between making the living world a better place as best I can conclude the definition of 'better', and getting into Heaven, why should I choose the latter?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 09, 2015, 10:33:05 pm
So, if we are saved by grace (which, as far as I can tell, is another way of saying 'God's whim', just it's beneficial so we don't call it that and also blasphemy), not works, then the question arises of why bother with works? If one trusts in God, there is no need for that, really.OrangeWizard summed it up pretty well. Also, if you are saved, the holy spirit comes in you and slowly makes you a better person. You've probably heard the verse "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." Which explains that the result of the spirit coming into you, you start to sin less. This is not an intrusion on free will, since you still will sin... alot, but it is more like a push in the right direction.
One may bring up the valid second point which I would agree with to some point, but I question the relevance of the Law if it has become futile. It's happened once, after all; People seem to say the Old Testament was made redundant many times, at least of the laws they disagree with. Is it so implausible that, in the following two thousand years, with the advent of technology those Christ spoke to would be hard pressed to even conceive of if shown, the relevance of some of those laws might have changed? It was written back when some things were probably very sensible, after all, and those things may have fallen out of being sensible. Like what to eat versus not to eat.
Is it impossible to hold Faith in God while believing Him to have inspired the Bible as appropriate for the Times, and that those Times have changed?
Oh, and tangentially related; other than selfish reasons, if given the choice between making the living world a better place as best I can conclude the definition of 'better', and getting into Heaven, why should I choose the latter?
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 09, 2015, 10:35:47 pm
So, if we are saved by grace (which, as far as I can tell, is another way of saying 'God's whim', just it's beneficial so we don't call it that and also blasphemy), not works, then the question arises of why bother with works? If one trusts in God, there is no need for that, really.Simply put, we try to follow the Law because we're commanded to. It kinda makes you look like a hypocrite if you claim to be Christian, but you're saying "yeah God says murder is bad" while running around stabbing people. That's an extreme example, but you get the idea.
One may bring up the valid second point which I would agree with to some point, but I question the relevance of the Law if it has become futile. It's happened once, after all; People seem to say the Old Testament was made redundant many times, at least of the laws they disagree with. Is it so implausible that, in the following two thousand years, with the advent of technology those Christ spoke to would be hard pressed to even conceive of if shown, the relevance of some of those laws might have changed? It was written back when some things were probably very sensible, after all, and those things may have fallen out of being sensible. Like what to eat versus not to eat.Not all of the OT law is relevant. I made a post about how it's defined a while back. I'll go find it.
E: Here you go.
For the churches that actually care about that sort of thing, there's normally a distinction made between moral, civil, and ceremonial Mosaic law.
The moral law is stuff like the Ten Commandments. Broad, nonspecific, "don't do this stuff, it's bad". These laws are a general expression of how God wants us to act.
Civil law is the ridiculously specific stuff that you get in Leviticus, that sets rules for slave ownership and property rights and all that. These were relevant to ye olde nation of Israel, basically God's divinely ordained legal system. You can argue that we should use these as a basis for modern law, but there's not really any point. I mean, who has slaves any more, geez.
Similarly, ceremonial laws are for the priesthood, sacrifices, and other religious... ceremonies. These were specifically relevant to Judaism, and were absolutely made redundant by Christ. When these laws are cited in a modern context it's usually to defend the idea that we should be building big, fancy churches, and generally putting a lot of money and effort into worship. Which has some merit IMO, but if it gets in the way of, say, providing for the poor, then you're flagrantly missing the point.
So basically, moral law is always relevant. Do not murder, do not lie, provide for those in need, hold God in the highest esteem.
Civil law is arguably relevant (but not really). Sell your land after seven years, don't keep your slaves forever (unless they want to stay), killing someone by accident is forgiveable if you go to this city afterwards.
Ceremonial law is redundant and only vaguely relevant for modern worship. Sacrifice X animal on Y day, sprinkle blood here, there, and everywhere, an aroma pleasing to the Lord, etcetera.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 09, 2015, 10:43:24 pm
If it was irrelevant then, what is to say that some newer, equally ceremonial part (Baptism, say, having replaced circumcision, being replaced by something else, or even be dropped; you cannot save the souls of others simply by dipping their heads in water as newborns. They must accept Christ into their hearts) is not irrelevant now? My point is not that 'God says murder is bad', but that 'the Bible says X is bad, but perhaps it isn't really, because A. Bible was written by man, who is flawed, and keeping a text, even a holy one, accurate through the better part of two millenia, in multiple and changing languages, accurate for that long is...difficult; B. God changes His mind, apparently, as shown by the fact that the Old Testament and the New disagree at times; and C. I can only know, truly, in my heart(I won't speak for other people here), that I do good, when I do good that affects this life. If I do something which appears to be good, but the Bible disagrees, why is my moral intuition, granted by God, subservient to the fallacies of men a thousand years over? People change their mind on what the bible means, and different interpretations result in different translations, leaving out all the other things I said.
God's Word may be law, if I take that as my moral code, but the Bible is not His Word unfiltered and uncorrupted, as near I can tell.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 09, 2015, 10:53:45 pm
I believe I read your post. That was exactly my point though.The Bible has actually remained nearly unchanged as far back as we can tell. The modern translations are usually taken directly from the hebrew and greek versions to maintain correctness. As for the differences of the old and new testament, they are mostly saying that things are different now, he normally acknowledges the old testament and then shows the change.
If it was irrelevant then, what is to say that some newer, equally ceremonial part (Baptism, say, having replaced circumcision, being replaced by something else, or even be dropped; you cannot save the souls of others simply by dipping their heads in water as newborns. They must accept Christ into their hearts) is not irrelevant now? My point is not that 'God says murder is bad', but that 'the Bible says X is bad, but perhaps it isn't really, because A. Bible was written by man, who is flawed, and keeping a text, even a holy one, accurate through the better part of two millenia, in multiple and changing languages, accurate for that long is...difficult; B. God changes His mind, apparently, as shown by the fact that the Old Testament and the New disagree at times; and C. I can only know, truly, in my heart(I won't speak for other people here), that I do good, when I do good that affects this life. If I do something which appears to be good, but the Bible disagrees, why is my moral intuition, granted by God, subservient to the fallacies of men a thousand years over? People change their mind on what the bible means, and different interpretations result in different translations, leaving out all the other things I said.
God's Word may be law, if I take that as my moral code, but the Bible is not His Word unfiltered and uncorrupted, as near I can tell.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 09, 2015, 10:57:34 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 09, 2015, 11:00:12 pm
Right. And things are even more different between the Roman Empire days of crucifying people who promoted uncommon religious beliefs, and now, where freedom of religion is a state mandated thing that I like to bring up to people when they try to use religious views as justification for civil/criminal laws.I meant differences in the spiritual world (with Jesus coming to earth and all).
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 09, 2015, 11:03:13 pm
Post by: Descan on December 09, 2015, 11:12:53 pm
have you thought about this before or were you just repeating something your pastor told you without thinking about the implications
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 09, 2015, 11:14:09 pm
Post by: Descan on December 09, 2015, 11:21:04 pm
what, are they christians in the closet?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 09, 2015, 11:22:16 pm
You keep saying "If you accept christ you become a better person," but I'm curious on how you explain all the people who... that... doesn't fit at all. There's no real study that's shown that any faith, let alone faith in Christ, leads to statistically creating more 'moral' people out of 'immoral' people, or to people behaving more morally. All the atheists (let alone Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists, Shinto, Norse Pagan, African Pagan, etc) who are good people, even great people. All the Christians, from Catholics to old school Baptists to Evangelicals to Unitarian Universalists (I guess), anyone who calls themselves a christian (or if you want to be stricter) anyone whose belief involves accepting jesus into their heart, who are terrible terrible people. From the Planned Parenthood shooter to Adolf Hitler (who WAS a Catholic, don't give me that "He was an atheist!" crap, read what he wrote/spoke about. Atheists will cop to Stalin and Mao but we ain't taking Hitler) to all the rest who obviously the holy spirit dropped the ball on.I'm repeating what the bible says, and I believe it too. It would be nigh impossible to actually set up a study to find that out anyways. And just because somebody says that they are christian doesn't necessarily mean that they have accepted Christ. It is something only you and God would know. Unfortunately, this is often because people do what you mentioned and just blindly follow what someone tells them, without ever reading what the actual core of the religion is.
have you thought about this before or were you just repeating something your pastor told you without thinking about the implicationsSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Frumple on December 09, 2015, 11:31:51 pm
that's partly why i included the point about good atheistsLook, desc, you spend over two thousand years without coming down to tune the mechanisms and see how well your corrective processes still work. For all we know the actual spirit emitting thingjigger is buried under a desert or somethin' and ain't been workin' right for centuries.
what, are they christians in the closet?
Though nah, it's pretty easy to set up studies to see how effective religious adherence of various sorts are at doing... y'know, most things. Last I checked there's been all sorts of stuff along those lines, if not as much as there could be. Stuff's fascinating for psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, neurologists, etc., etc., etc. Last I paid much attention the results are middling at best, when it's not actively detrimental, especially compared to programs that inculcate similar behavior without the troublesome parts. Lotta' stuff that's a lot better than church service and bible readin' and so on for breedin' ethical behavior and whatnot.
Post by: Bohandas on December 10, 2015, 01:15:27 am
Has anubody else noticed that Sagittarius A-Star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*) fits most of the criteria for being Azathoth?
Seriously!
-Knows nothing
-Unstoppable force of destruction
-Cosmically huge/massive
-While it isn't the center of the universe it is the center of the galaxy
-Orbited by lesser entities: the entire milky way galaxy
EDIT:
Speaking of astronomy - before I forget, as a SubGenius I would like to wish you all a happy Northern Martian Summer Solstice this Northern Martian Summer Solstice Season. It's on January 3rd.
EDIT:
Lotta' stuff that's a lot better than church service and bible readin' and so on for breedin' ethical behavior and whatnot.
Yeah. I think In many cases they even do an active and significant disservice to the values they wish to promote. In the matter of abortion, for instance. I'm convinced that many on the pro-choice side are actually examples of the Nietzschean axiom that "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid", and that if the pro-life side would frame their position in terms of a valid argument concerning the non-ethicality of eugenics, and the fact that while many are medically necessary the majority have no valid reason (or at any rate no more so than liposuction or penis enlargement or any other such medically frivilous surgical procedure at any rate) rather than a bunch of spiritual woo-woo they might actually win some people over
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 10, 2015, 02:17:00 am
that's partly why i included the point about good atheistsSorry, I was being facetious.
what, are they christians in the closet?
People can be good or bad (humanly speaking) with or without the influence of a religion. And they can change over time, to be better or worse (humanly speaking) with or without the direct influence of religion.
Under Reformed doctrine (meaning most Christians think this is wrong, but personally I believe it to be a more accurate and consistent representation of the Bible's teaching) people are unable to do anything that is truly good (spiritually speaking), even if it is fantastically so by human standards, because their intentions are not pure (i.e. doing it for the glory of God alone).
Once the Holy Spirit works in one's heart (sounds cheesy but I can't think of a better way to put it), a believer becomes able to do good things with pure intentions, but not necessarily likely, varying from person to person. Obviously they still commit sin, but there's a little bit of good sprinkled in here and there.
Basically, "good" atheists can do good things from a human perspective, but not good in a Christian context, because that would mean doing it for God, and not for yourself or some other person. We really need to stop using the word good for that. Pure would be better, I think.
I cannot and will not defend people who claim to be Christian, but use the religion to justify things that are flagrantly hateful or selfish. Their actions are effectively blasphemy, and cause no small amount of harm to everyone around them.
Post by: TD1 on December 10, 2015, 04:40:09 am
You keep saying "If you accept christ you become a better person," but I'm curious on how you explain all the people who... that... doesn't fit at all. There's no real study that's shown that any faith, let alone faith in Christ, leads to statistically creating more 'moral' people out of 'immoral' people, or to people behaving more morally. All the atheists (let alone Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists, Shinto, Norse Pagan, African Pagan, etc) who are good people, even great people. All the Christians, from Catholics to old school Baptists to Evangelicals to Unitarian Universalists (I guess), anyone who calls themselves a christian (or if you want to be stricter) anyone whose belief involves accepting jesus into their heart, who are terrible terrible people. From the Planned Parenthood shooter to Adolf Hitler (who WAS a Catholic, don't give me that "He was an atheist!" crap, read what he wrote/spoke about. Atheists will cop to Stalin and Mao but we ain't taking Hitler) to all the rest who obviously the holy spirit dropped the ball on.I'm repeating what the bible says, and I believe it too. It would be nigh impossible to actually set up a study to find that out anyways. And just because somebody says that they are christian doesn't necessarily mean that they have accepted Christ. It is something only you and God would know. Unfortunately, this is often because people do what you mentioned and just blindly follow what someone tells them, without ever reading what the actual core of the religion is.
have you thought about this before or were you just repeating something your pastor told you without thinking about the implicationsSpoiler (click to show/hide)
So someone who accepts Christ is more moral than someone who doesn't?
So you're more moral than me, and most people on this thread?
Quote
without ever reading what the actual core of the religion is.The "core" of religion has long been debated. Moral, focused on afterlife, knowledge. Really, there is no core - it's all interpretative.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 10, 2015, 05:34:13 am
So someone who accepts Christ is more moral than someone who doesn't?With strict relevance to Christian morality, yes. It's like saying "I'm smarter than you if we use this definition of smartness that means skill at underwater basket weaving".
...
The core of the religion is all interpretative, yes. The core of the Bible's teaching is interpretative in the same way that I can interpret Common Sense as a denouncement of Dutch shoemaking techniques.Quotewithout ever reading what the actual core of the religion is.The "core" of religion has long been debated. Moral, focused on afterlife, knowledge. Really, there is no core - it's all interpretative.
The Bible is very clear on what Christ was all about. Peace, love, magically conjuring food, that sort of thing. The problem is that it's thrown in with a bunch of other stuff that has a tendency to confuse things.
Post by: TD1 on December 10, 2015, 06:31:31 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 10, 2015, 09:08:07 am
So someone who accepts Christ is more moral than someone who doesn't?Orange Wizard summed it up pretty good. It appears he is much better at explaining things than I am.
So you're more moral than me, and most people on this thread?
Post by: TD1 on December 10, 2015, 09:10:54 am
I'm not trying to get to you, just saying what I think.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 10, 2015, 09:18:37 am
It wasn't that I didn't understand. I just thought it was a less-than-stable way to view morality, and also maybe a tad bit arrogant. No offence, but your morality isn't better than mine, and you are not automatically a better person :PI'm just bad at explaining everything. Tunnel-visioned.
I'm not trying to get to you, just saying what I think.
Post by: TD1 on December 10, 2015, 09:41:39 am
Just because someone can say it more concisely or in less words than you does mean that you are bad at explaining. Not being able to explain means that you do not understand, as a general rule.
...
This may be presumptuous, but ah well.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 10, 2015, 11:37:45 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 10, 2015, 05:37:28 pm
I can explain it, I just focus on one thing without giving any background or related information that is required to understand it. I just assume everybody already knows. That is why I am bad at explaining things.Don't worry, I do that too. Everyone's bad at everything until they've practised it enough.
...
The other stuff is what's interpretative. What's other, and what's canon? And which parts of the canon take precedence?Just off the top of my head, there are lots of things related to Christianity that the Bible doesn't explain or explains vaguely enough for people to disagree:
- Sacraments (what is, how to do)
- Baptism (when/how, necessity thereof)
- Whether women should preach
- How much to tithe
- Relevance of the OT
- How to structure a service
- Homosexuality/transsexualism
- Young earth/old earth
- Election/reprobation
- Sola scriptura
The presentation varies, but the core remains the same. That's why there's 30 000 denominations of Christianity and not 30 000 loosely-affiliated religions.
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 11, 2015, 10:16:34 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 13, 2015, 09:02:17 am
checi
Post by: Graknorke on December 13, 2015, 09:03:44 am
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/gambia-president-declares-islamic-statehood-151212153025585.htmla secular government is colonial now?
checi
k
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 13, 2015, 09:08:36 am
Post by: Graknorke on December 13, 2015, 09:10:34 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 13, 2015, 09:13:30 am
"Gambia cannot afford to continue the colonial legacy," pretty heavily implies to me that he considers a secular state to be part of their 'colonial legacy'.
Hamat Bah, of the opposition National Reconciliation Party, criticised the decision. "There is a constitutional clause that says that Gambia is a secular state," he said. "You cannot make such a declaration without going through a referendum."
Jammeh's government has been regularly criticised by Britain and other Western powers for human rights abuses. Jammeh has ruled Gambia since seizing power in 1994.
Jeffrey Smith, a senior advocacy officer at the Robert F Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, told Al Jazeera that Jammeh's "unilateral" decision to call Gambia an Islamic republic is part of a "larger pattern of capriciousness" and has ulterior political motives.
"Gambia is not a country of laws but is rather ruled by the whims of Yahya Jammeh," Smith said.
Second, Jammeh has burned all bridges with his former donors in the West due to his deplorable human rights track record and the rampant corruption that he has participated in.
"As such, he is desperately attempting to foster a closer and more lucrative relationship with the Arab world. By couching his decision in terms of 'fighting colonialism', we can see that he is trying to cozy up with other parts of the world that harbour anti-West sentiments," he said.
Newspeak
Post by: redwallzyl on December 17, 2015, 10:07:31 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 17, 2015, 10:10:30 pm
so what do people think of this? (http://www.npr.org/2015/12/17/460149212/in-americas-heartland-building-one-home-for-three-faiths)I don't think anything bad will happen neccessarily, but I also think that it is somewhat pointless
Post by: wierd on December 17, 2015, 10:16:03 pm
What point is there in shoving 3 mutually exclusive religious faiths into one crowded center of worship?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 17, 2015, 10:17:01 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 17, 2015, 10:41:31 pm
I mean, they can follow whatever religion they like, but the point here is that they're not Christian. Having them do their things in a Christian church undermines the Christian bit.
...
Quote
"This is something God wanted us to do a long time ago, and we were completely blinded by doing other things," says Aryeh Azriel, the rabbi at Temple Israel.Also, ew.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 17, 2015, 10:55:02 pm
"A house divided cannot stand."Renewable fusion power? The situation sounds explosive enough.
What point is there in shoving 3 mutually exclusive religious faiths into one crowded center of worship?
But seriously... Eh, dunno. This doesn't seem terribly surprising to me, but I used to hang out with Unitarians and I know a few "All gods are, like, the same god" type people. (Which I follow as far as the Abrahamic God, but when they try to shoehorn Buddha and Vishnu in...)
I kinda hope it works out though. Being exposed to other denominations like this will hopefully encourage them to learn about their faiths. I have a lot more respect for religious people who bother to study, yaknow, the most important topic possible (as opposed to blithely believing what they were taught as kid).
Though I see some people are worried about terrorists taking offense and action, and I think that's a real concern here ):
Post by: Frumple on December 18, 2015, 01:35:46 am
About the only thing meaningfully contradicting the stance is some of the holy texts occasionally saying otherwise, and it's not like that's ever really stopped anyone.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 18, 2015, 02:03:42 am
Post by: Rolan7 on December 18, 2015, 02:11:14 am
But even if you find common ground between Hinduism and Christianity in that they both have a "main" deity who is one-but-many, which seems like a stretch similarity-wise, Islam and Judaism very strongly reject that concept.
Not to mention the old religions...
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 18, 2015, 02:56:43 am
Culturally, Christianity/Islam/Judaism is very monotheistic (or close to it, re: the Trinity), but in terms of literature there's not much to say that there's only one deity, beyond semantics around "the Lord is the greatest" sort of thing.
Post by: TempAcc on December 18, 2015, 06:12:48 am
Spiritism is also very maleable in that sense, in that it can adapt to pretty much any major religion and encompass it completely under its teaching, altough it throws away the whole dichotomy of angels and demons or any concept of purely evil beings, and stablishes that there is only one actual omnipotent and truly benevolent God, but it explains why it does so. It also makes quite some interesting arguments on reincarnationism in the bible. The Gospel According to Spiritism is quite an interesting book.
Its also maleable/adaptable to science, in many ways.
Post by: i2amroy on December 18, 2015, 04:19:05 pm
...Maybe I haven't studied Hinduism enough, recently? I remembered it as far more polytheistic than that.Hinduism has a lot of divisions rather similar to Christianity actually, though our general lack of Hindus over here cuts down our knowledge of them a fair bit. Some of them work wonderfully with things like the all-gods-are-one idea, with a few of them actually go to the point where it's mainly the intent behind your acts that matter, not the acts themselves, so if you are worshiping Christ doing the rituals that he laid out or worshiping Mumbo-jumbo with the rituals that he proscribed it doesn't matter as long as you are doing it with the right intent. Others are a lot less tolerant and compatible with that type of thinking.
But even if you find common ground between Hinduism and Christianity in that they both have a "main" deity who is one-but-many, which seems like a stretch similarity-wise, Islam and Judaism very strongly reject that concept.
Not to mention the old religions...
Buddhism is a bit harder, because in many cases they don't even really have a god, just a variety of spirits and other supernatural stuff since many treat the Buddha not as a god, but rather just as the very first human to ever reach the enlightened state (though others proscribe to a more "western" style of worship, with Buddha as a god and so forth.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 18, 2015, 05:24:20 pm
Post by: TD1 on December 18, 2015, 07:56:23 pm
I mean, I could say the same thing about Jesus, citing any number of divine sons that had an immense influence on potential converts in the religion's birth-era.
Post by: Rose on December 18, 2015, 08:50:24 pm
There is only one God, Krishna. Everybody else are still mortals, like you or me, even if they might be much more powerful and longer lived.
Krishna does commonly send down avatars, which go by different names, but are still ultimately Him. Indeed, he is described as having infinite names, and it is part of our teachings that every religion worships the same God under different names.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 18, 2015, 08:52:03 pm
Post by: TD1 on December 18, 2015, 09:01:21 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 18, 2015, 10:04:27 pm
Can you explain why you think that?There are quite a few hindus (is that how you say the plural of hindu?) at my school, and from the few ones I've had a spiritual conversation with, they told me that they would worship Jesus too if it would make me happy. (or something like that) Leading me to believe what I said earlier. Although I doubt this is what all of them believe.
I mean, I could say the same thing about Jesus, citing any number of divine sons that had an immense influence on potential converts in the religion's birth-era.
Post by: Adragis on December 19, 2015, 02:06:25 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 20, 2015, 07:12:59 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 20, 2015, 07:15:12 pm
Post by: TD1 on December 20, 2015, 08:09:22 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 20, 2015, 08:14:28 pm
Out of curiosity, do you think Christmas is in itself sacred? As in, that particular day? Some folks I know do.It is the day we celebrate Jesus' birth, which is a pretty important day for Christians, December 25 is most likely not the day Jesus was actually born. It is more likely to be September/October time frame. You can read more info here (http://biblelight.net/sukkoth.htm) if you want. It would really depend on what you define as "sacred" because Jesus' birth itself is very special, but December 25 really isn't anything out of the ordinary.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 20, 2015, 08:25:24 pm
Or it's just the closest significant date to Christmas, so it's a good excuse to join in the holidays. Which isn't really a coincidence... This time of year is special to a lot of diverse groups, and that's cool.
Anyway, I hope everyone finds some happiness this holiday season.
Post by: Frumple on December 20, 2015, 08:42:01 pm
Bit of a shame it's not going to be colder where I'm at -- tomorrow actually signifies the temperature getting back into the 70s :-\
Post by: Bohandas on December 20, 2015, 09:33:53 pm
Yeah, solstice has significance in pretty close to every religion. It's basically why christmas is when it is, ferex, and tends to have varying celebrations the world over. The solstices/equinoxes in general do, really, though winter seems to generally be the biggest one (presumably because it's the one that happens when the people are least likely to have something else to do :P).
That parenthetical note should be in the past tense. Because of all those isolated ancient cultures finally meeting there's now an excess of things to do.
I just found out that tomorrow's the solstice! I'm going to do a short nature walk in appreciation. I think the day holds special significance in Wicca?
Or it's just the closest significant date to Christmas, so it's a good excuse to join in the holidays. Which isn't really a coincidence... This time of year is special to a lot of diverse groups, and that's cool.
Anyway, I hope everyone finds some happiness this holiday season.
And the Martian solstice is coming up on January 3rd
EDIT:
http://planetary.org/explore/space-topics/mars/mars-calendar.html
http://www.alpo-astronomy.org/jbeish/General_Info_Mars.htm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 24, 2015, 03:00:05 pm
Post by: TD1 on December 24, 2015, 04:55:04 pm
Arianism! Satanism! The trees have souls man!
:P
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 24, 2015, 05:05:33 pm
Post by: TD1 on December 24, 2015, 06:17:06 pm
And before you ask, no, being touched by the Pope as a nine year old boy doesn't count.
Post by: Bohandas on December 24, 2015, 06:25:31 pm
You have to be touched by god to issue indulgences.
That's easy enough. Just send thirty dollars to Ivan Stang.
Post by: Graknorke on December 24, 2015, 06:41:51 pm
Yeah, solstice has significance in pretty close to every religion. It's basically why christmas is when it is, ferex, and tends to have varying celebrations the world over. The solstices/equinoxes in general do, really, though winter seems to generally be the biggest one (presumably because it's the one that happens when the people are least likely to have something else to do :P).I thought it was because it's the one where you're most likely to pop your clogs from starvation or exposure or what-have-you, so coming out of winter is a bit of a relief.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 24, 2015, 06:43:35 pm
Although Solstice isn't really the point where it starts warming up, as far as I know...
Speaking of which.
MERRY YULESTIDE
Post by: Graknorke on December 24, 2015, 06:44:45 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 24, 2015, 07:00:20 pm
ON THIS MIDNIGHT ALL ARE PAGANS
Post by: Frumple on December 24, 2015, 07:01:39 pm
Post by: Graknorke on December 24, 2015, 07:04:46 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 24, 2015, 07:05:04 pm
Improvement it is not. Well, maybe in places with reasonable weather. Not anywhere near the equator. Days getting longer means hell's coming back into full swing.I remember after one unusually long winter when the Summer arose, I had forgotten what the sun looked like and I had the most pleasant elation realizing I had forgotten about the largest celestial body in our solar system. And then I promptly melted. That awkward transition between freezing cold and blisteringly hot is made all the worse by how you can't dress for either without falling victim to either. At least all the arid and tropical countries only have to prepare for day and night or rain and more rain respectively.
Post by: wierd on December 24, 2015, 07:13:06 pm
try living in a place where the weather can shift 40f or more in the course of a single day.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 24, 2015, 07:20:39 pm
... coming from the man with ocean moderated climate...Death is there
try living in a place where the weather can shift 40f or more in the course of a single day.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2015, 07:22:38 pm
Post by: wierd on December 24, 2015, 07:28:27 pm
do seasonal tornadoes count?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2015, 07:30:12 pm
This is without counting the day there was a -50 windchill, narrowly beating out Antarctica and Mars.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 24, 2015, 07:36:28 pm
If previous years are anything to go by, sometime in March, it will sudenly drop to 20 below freezing for a day and return to march-ish temperatures by the next day.
Post by: Helgoland on December 24, 2015, 07:39:54 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 24, 2015, 08:10:14 pm
Post by: Bohandas on December 24, 2015, 08:25:21 pm
Checkmate atheists :P
Seriously though, saying that Christmas is about the winter solstice is like saying that a camel is a type of fish. It has a certain obtuse validity to it; the tetrapoda are ultimately descended from fish, many christmas traditions are descended from holidays that originally celebrated the solstice. But in practice there's really no practical reason to classify a camel as a fish or christmas as a solstice celebration
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 24, 2015, 09:09:30 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 24, 2015, 09:13:42 pm
*I'm not really any label. Family's Catholic, but I doubt many central tenets, and no other religion I've seen seems to fit me. Pretty much just agnostic at times, but there might be a "force of good" in the world (no miracles, etc.).
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 24, 2015, 09:16:05 pm
I don't think Jesus was born from a virgin. Can any (other?*) Christians explain why they say that as well as why it matters?Jesus being the Son of God would kind of lose meaning if his biological father were Joseph and not God.
Post by: Frumple on December 24, 2015, 09:21:50 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2015, 09:24:06 pm
This is not exactly the source of the sexism that permeates Christianity, but it's certainly a good example of it.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 24, 2015, 09:47:35 pm
Not... really? Don't think it'd make much of a difference. Wasn't the squishy bits that makes the relationship what it's said to be, yeah?Yeah, I guess. The point is a virgin birth, which is pretty miraculous, unless you get into artificial sciency stuff that didn't exist at the time.
Whether or not it had to be a virgin birth is a moot point, that's just the way the story goes. It's like belabouring the point of anything in the Bible, really. John the Baptist didn't have to be called John, but he was; Saul didn't have to become king of Israel, but he did, and so on.
Obviously historicity is another matter entirely; let's not get into that.
...
Because dirty, dirty sin is transferred through blood, and if Mary were not made sinless then Jesus would not be either. Putting out for god is purifying, putting out for your husband is dirty.There's so much wrong here I just can't even
This is not exactly the source of the sexism that permeates Christianity, but it's certainly a good example of it.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 24, 2015, 09:52:33 pm
I don't think Jesus was born from a virgin. Can any (other?*) Christians explain why they say that as well as why it matters?It was prophesised in Isaiah that the Savior would be born of a virgin (among countless other prophecies) as a clear sign of who the savior was rather than a false prophet.
*I'm not really any label. Family's Catholic, but I doubt many central tenets, and no other religion I've seen seems to fit me. Pretty much just agnostic at times, but there might be a "force of good" in the world (no miracles, etc.).
Quote
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
And the Jesus was definitely not born from Joseph because of how he reacted when he learned she was pregnant:
Quote
Mathew 1:19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2015, 09:55:49 pm
Let me just go ahead and put the same thing more charitably, to illustrate my point.Because dirty, dirty sin is transferred through blood, and if Mary were not made sinless then Jesus would not be either. Putting out for god is purifying, putting out for your husband is dirty.There's so much wrong here I just can't even
This is not exactly the source of the sexism that permeates Christianity, but it's certainly a good example of it.
It is vital to the Word of God and the salvation of mankind through Christ that Mary be a virgin, for only through the immaculate conception and virgin birth may Christ claim victory over Original/Ancestral Sin by breaking the inheritance of tainted blood, mother to child, since the days of Adam. The virginity of Mary must be so that Christ will become incarnate through a sinless vessel. Lacking this, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross to appease the wrath of God will be in vain, and the sins of mankind will endure into eternal torment.
I have basically said the same thing in both posts, I'm just actually condemning it. And remember, it is at least Catholic doctrine that Mary was sinless, without believing it one is in heresy against the appointee of God on Earth.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 24, 2015, 11:21:23 pm
Do you have any scripture to back that up? Because I have quite a bit that disprove the part about Mary being sinless.Let me just go ahead and put the same thing more charitably, to illustrate my point.Because dirty, dirty sin is transferred through blood, and if Mary were not made sinless then Jesus would not be either. Putting out for god is purifying, putting out for your husband is dirty.There's so much wrong here I just can't even
This is not exactly the source of the sexism that permeates Christianity, but it's certainly a good example of it.
It is vital to the Word of God and the salvation of mankind through Christ that Mary be a virgin, for only through the immaculate conception and virgin birth may Christ claim victory over Original/Ancestral Sin by breaking the inheritance of tainted blood, mother to child, since the days of Adam. The virginity of Mary must be so that Christ will become incarnate through a sinless vessel. Lacking this, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross to appease the wrath of God will be in vain, and the sins of mankind will endure into eternal torment.
I have basically said the same thing in both posts, I'm just actually condemning it. And remember, it is at least Catholic doctrine that Mary was sinless, without believing it one is in heresy against the appointee of God on Earth.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2015, 11:26:54 pm
Do you have any scripture to back that up? Because I have quite a bit that disprove the part about Mary being sinless.This is a fairly comprehensive list as to why, from both scripture and sacred tradition. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
Of course, this is the Catholic position. There are certainly Christian groups which reject sinless Mary, but some of them are even newer than the RCC's declaration.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 24, 2015, 11:28:56 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2015, 11:31:45 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 24, 2015, 11:35:00 pm
The section on "Proof from Scripture" does not impress you? Consider that the doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to the Nicene Creed and considered by almost all Christians to be necessary to be a Christian, isn't in scripture either. If that can be inferred, surely other things can.Correct. This: "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture" from the scripture section does not impres me. The thing about the trinity is not necessary for salvation, but believing that it is possible to live a life without sin definitely does matter.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 24, 2015, 11:40:40 pm
The Belgic Confession (https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession), relevant articles 14 through 20.
The Heidelberg Catechism (https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/heidelberg-catechism), Lord's Day 14 through 16 (Q&A 35 through 43).
Admittedly these aren't 100% relevant, but they address the general topic and provide dozens of relevant Scripture passages.
...
There are certainly Christian groups which reject sinless MaryYeah, most of them.
...
Their proof was basically "it could be interpreted this way if you twist the words a little and ignore the other, more obvious interpretations". Not particularly impressive.The section on "Proof from Scripture" does not impress you? Consider that the doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to the Nicene Creed and considered by almost all Christians to be necessary to be a Christian, isn't in scripture either. If that can be inferred, surely other things can.Correct. This: "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture" from the scripture section does not impres me. The thing about the trinity is not necessary for salvation, but believing that it is possible to live a life without sin definitely does matter.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2015, 11:51:49 pm
With the minor exemption of the single largest, most wealthy, most influential one in the world, of course.There are certainly Christian groups which reject sinless MaryYeah, most of them.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 25, 2015, 12:07:00 am
The bible also rejects it.With the minor exemption of the single largest, most wealthy, most influential one in the world, of course.There are certainly Christian groups which reject sinless MaryYeah, most of them.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall shot of the glory of god.
Ecclesiastes 7:20 Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.
Romans 3:10 As it is written: there is no one righteous, not even one.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 25, 2015, 12:09:44 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 25, 2015, 12:12:33 am
Sure, Mary was blessed. So was almost every other God-Following person in the bible. What does that prove?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 25, 2015, 12:16:20 am
I'm just saying man, while the Catholics may have an obtuse view on Mary it does manage to reconcile the taint of original sin with the human nature of Jesus. Lacking that, there's no answer to how Jesus could be sinless if he was born a man from the womb of a woman also carrying original sin.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 25, 2015, 12:19:11 am
Lacking that, there's no answer to how Jesus could be sinless if he was born a man from the womb of a woman also carrying original sin.Sure there is. He is God. Who is infinityinfinityinfinity times as wise as we are.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 25, 2015, 12:22:08 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 25, 2015, 12:24:33 am
That seems somewhat like a cop-out. If the mystery of God's wisdom is a freely applicable answer, then why should anything happen since it could be much more effectively solved by God's wisdom?free will.
(here we go again...)
He loved his creation, so he gave us free will, and he gave us a solution to get out of our mistakes that we make in our free williness.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 25, 2015, 12:31:14 am
Here we go again indeed. But we can talk about problems that don't even directly involve free will violation. Let's take Jesus' life, for example. If God's value of free will is not violated by his interactions with the apostles, then why the plan of crucifixion? His infinite wisdom could be applied to subtly influence but not actually force humanity into rejecting sin otherwise, which solves for everything but original sin, which you already considered solvable by his wisdom regardless.That seems somewhat like a cop-out. If the mystery of God's wisdom is a freely applicable answer, then why should anything happen since it could be much more effectively solved by God's wisdom?free will.
(here we go again...)
He loved his creation, so he gave us free will, and he gave us a solution to get out of our mistakes that we make in our free williness.
Or not even that, what about the corruption of the natural world by sin? That doesn't even have anything to do with humanity's free will besides being ultimately caused by original sin. Fixing that doesn't do anything to violate free will, and if anything would serve as a demonstration of why humans should follow God's will freely.
Also, considering the Bible suggests that humans only accept salvation based on the Holy Spirit entering their hearts and changing them, I'm not sure that what is written in scripture actually qualifies as preserving free will in a meaningful sense.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 25, 2015, 12:43:19 am
God made it clear from the beginning that sacrifice was required to remove sin. (Adam and Eve getting clothes from animal skins) I personally have not delved too deeply into this topic, (but I'm getting a study bible for Christmas, so that should help) from what I know, and I may be wrong, the animal sacrifices were only showing faith in God who would eventually give the true sacrifice, Jesus. Since the people in the Old Testament did not have Jesus, the best they could do was to show their willingness to accept God's promise of a sacrifice by sacrificing their own best animals.
God influencing our thoughts and/or enviroment in such a way that we wouldn't sin WOULD be getting rid of our free will. There would be no possibility of Sin, which is against free will in the first place. Fixing the original sin would also go against free will for the same reason.
It is still possible to reject the holy spirit from convicting you as evident in Mark 3:29
Quote
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sinAnyone who CHOOSES to not accept the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven for obvious reasons.
I hope I answered everything. I'm off the bed now.
Post by: Rose on December 25, 2015, 01:08:10 am
Post by: Frumple on December 25, 2015, 01:11:52 am
... also, hasn't it been noted quite repeatedly that the scriptural basis for free will is... pretty shaky? Doesn't seem like the best platform to use to contest vis-a-vis the scriptural support for a separate fairly-shaky interpretation, heh...
Post by: Bohandas on December 25, 2015, 01:50:24 am
I'm not a Christian, but I'm seeing some dissonance here. And admittedly, having fun with perhaps the single most controversial part of Catholic doctrine vs. the rest of Christianity.
I'm just saying man, while the Catholics may have an obtuse view on Mary it does manage to reconcile the taint of original sin with the human nature of Jesus. Lacking that, there's no answer to how Jesus could be sinless if he was born a man from the womb of a woman also carrying original sin.
Isn't that a cop out? It just moves the issue a generation back.
Post by: Bohandas on December 25, 2015, 02:25:46 am
I don't think Jesus was born from a virgin. Can any (other?*) Christians explain why they say that as well as why it matters?
Matthew 1:22-23 explicitly says he was
The section on "Proof from Scripture" does not impress you? Consider that the doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to the Nicene Creed and considered by almost all Christians to be necessary to be a Christian, isn't in scripture either. If that can be inferred, surely other things can.
Not explicitly or connectedly, but most 0f the salient points are there. Matthew 1:23 comes in again here, "...they shall call him immanuel, meaning 'God is with us'", since his actual name was Jesus/ieshua, this can be taken as meaning that people said that he was god among men, and since the referenced prophecy was not in regard to a false prophet or chosen one the implication is therefore that this public opinion was correct.
Furthermore the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed against and is therefore implicitly an aspect of God. You can't blaspheme against a mere angel or prophet.
What IS absent however is any sort of explicit or strongly implicit preclusion against additional aspects. Though he principle of parsimony would suggest against positing additional ones unnecessarily.
The incident in genesis with the three travelers that represent god could imply that three is the preferred number. Conversely, in favor of the possibility of additional aspects are the repeated references in Revelation to "seven spirits of God"
The contrariness to godly virtue is obvious. But imterpreted as you put it the rest of the details are not. Why should it carry a more lasting chastisement than the seemingly equivalent act of refusing to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.Quotebut whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sinAnyone who CHOOSES to not accept the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven for obvious reasons.
EDIT:
Chalk that one up as a possible argument for the less than three camp
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 25, 2015, 02:31:27 am
It's definitely often used rhetoric, anyway. Can't recall how scripturally supported it is, though, heh.There's a bit of stuff in Scripture about believers being children of God; unbelievers are way out.
Incidentally, if we add that to the stuff about Christ being the Son of God, and the NT stuff about the church being the bride of Christ, we get the biggest religious incest the world has ever seen.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 25, 2015, 08:45:17 am
the biggest religious incest the world has ever seen.The Zoroastrians are rolling in their graves...
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 25, 2015, 08:54:49 am
Gotta get that sweet, sweet Xwedodah.the biggest religious incest the world has ever seen.The Zoroastrians are rolling in their graves...
Post by: redwallzyl on December 25, 2015, 09:58:07 am
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/12/25/460797744/a-religious-forecast-for-2050-atheism-is-down-islam-is-rising
and what is it with smugly superior atheist commenters. this is like a thing very time and their offensive. what with the "the only way for people to survive is for them to become atheists" and "ours is is the only rational and one true way". its like they are what the suppose to hate, religious and smugly confident in their rightness.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 25, 2015, 10:13:36 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Ghazkull on December 25, 2015, 10:22:25 am
Post by: TD1 on December 25, 2015, 10:34:45 am
It appears that atheism is largely in the communist or previously communist countries. That would explain its recent rise and fall.So with atheism there's a logical reason for its rise, but for Christianity it was God, not the point of a Roman sword?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: redwallzyl on December 25, 2015, 11:15:09 am
the Romans didn't force convert people. it spread through a combination of government encouragement through requirements to hold office and missionaries. in fact many of the barbarian tribes that invaded the roman empire had already been convert by missionary's. Charlemagne was the one doing force conversions but the church told him to knock it off because that's not how your supposed to convert people and he stopped.It appears that atheism is largely in the communist or previously communist countries. That would explain its recent rise and fall.So with atheism there's a logical reason for its rise, but for Christianity it was God, not the point of a Roman sword?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: wierd on December 25, 2015, 12:20:45 pm
Post by: Antioch on December 25, 2015, 12:35:44 pm
If asked for my convictions I would say that I am a freethinker.
What is freethought?
A quote by William Kingdon Clifford is often cited as a short summary of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
How do you guys identify with the principles of freethought?
Post by: Bohandas on December 25, 2015, 12:43:26 pm
interesting article, if short.
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/12/25/460797744/a-religious-forecast-for-2050-atheism-is-down-islam-is-rising
:( :(
Post by: wierd on December 25, 2015, 12:45:09 pm
It is possible, if unlikely, that a divine entity exists outside of our universe. I cannot remove this possibility. As such, it would be a foolish assertion of blind belief on my part to say one either does or does not exist. When asked, I answer that I simply do not know, and given the nature of the problem, logically cannot know.
Hence hard agnostic.
Post by: TD1 on December 25, 2015, 01:17:53 pm
the Romans didn't force convert people. it spread through a combination of government encouragement through requirements to hold office and missionaries. in fact many of the barbarian tribes that invaded the roman empire had already been convert by missionary's. Charlemagne was the one doing force conversions but the church told him to knock it off because that's not how your supposed to convert people and he stopped.It appears that atheism is largely in the communist or previously communist countries. That would explain its recent rise and fall.So with atheism there's a logical reason for its rise, but for Christianity it was God, not the point of a Roman sword?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Bishops closed down temples left, right and centre. You couldn't get positions if you weren't Christian. There were killings of pagans. The Temple at Delphi was burned down.
Numerous others. Maybe it wasn't state sanctioned (but, you know, in a lot of cases it was) but at the very least, the people themselves forced people to convert.
Post by: Arx on December 25, 2015, 01:22:50 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 25, 2015, 01:52:32 pm
You know what would improve this argument? Citations.YES! POSTING TICKETS FOR EVERYBODY!! 20 dollars for posting without a licence, and 30 for a second offence. Then +20 dollars for every offence after that.
Post by: TD1 on December 25, 2015, 02:07:36 pm
You know what would improve this argument? Citations.
I don't have the book on me, but you can read Gregory's invective against Julian the Apostate for info on the burning of the Temple. Other various ancient sources too - maybe Suetonius? I can't recall. I did an essay on it a while back - if you really want citations, just look into it.
Post by: Graknorke on December 25, 2015, 02:12:47 pm
It is why i identify as agnostic, and not atheist.That's still atheist m8.
It is possible, if unlikely, that a divine entity exists outside of our universe. I cannot remove this possibility. As such, it would be a foolish assertion of blind belief on my part to say one either does or does not exist. When asked, I answer that I simply do not know, and given the nature of the problem, logically cannot know.
Hence hard agnostic.
And Antioch, that whole sentiment is pretty close to the kind of thing that ends up with you being Wronger Than Wrong.
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 25, 2015, 02:16:02 pm
Well you don't see this often. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=147792.msg6551044#msg6551044)
Post by: Antioch on December 25, 2015, 03:56:07 pm
Well you don't see this often. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=147792.msg6551044#msg6551044)
NOBODY ANSWERED. I GOT IGNORED FOR 3 MONTHS.
Post by: Antioch on December 25, 2015, 04:01:30 pm
It is why i identify as agnostic, and not atheist.That's still atheist m8.
It is possible, if unlikely, that a divine entity exists outside of our universe. I cannot remove this possibility. As such, it would be a foolish assertion of blind belief on my part to say one either does or does not exist. When asked, I answer that I simply do not know, and given the nature of the problem, logically cannot know.
Hence hard agnostic.
And Antioch, that whole sentiment is pretty close to the kind of thing that ends up with you being Wronger Than Wrong.
Wronger than wrong is the kind of expression I usually see to describe idea's that are even impossible to proof false. I don't really see how it applies here.
In fact wronger than wrong is a term that I would apply to the statement that there is a god, because it is literally impossible to proof false when that god is placed outside the known universe by the person making the claim.
Post by: Bohandas on December 25, 2015, 04:04:53 pm
I answered atheist, though it is more a description of what I do NOT believe than what I do.
If asked for my convictions I would say that I am a freethinker.
What is freethought?
A quote by William Kingdon Clifford is often cited as a short summary of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
How do you guys identify with the principles of freethought?
There's a lot of "question everything"/"don't believe anything/everyhing you read" stuff in subgenius and discordianism. It's a very good policy. Although pragmatism and the Munchausen Trilemma limit the degree to which it can reasonably be put into practice by the average person.
Post by: Antioch on December 25, 2015, 04:18:27 pm
I answered atheist, though it is more a description of what I do NOT believe than what I do.
If asked for my convictions I would say that I am a freethinker.
What is freethought?
A quote by William Kingdon Clifford is often cited as a short summary of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
How do you guys identify with the principles of freethought?
There's a lot of "question everything"/"don't believe anything/everyhing you read" stuff in subgenius and discordianism. It's a very good policy. Although pragmatism and the Munchausen Trilemma limit the degree to which it can reasonably be put into practice by the average person.
I wouldn't say "don't believe anything" is an entirely accurate description. You can just base what you believe to be true on the most credible information that is now available to you. You just have to be prepared to accept that when there is new information available there is a chance that you will have to adjust those views. A lot of people don't do this and never question any of the dogma's they believe in.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 25, 2015, 05:26:59 pm
Being impossible to prove false does not quite mean it's impossible to prove true, nor does it mean that it is not true.It is why i identify as agnostic, and not atheist.That's still atheist m8.
It is possible, if unlikely, that a divine entity exists outside of our universe. I cannot remove this possibility. As such, it would be a foolish assertion of blind belief on my part to say one either does or does not exist. When asked, I answer that I simply do not know, and given the nature of the problem, logically cannot know.
Hence hard agnostic.
And Antioch, that whole sentiment is pretty close to the kind of thing that ends up with you being Wronger Than Wrong.
Wronger than wrong is the kind of expression I usually see to describe idea's that are even impossible to proof false. I don't really see how it applies here.
In fact wronger than wrong is a term that I would apply to the statement that there is a god, because it is literally impossible to proof false when that god is placed outside the known universe by the person making the claim.
Although I've become less sure about questioning literally everything recently. After a point, saying 'why do you believe that?', and people saying 'because it feels right', well...saying 'hah! This proves you have a terrible basis for your beliefs' isn't actually an argument at all. You can't change your beliefs after all. They can be changed, but you cannot change them simply by force of will. What you profess to believe? Sure. Which belief you'll operate by, if torn between two? Sure. But what you actually believe is true? A lot harder to do on your own.
Post by: Bohandas on December 25, 2015, 08:55:30 pm
Being impossible to prove false does not quite mean it's impossible to prove true, nor does it mean that it is not true.It is why i identify as agnostic, and not atheist.That's still atheist m8.
It is possible, if unlikely, that a divine entity exists outside of our universe. I cannot remove this possibility. As such, it would be a foolish assertion of blind belief on my part to say one either does or does not exist. When asked, I answer that I simply do not know, and given the nature of the problem, logically cannot know.
Hence hard agnostic.
And Antioch, that whole sentiment is pretty close to the kind of thing that ends up with you being Wronger Than Wrong.
Wronger than wrong is the kind of expression I usually see to describe idea's that are even impossible to proof false. I don't really see how it applies here.
In fact wronger than wrong is a term that I would apply to the statement that there is a god, because it is literally impossible to proof false when that god is placed outside the known universe by the person making the claim.
Although I've become less sure about questioning literally everything recently. After a point, saying 'why do you believe that?', and people saying 'because it feels right', well...saying 'hah! This proves you have a terrible basis for your beliefs' isn't actually an argument at all. You can't change your beliefs after all. They can be changed, but you cannot change them simply by force of will. What you profess to believe? Sure. Which belief you'll operate by, if torn between two? Sure. But what you actually believe is true? A lot harder to do on your own.
This seems to brush on several arguments, including:
Onus probandi
Improper fact-value distinction
Argument from silence
argument from ignorance
non sequitur
appeal to faith
...basically you're just throwing up your arms and giving up rather than making a point. You haven't shown the other arguments to be any less invalid.
Post by: wierd on December 25, 2015, 09:43:09 pm
also, re: outside universe
there is no other place a creator god could be. Before the big bang, there was no universe. In order to initiate the creation of the universe via the big bang, the creator god must be outside. it cant inhabit something that does not exist yet. thus, creator god must be outside the universe, if creator god exists.
re: That's atheism mate
No, atheism means "not theist", or has no belief in a god. There are two kinds, hard and soft. The soft kind has some overlap with agnosticism, which means "without knowlege." One can have faith in something they do not know is real or existing. If that thing is a god, then it is theist.
the atheist says he does not believe in a god-- eg, that the god is not real.
the theist says he believes in a god-- eg, that the god is real.
the agnostic says he has no knowlege of any such god-- he makes no value judgement about the god being real
I make no value judgement, since I have nothing to base a judgement on. That is soft agnosticism.
further, i state that it is not possible to know, (which is more than simply professing ignorance)-- that is hard agnosticism.
please stop subsuming other positions into atheism.
for a very faulted secular only analogy:
what is x/0?
the computer gives an agnostic error: division by zero error.
Humans give incorrect answers, like "zero", "infinity", and if actual mathematicians, "has two equally valid solution domains approaching but not reaching zero that do not converge."
To me, the question "is there a god?" is just as insoluble as division by zero.
Post by: Bohandas on December 25, 2015, 11:04:59 pm
This is why I am agnostic.
Zeus probably isn't real, but throwing full-strength lightning bolts around is simply a matter of shelling out enough money to build a large enough tesla coil.
And in a millenium or so it may be within our capacity to build a vehicle capable of towing the sun around. Like Apollo.
EDIT:
some questions are not answerable. it is not a crime, nor intellectually weak to point this out.
I agree with your premise, I disagree with your conclusion. It could just as easily be interpreted as a proof of nihilism and/or absurdism.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 25, 2015, 11:10:21 pm
Being impossible to prove false does not quite mean it's impossible to prove true, nor does it mean that it is not true.It is why i identify as agnostic, and not atheist.That's still atheist m8.
It is possible, if unlikely, that a divine entity exists outside of our universe. I cannot remove this possibility. As such, it would be a foolish assertion of blind belief on my part to say one either does or does not exist. When asked, I answer that I simply do not know, and given the nature of the problem, logically cannot know.
Hence hard agnostic.
And Antioch, that whole sentiment is pretty close to the kind of thing that ends up with you being Wronger Than Wrong.
Wronger than wrong is the kind of expression I usually see to describe idea's that are even impossible to proof false. I don't really see how it applies here.
In fact wronger than wrong is a term that I would apply to the statement that there is a god, because it is literally impossible to proof false when that god is placed outside the known universe by the person making the claim.
Although I've become less sure about questioning literally everything recently. After a point, saying 'why do you believe that?', and people saying 'because it feels right', well...saying 'hah! This proves you have a terrible basis for your beliefs' isn't actually an argument at all. You can't change your beliefs after all. They can be changed, but you cannot change them simply by force of will. What you profess to believe? Sure. Which belief you'll operate by, if torn between two? Sure. But what you actually believe is true? A lot harder to do on your own.
This seems to brush on several arguments, including:
Onus probandi
Improper fact-value distinction
Argument from silence
argument from ignorance
non sequitur
appeal to faith
...basically you're just throwing up your arms and giving up rather than making a point. You haven't shown the other arguments to be any less invalid.
Not really; I'm not saying 'therefore it's true'. I'm saying 'from this, it does not follow that it is necessarily wrong'.
You have to prove it wrong on it's own. If it can't be proven wrong, that doesn't mean it's right. It just means it can't be proven wrong.
@Bohandas; Omnimax deities are only inconsistent if you use human morality for the basis of omnibenevolent. If there truly was an Omnimax deity, anything they did would, essentially by definition, be 'good'. (Additionally, I've seen a definition of omnipotence not as being literally 'capable of anything' but rather 'capable of anything possible', which are two rather different statements, though subtly)
Also; reality isn't always consistent with logic. At least, not logic that would actually be obvious save in hindsight. Light is a wave and a particle. Nothing can actually reach absolute zero. Eventually, instead of going faster, reality warps around you.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 25, 2015, 11:11:50 pm
Post by: Bohandas on December 25, 2015, 11:25:11 pm
@Bohandas; Omnimax deities are only inconsistent if you use human morality for the basis of omnibenevolent. If there truly was an Omnimax deity, anything they did would, essentially by definition, be 'good'.
This is both begging the question, and a no-true-scotsman fallacy.
EDIT:
Also, has anyone else noticed that many theodicies, if extended rationally, lead inescapably to the conclusion that free will is inherently evil. It goes like this: God wants to prevent suffering but can't because of free will -> therefore free will is the reason why suffering exists -> therefore free will is evil.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 25, 2015, 11:29:55 pm
Anyway. Point is: we don't understand a lot of shit. And things don't make sense without an intricate understanding of the underlying mechanism. This is both what spawns religions (I believe), and why you can't say 'well it's impossible'. Maybe it is and we just don't know how it would be.
Additionally, I never said it's inconsistent. I said it isn't always consistent, and specifically not with logic that you can tell in advance without study. We are remarkably good at pulling out data from things that seem incredibly difficult to parse. But we aren't perfect.
Oh, and one last thing; as an example, there's people who think we're probably in a simulation, because given infinite parallel universes, some of them could run simulations perfect enough to simulate our reality essentially perfectly, and they could run an arbitrary number of them. From this, they decide that out of all possible perceived universes, a simulation would be more probable than a 'real' universe, so we're probably a simulation. While I'm not completely against the idea it's all a simulation, intellectually, I do find this logic faulty, because it's replacing empiricism with logic. Same with the ontological argument for the existence of god. But logic is an abstract concept that creates contradictions unless it's very carefully practiced. What's more, sometimes it's just plain wrong.
@Bohandas: And that's a fallacy fallacy. Logical fallacies exist for a reason. No True Scotsman applies to people, not concepts. If anything, it would be moving the goalposts, though I never defined omnipotent previously for it, so that doesn't really apply. If you want to address the argument, address it. Slippery slope is a fallacy; doesn't mean it can't make a good point.
My personal view is that I'm ambivalent as to whether an omni-anything deity exists; if it has morality on a level equal to mine, I'll get into heaven so long as I'm a good person. If it doesn't, I don't want to be in the heaven of a god that would not do that, regardless. That said, I'm trying to give an argument representative of religious views, and they vary widely. There are certainly many people who believe that the definition of 'Christian' is not 'professes to follow Christ', it's 'actually follows Christ', and they have their own views of what that means. Saying 'No True Scotschristian' in that case is true. It's also irrelevant.
Post by: Bohandas on December 25, 2015, 11:56:43 pm
No True Scotsman applies to people, not concepts.
The more important issue of begging the question still stands. Your entire argument is based on an arbitrary redefinition of what constitutes omnibenevolence to basically mean "whatever it was going to do anyway regardless of what that is". This definitely falls somewhere within the family of begging the question, moving he goalposts, and what Scott Adams referred to as "argument by bizarre definition" (a comparable example would be the statement "He's not a criminal, he just does things that are against the law")
Oh, and one last thing; as an example, there's people who think we're probably in a simulation, because given infinite parallel universes, some of them could run simulations perfect enough to simulate our reality essentially perfectly, and they could run an arbitrary number of them. From this, they decide that out of all possible perceived universes, a simulation would be more probable than a 'real' universe, so we're probably a simulation. While I'm not completely against the idea it's all a simulation, intellectually, I do find this logic faulty, because it's replacing empiricism with logic.Plus, there's also the fact that the logic is somewhat faulty. Whatever strengths it has on the basis of the mediocrity principle are more than canceled out by parsimony violations.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 26, 2015, 12:04:14 am
Post by: Rolan7 on December 26, 2015, 12:16:52 am
I think serving an alien being as defined by ancient texts is a frightening moral system compared to *any* combination of the above. But it's valid. So when they say God is tautologically good, they're technically right. It doesn't mean God is at all nice, it's a meaningless and misleading tautology, but it's true by their moral code.
Post by: Frumple on December 26, 2015, 12:28:21 am
I think the way to talk about reality isn't that it's logical or illogical, but that it's alogical, even if that's mostly a horrible butchering of word usage. Logic as a whole isn't for adhering to reality, it's for making sure our constructed concept systems adhere to themselves. S'just... not the right tool.
*Though, incidentally, logic can look like it resembles reality when it's being used to address a system that was created to describe it. Still, it... doesn't. Any match between reality and logic is more or less incidental.
Post by: Bohandas on December 26, 2015, 01:05:27 am
All codes of morality are arbitrary. Many people choose to promote the moral code of "Whatever our God mandates". Or notably, "Whatever a certain book says our God mandated". Is that any less valid than maximizing happiness while minimizing suffering? Perhaps also valuing liberty, and/or the survival of the species? Not really.
I think serving an alien being as defined by ancient texts is a frightening moral system compared to *any* combination of the above. But it's valid. So when they say God is tautologically good, they're technically right. It doesn't mean God is at all nice, it's a meaningless and misleading tautology, but it's true by their moral code.
Admittedly I'm the one being the stickler now, but part of the issue is that the trait is almost always specifically listed as "omnibenevolence" and "benevolent" (and therefore "Omnibenevolent") is a much more specific and technical term than "moral" or "good". "Benevolent" is the accepted polar opposite of "Malevolent" and therefore denotes a desire to aid and protect.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 26, 2015, 01:38:24 am
Christmas just ended an hour ago here by the way - hope everyone had a nice day! Mine was a bit rough, but not for reasons of religion, and was better than expected. Lots of pleasant surprises.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 26, 2015, 02:35:17 am
I get that, Bohandas, but there's the objection of arguing by semantics. Which applies to both cases, but from what I know, most ideas of the Christian god define 'good' as 'close to god'. What he says, you do. That is good, by definition. Which is bizarre to us, but not necessarily to them. Or in other words; [what it looks like from outside is] we're using a word we picked out/that's meant as short-hand, not as literal description to describe someone else's belief system and god, and then complaining when they don't fit that word.
A far stronger argument, in my opinion, is that an omniscient, omnibenevolent God wants to maximize the end-utility of the world. If 'omnipotent' does not actually mean 'able to break the way reality works'; that is to say, God cannot undo himself, or make a square circle, or bypass cause->effect. If you take this view of it, then it's essentially the 'all part of God's plan'. Things can have consequences so far reaching and unknowable that only God can nudge them in just such a way as to both allow us to believe ourselves free willed (if we didn't, we'd all go insane, I wager), and yet it will still result in the greatest good overall. Evil can exist, but it does so in the service of a greater good.
I mean, the argument that 'glorification of god' is a crappy greater good is an entirely separate issue. But internal consistency can be had, particularly if you apply the Principle of Charity.
Speaking of which, since religion and spirituality aren't all that divorced from philosophy, and for atheists/agnostics they fill the same role, what are people's opinions about wireheading? Is it genuine happiness to be hooked up to a machine that continually stimulates your pleasure centers, all of your physical needs taken care of? Or to go into a perfect virtual reality, but you never actually interact with other human beings, just simulations of them (you cannot tell the difference from within the machine, of course), and is a paradise for you?
Post by: wierd on December 26, 2015, 02:58:57 am
as near as we can tell, humans do not actually experience the real. They experience an absract rendering of the real, processed inside the brain, from inputs given by faulty sensory aparatus.
With that in mind, the "real" of the mind is not objective, but subjective. If somebody is stimulating your pain nerves, does that make the pain unreal? I would say no. the pain is still felt, and thus subjectively real.
the question of deep brain stimulation being real happiness or not is a bad question. the sensation is real. the type of sensation does not equate with natural sensation however.
compare: is saccharine sweet? yes. does it taste like sugar? no.
Post by: Frumple on December 26, 2015, 07:44:28 am
Is it genuine happiness to be hooked up to a machine that continually stimulates your pleasure centers, all of your physical needs taken care of? Or to go into a perfect virtual reality, but you never actually interact with other human beings, just simulations of them (you cannot tell the difference from within the machine, of course), and is a paradise for you?The latter pretty much definitely would be genuine happiness, providing it didn't have notable downsides and was either indefinite or consensual. If you can't (and, perhaps more importantly, won't be able to) tell a difference, insofar as you're concerned there is no difference.
The former almost certainly wouldn't be -- there's more to happiness than raw pleasure and met survival requirements. Social needs, improvement/accomplishment needs, etc., etc. It might be a good basis to build off of, though -- if not necessarily a infinite pleasure tap, something for explicit management of emotional states would probably be an absolutely incredible (if obviously abusable) tool for improving lives and helping people be happy. It's basically what most non-recreational psychoactive drugs are trying to do, after all, and those help out a lot of folks pretty tremendously.
Post by: Graknorke on December 26, 2015, 09:07:46 am
Wronger than wrong is the kind of expression I usually see to describe idea's that are even impossible to proof false. I don't really see how it applies here.It's from an article that Isaac Asimov wrote for a magazine, and it goes as follow:
In fact wronger than wrong is a term that I would apply to the statement that there is a god, because it is literally impossible to proof false when that god is placed outside the known universe by the person making the claim.
Quote
John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
What I kind of got out of what you said is that believing anything is unreasonable because you're probably not perfectly right.
Post by: Antioch on December 26, 2015, 09:33:51 am
Wronger than wrong is the kind of expression I usually see to describe idea's that are even impossible to proof false. I don't really see how it applies here.It's from an article that Isaac Asimov wrote for a magazine, and it goes as follow:
In fact wronger than wrong is a term that I would apply to the statement that there is a god, because it is literally impossible to proof false when that god is placed outside the known universe by the person making the claim.QuoteJohn, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
What I kind of got out of what you said is that believing anything is unreasonable because you're probably not perfectly right.
On the contrary, we should strife to adjust our views to the best information possible. However any form of dogma should be subjected to scrutiny and if unsupported by evidence it should be rejected.
I am for example an atheist because I perceive a lack of evidence for the existence of a god, not because it is a dogmatic belief.
Post by: Bohandas on December 26, 2015, 09:53:43 am
Christmas just ended an hour ago here by the way
Happy St.Stephen's Day!
Post by: Calidovi on December 26, 2015, 01:46:56 pm
Wronger than wrong is the kind of expression I usually see to describe idea's that are even impossible to proof false. I don't really see how it applies here.It's from an article that Isaac Asimov wrote for a magazine, and it goes as follow:
In fact wronger than wrong is a term that I would apply to the statement that there is a god, because it is literally impossible to proof false when that god is placed outside the known universe by the person making the claim.QuoteJohn, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
What I kind of got out of what you said is that believing anything is unreasonable because you're probably not perfectly right.
On the contrary, we should strife to adjust our views to the best information possible. However any form of dogma should be subjected to scrutiny and if unsupported by evidence it should be rejected.
If course, this is dependent on the assertion that everything is logical, which is the exact opposite of what religion is based on. You can argue that that's the only way to look at things, but it's generally unhelpful in criticizing religion to a theist's face unless you purely seek to reaffirm your own viewpoint.
Post by: Antioch on December 26, 2015, 04:53:48 pm
If course, this is dependent on the assertion that everything is logical, which is the exact opposite of what religion is based on. You can argue that that's the only way to look at things, but it's generally unhelpful in criticizing religion to a theist's face unless you purely seek to reaffirm your own viewpoint.
I would say that is an assumption. A lot of people say that religion and logic go together just fine. Doesn't the (partial) rejection of logic undermine the principle of argumentation itself?
Post by: Fenrir on December 26, 2015, 05:02:19 pm
Laptisen seems to be ignoring 100s of years of sophisticated apologetics that attempt to use logic to support religion.If course, this is dependent on the assertion that everything is logical, which is the exact opposite of what religion is based on. You can argue that that's the only way to look at things, but it's generally unhelpful in criticizing religion to a theist's face unless you purely seek to reaffirm your own viewpoint.
I would say that is an assumption. A lot of people say that religion and logic go together just fine. Doesn't the (partial) rejection of logic undermine the principle of argumentation itself?
Hell, presuppositional apologetics argues that faith is a prerequisite for logic.
Post by: Graknorke on December 26, 2015, 08:56:42 pm
Post by: TD1 on December 26, 2015, 09:02:49 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 26, 2015, 09:05:00 pm
Laptisen seems to be ignoring 100s of years of sophisticated apologetics that attempt to use logic to support religion.No, religious people ignore them too.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 26, 2015, 09:56:45 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 26, 2015, 10:33:02 pm
Yes, the average Christian won't believe the Bible is 100% literally true. They'll accept evolution etc., and if confronted with an apparent contradiction will probably shrug it off with "someone must have written it down wrong", or similar. But I have only occasionally seen people saying something to the effect of "we should believe the Bible whether it's true or not". The people who argue the loudest in favour of the Bible are almost invariably arguing that it is literally true, frequently accompanied with depressing amounts of idiocy and extremism.
Post by: Bohandas on December 26, 2015, 10:34:37 pm
I would go far as to say "otherwise it would exist," but I have a feeling such a move wouldn't be popular with some... :P
No that's about right, at least for the sense of the term in question.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 26, 2015, 10:46:17 pm
Post by: TD1 on December 26, 2015, 11:05:16 pm
Is Jesus' blood wine?
Also:
Quote
Reinterpreting the bibleA reinterpretation of the Bible implies that the previous interpretation was wrong. Depending on the subject, that can have profound consequences that potentially, especially in the case of Christianity, condemn millions to Hell. The interpretative difference between Judaism and Christianity rests to a large degree on the Jewish interpretation of Jesus as a normal son of God - one of the seven odd billion God has. Also, a change in interpretation to fit the cultural/scientific standard is a trait that you'd expect to see in a subjective mythology striving to make itself viable. Not to say a "true" religion wouldn't do that as well, but with ten thousand interpretations, who's to say the right one didn't die out centuries ago anyway? Just look at Arianism, and to a large extent the gnostics.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 26, 2015, 11:12:51 pm
Which, really, is just people trying to clump all of Christianity into one group and saying that they all think the same way and should have their arguments be consistent with each other, and there were a few small conflicts concerning exactly that inconsistency sometime in the past...I think it was called the Thirty Years War or something?
Anyway. Usually my bigger question is what makes X right and not-X wrong. Rather than try to disprove the bible, as I have no vested interest in whether or not someone else is religious until they use that religion as an excuse/believe it tells them to do things that will hurt other people, I ask people to prove it to me. Why should I believe a book that's been translated and misinterpreted and copied over and over and over again? How many errors were made in that process? How many of them were never caught? I don't even know Hebrew, or Latin, so I can't even try and posit interesting misspellings of words that might have ended up commonplace.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 27, 2015, 12:05:55 am
Is the world flat?No (I've flown around it)
Is Jesus' blood wine?
Also:QuoteReinterpreting the bibleA reinterpretation of the Bible implies that the previous interpretation was wrong. Depending on the subject, that can have profound consequences that potentially, especially in the case of Christianity, condemn millions to Hell. The interpretative difference between Judaism and Christianity rests to a large degree on the Jewish interpretation of Jesus as a normal son of God - one of the seven odd billion God has. Also, a change in interpretation to fit the cultural/scientific standard is a trait that you'd expect to see in a subjective mythology striving to make itself viable. Not to say a "true" religion wouldn't do that as well, but with ten thousand interpretations, who's to say the right one didn't die out centuries ago anyway? Just look at Arianism, and to a large extent the gnostics.
No (Jesus probably would've turned into a fireball on the cross)
why did you ask those questions?
You rarely throw out an entire interpretation just to fit a new piece of evidence. Just like in science. If it is found that Spinosaurus had short back legs, you don't throw out the big bang theory. It is absurd to think of it like that.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 27, 2015, 12:10:31 am
Post by: Frumple on December 27, 2015, 12:39:06 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 27, 2015, 12:41:49 am
ugh. It is impossible to create any kind of analogy in this thread.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 27, 2015, 12:46:04 am
It's like logical science, rather than experimental science, usually. When something turns out not to work, you don't scrap the whole lot as bunk. Freud was wrong on a lot of stuff, but he also had some excellent points and advanced psychology quite a bit in other ways.
Post by: TD1 on December 27, 2015, 12:53:44 am
Chairs usually work.
Because the Bible speaks of the earth's edges, its corners, and its foundations.Is the world flat?No (I've flown around it)
Is Jesus' blood wine?
Also:QuoteReinterpreting the bibleA reinterpretation of the Bible implies that the previous interpretation was wrong. Depending on the subject, that can have profound consequences that potentially, especially in the case of Christianity, condemn millions to Hell. The interpretative difference between Judaism and Christianity rests to a large degree on the Jewish interpretation of Jesus as a normal son of God - one of the seven odd billion God has. Also, a change in interpretation to fit the cultural/scientific standard is a trait that you'd expect to see in a subjective mythology striving to make itself viable. Not to say a "true" religion wouldn't do that as well, but with ten thousand interpretations, who's to say the right one didn't die out centuries ago anyway? Just look at Arianism, and to a large extent the gnostics.
No (Jesus probably would've turned into a fireball on the cross)
why did you ask those questions?
You rarely throw out an entire interpretation just to fit a new piece of evidence. Just like in science. If it is found that Spinosaurus had short back legs, you don't throw out the big bang theory. It is absurd to think of it like that.
In it, Jesus says "for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many" when speaking of wine.
So - if you are a literalist, then surely you ought to think that at least some wine is Jesus' blood, or that the world is flat. I don't think there are any claims in the Bible that the earth is a sphere, but quite a few allusions to a flat earth - literally speaking, you should believe what the Bible says.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 27, 2015, 12:59:47 am
I don't self proclaim to be a literalist, that is what you guys called me a long time ago.
Nevermind. I am terrible at explaining things.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 27, 2015, 01:00:48 am
Eh.This is the point I was trying to make, yeah.
It's like logical science, rather than experimental science, usually. When something turns out not to work, you don't scrap the whole lot as bunk. Freud was wrong on a lot of stuff, but he also had some excellent points and advanced psychology quite a bit in other ways.
Theology is a lot less rigorous than other studies, that's for sure.
...
So - if you are a literalist, then surely you ought to think that at least some wine is Jesus' blood, or that the world is flat. I don't think there are any claims in the Bible that the earth is a sphere, but quite a few allusions to a flat earth - literally speaking, you should believe what the Bible says.Oh, heh. No, Biblical literalism basically means "assume it's literal until we have a reasonable argument otherwise". We have very reasonable arguments against flat-earth-ism (we can fly around it). Admittedly the arguments against transubstantiation are less reasonable, but that's a comparatively minor point anyway.
Arguments on the young earth front are slightly more awkward, but it's also not like we can go back in time to check.
Post by: Frumple on December 27, 2015, 01:11:55 am
It's like logical science, rather than experimental science, usually. When something turns out not to work, you don't scrap the whole lot as bunk. Freud was wrong on a lot of stuff, but he also had some excellent points and advanced psychology quite a bit in other ways.I'm... pretty sure "logical science" doesn't exist as a thing. It's, just. Neither of those two things work like that. There's experimental sciences and then there's... stuff that's not science,* even if there can be a lot of non-experimental work involved in the former. I guess hegel tried to science-y logic or somethin' like that, but it's just... not something that really works...
It's not like literary analysis and whatnot isn't a thing, or that logic needs science or vice-versa to be meaningful (well, the latter might need the former to be even remotely coherent, but still). Just... p... please don't do that to science. Or logic. They don't deserve that sort of manhandling.
*Note, that stuff can still be great and useful and potentially truth-seeking and everything, it's just not science. That's okay! Just... don't draw parallels. They're not there.
fakeE: Also modern theology in any academic setting is rigorous as fuck at anything beyond the very lowest levels. Seriously, a bunch of that chump-ass seminary crap may be runnier than diuretic weasel shit, but most higher level stuff with two dead possums worth of credibility to rub together runs a pretty tight ship, from what I've seen.
Post by: TD1 on December 27, 2015, 01:14:38 am
The Bible implies that the earth is flat.
Surely the two should be treated the same way?
Besides, doesn't the Bible say the earth and Universe were both created at the same time? http://www.space.com/24625-oldest-star-universe-discovery.html
Either way, good to know Biblical literalism is more relative than I had originally thought. It would be kinda hard to see the Bible as absolutely right :P
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 27, 2015, 01:18:51 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 27, 2015, 01:23:01 am
I believe the response would be 'yes. Your point?'
Or, no, stronger, because the bible practically says the earth is flat, even square, but the specific age thing is just calculations by some dude.
Also, genesis is weird anyway, and interpreting God making the Universe is not really something we can do even if it's a secular creation of the universe. Like, seriously, we're basically making guesses based on theories we think should probably sorta get the results we expect.
And Frumple, I mean things like mathematics. That's not experimental, and if you define science as being experimental, then no it's not science. But it's like computer sciences. As far as I know, they don't really do experiments of that vein. They might run theorems through to see when and how they do or do not work but...
Also, origami makes a good point. Kinda like this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6kn6nXMWF0)
Post by: Fenrir on December 27, 2015, 01:25:34 am
Uh, yeah, no. Plenty of religious people take apologetics seriously. And his assertion was that religion is based on the assumption that the universe doesn’t behave in a way you can model with logic. The existance of apologetics shows that to be false.Laptisen seems to be ignoring 100s of years of sophisticated apologetics that attempt to use logic to support religion.No, religious people ignore them too.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 27, 2015, 01:26:48 am
Post by: Rose on December 27, 2015, 01:40:14 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 27, 2015, 02:06:15 am
Besides, doesn't the Bible say the earth and Universe were both created at the same time?You tell me, I can't tell.
Quote from: Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."The heavens" could be, what, sky? The actual heavenly realm of God? Where did the water come from? No timeframe is given until the first day, either.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Post by: Fenrir on December 27, 2015, 04:12:20 am
Well maybe the earth looks flat to God.
Also, origami makes a good point. Kinda like this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6kn6nXMWF0)
Well that makes sense I guess. God would be the master of all dimensions (however many there are).Wait, you were serious? So God got confused and wrote that the Earth has corners and a foundation because “Hey, all those lower dimensions look the same to me.”?
The mistake doesn’t even have anything to do with the number of dimensions. Even if God was hyper-dimensional the earth would still be a sphere and have no fucking corners.
Post by: Adragis on December 27, 2015, 04:23:34 am
Post by: Sheb on December 27, 2015, 04:46:53 am
Neither of those two things work like that. There's experimental sciences and then there's... stuff that's not science,* even if there can be a lot of non-experimental work involved in the former.
Well, actually, non-experimental sciences are a things, they're the sciences where you can't perform experiments, for example because you're studying historical processes and cannot go back in time. Astronomy, much of evolution, or history comes to mind.
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 27, 2015, 04:49:09 am
Neither of those two things work like that. There's experimental sciences and then there's... stuff that's not science,* even if there can be a lot of non-experimental work involved in the former.
Well, actually, non-experimental sciences are a things, they're the sciences where you can't perform experiments, for example because you're studying historical processes and cannot go back in time. Astronomy, much of evolution, or history comes to mind.
Or theoretical physics for example, which when engineering caches up, has a pretty good track record of being experimentally correct.
Post by: Sheb on December 27, 2015, 06:01:56 am
Post by: Leafsnail on December 27, 2015, 06:37:24 am
There is no possible test that would disprove modern biblical interpretations. This means you can't demonstrate it's wrong, but at the same time it means it doesn't descrobibe the real world in any meaningful sense. I don't see the relevance of it, or why you should beleve it over any other unfalsifiable theory.
Post by: Sheb on December 27, 2015, 06:47:17 am
Post by: Leafsnail on December 27, 2015, 06:56:43 am
I guess you can also duck and weave around evidence as it comes up but you aren't really making any predictions at that point - there is no possible evidence that would challenge your core idea that 'god exists'.
e: this is the general sense of 'you', I don't know if you hold this view
Post by: Graknorke on December 27, 2015, 06:59:09 am
What? No, there are testable predictions too. I mean, people had to change their interpretation of stuff like Genesis when evolution came around and so on.
There is no possible test that would disprove modern biblical interpretations.Right now it's been refined into pretty much the pinnacle of unfalsifiability.
Post by: TD1 on December 27, 2015, 10:37:34 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 27, 2015, 11:00:35 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 27, 2015, 01:14:14 pm
It's not faith if it's obviously true, after all. But really, saying 'I cannot as of yet prove you wrong' is kindof a useless statement. It doesn't actually show that they're wrong.
The core idea of 'god exists' is impossible to prove wrong. The core idea of 'god is an X' can be disproven, however, if they are taking the bible to give the correct description of that God. Again, the stuff that could be disproven isn't usually held long (or rather, not when challenged; motte and bailey is something everyone does, often accidentally). But God being an Omnimax deity that we simply don't understand is internally self-consistent. So is God being an insecure dick who needs the verification of his children and throws tantrums when he doesn't get it, despite being super powerful. Which to me is the more interesting interpretation, because A. it makes Jesus into God's form of self-flagellation and apology for his Old Testament bullshit and B. explains things perfectly fine, including why he doesn't appear to work miracles anymore; he kept doing horrible shit when he allowed himself to work miracles, so he decided to stop.
Actually makes me more sympathetic to him, even if I'm fairly certain it's impossible.
Post by: TD1 on December 27, 2015, 01:56:26 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 27, 2015, 03:12:07 pm
Post by: Graknorke on December 27, 2015, 03:23:41 pm
Post by: Frumple on December 27, 2015, 03:28:06 pm
Post by: Bohandas on December 27, 2015, 09:54:38 pm
I would disagree as to them being in the same category. Most of those things are falsifiable (dwarfism exists :P). God existing is either a fundamental fact about the universe, or it isn't. In many ways, it's not a discrete specific structured thing we can study. People usually have some basis for believing in God. '2 billion people can't be wrong' is a terrible way to argue, since it could be said of every other religion, with differing numbers, but 'two billion people currently believe in the modern age in this thing' is still an argument for not dismissing it as on the level of fairy tales and fictional literary characters. Many of them are very intelligent people. Most of them have arguments that they believe are strong enough to justify belief in the existence of God.
How many children are there out there who believe in Santa Claus?
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 28, 2015, 03:57:43 am
I would disagree as to them being in the same category. Most of those things are falsifiable (dwarfism exists :P). God existing is either a fundamental fact about the universe, or it isn't. In many ways, it's not a discrete specific structured thing we can study. People usually have some basis for believing in God. '2 billion people can't be wrong' is a terrible way to argue, since it could be said of every other religion, with differing numbers, but 'two billion people currently believe in the modern age in this thing' is still an argument for not dismissing it as on the level of fairy tales and fictional literary characters. Many of them are very intelligent people. Most of them have arguments that they believe are strong enough to justify belief in the existence of God.
How many children are there out there who believe in Santa Claus?
Ah, but the difference there is that Santa, despite being based on known historical figures, is a known constructed lie made by adults who define Santa in terms of a set of claims, which will unravel with a little critical thinking. As pointed out by Roleplaygeek above, when a god is defined as a specific god claims about it can be tested, inevitably showing the claims to be flawed - the same as Santa. Olympus can be climbed, and Zeus and his gang were not up there. The result of this is that due to social Darwinism the faiths in god that remain extant in the world today are either non-theistic (like Buddhism and Taoism, so no god claims exist to unravel), or handily contain a god "claimed/defined" as so far outside the human experience one could never hope to interact with it regardless of claims in its holy text (Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism and so on). This in itself is to me a bizarre claim for a faith to make, as in said holy texts gods were dicking around with humanity all the time, which seems juxtaposed to the whole "out there but we can't get at them" reasoning. 1bn or so kids hold a belief in Santa, because they are told to. There is nothing to base that belief on save for the mythos they are fed. Does the same apply to those who hold a belief in god? I say yes, to a certain extent. For the most part, they are told in their youth of a particular god, and build up an argument around it while they have the knowledge in order to justify it. An almost statistically insignificant number of people end up switching faiths as a result of examining religious ideas and arguments about gods and their nature compared to those who simply reinforce what they already thought about gods, which to me suggests a certain amount of preclusion.
If we defined Santa as some kind of pan-dimensional everywhere omni-gift giver instead of a fat guy in a suit, the myth may be more pervasive, perhaps :P
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 28, 2015, 05:10:33 am
If we defined Santa as some kind of pan-dimensional everywhere omni-gift giver instead of a fat guy in a suit, the myth may be more pervasive, perhaps :PNo no no, Saint Nicholas is a spirit, but he isn't everywhere. He only visits rich families.
Post by: TD1 on December 28, 2015, 09:41:16 am
I would disagree as to them being in the same category. Most of those things are falsifiable (dwarfism exists :P). God existing is either a fundamental fact about the universe, or it isn't. In many ways, it's not a discrete specific structured thing we can study. People usually have some basis for believing in God. '2 billion people can't be wrong' is a terrible way to argue, since it could be said of every other religion, with differing numbers, but 'two billion people currently believe in the modern age in this thing' is still an argument for not dismissing it as on the level of fairy tales and fictional literary characters. Many of them are very intelligent people. Most of them have arguments that they believe are strong enough to justify belief in the existence of God.
Dwarfism exists, but as a mutation (not that I know the genetics behind it) not as a separate race from ours with a known culture. As has been pointed out before, we don't believe that any more because we've been pretty much everywhere and not found any Mountainhomes. The people of the Old Norse religion believed in Dwarves, presumably because they had a limited knowledge of the world and little scholarly/scientific interaction with other cultures.
Despite this, I am sure there are today people who honestly believe in Dwarfs of either the Tolkien or Old Norse variety. That is rather ridiculous to me, but I put it on par with believing in God, even if it is easier to disprove. A faith designed around the basis of not being debunked is no less of a ridiculous faith. I hesitate to say "ridiculous" in case I'm being insulting, but that's what I honestly view it as.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 28, 2015, 12:47:30 pm
MonkeyHead went more into depth with it, but my objection to that claim, Bohandas, is twofold. A, Kids are dumb, and I say this as someone who just turned 18 this month. You can like/believe basically anything when you're a kid; less realistic beliefs are expected to be grown out of. B, if you were trying to equate theists/religious individuals with children on the basis of believing something you find ridiculous, I would point out that that is both dishonest and anti-contributory to the discussion.
Also, something pithy since I like making pithy sayings: Truth is hard to find.
The size, organization/scale, respectability, and intellectual accomplishments of those two groups of people, DwArfY, is radically different (though I admit I'm making assumptions on that last). Many/most apologists don't have merely a faith designed around 'it might be true'. That's Pascal's Wager. I take a bit of a different Wager, but in any case, that's not the point. Many of them have logical or evidence-dependent arguments for their beliefs. We may find them faulty, or believe the evidence should be interpreted differently. But you can't even get to that point in the debate, to that level of discussion which allows for everyone to come out more justified in the beliefs they now hold, and hopefully closer to the truth, if you just say it's ridiculous.
I mean, my real objection is that it's rude and people should respect each other's beliefs even while challenging them and their own, but nobody actually cares about that, in my experience.
Post by: TD1 on December 28, 2015, 01:53:16 pm
Quote
The size, organization/scale, respectability, and intellectual accomplishments of those two groups of people, DwArfY, is radically different (though I admit I'm making assumptions on that last). Many/most apologists don't have merely a faith designed around 'it might be true'. That's Pascal's Wager. I take a bit of a different Wager, but in any case, that's not the point. Many of them have logical or evidence-dependent arguments for their beliefs. We may find them faulty, or believe the evidence should be interpreted differently. But you can't even get to that point in the debate, to that level of discussion which allows for everyone to come out more justified in the beliefs they now hold, and hopefully closer to the truth, if you just say it's ridiculous.
Size doesn't matter. It just means it's the belief most people want. Organisation only means it's had time to organise. Respectability gets the same response as size and organisation - it's had time, and it's wanted - intellectual accomplishment is as a result of time and the surrounding culture, and could happen for any belief. The logic you speak of is an attempt to make either science or their beliefs conform with the other. Release that logic long enough on the Tayto Man, and it's obvious that the Tayto factory had had inspiration for its logo from the extra-dimensional potato being - it being extra dimensional, it is obviously unfalsifiable. Belief in God is not so very different, it's just the lucky religion that had all the factors it needed for growth. Given a different throw of the coin, and lightning is caused by the extra-dimensional Zeus, who obviously doesn't live on a mountain. That was all a metaphor for his transcendence.
To me it's just as ridiculous as a fairy tale, the only difference being it's accepted by the society, and thus perpetuated, and had thinkers think up ways of keeping it viable.
That may be rude, but it's unfortunately what I think - I daresay it does contribute to the discussion, though, rather than being counter to it.
Post by: Arx on December 28, 2015, 01:57:04 pm
Post by: TD1 on December 28, 2015, 02:33:17 pm
And no. I don't oppose religion because it's the prevailing belief in society. In fact, I don't oppose religion at all - I just don't believe any of them. People have a right to believe in whatever they want, regardless of what I think.
Why I don't believe any of them is the same reason I don't believe in fairy tales. It has nothing to do with what other people do or don't believe. Religion is just a form of Little Red Riding Hood that's believed to me.
Post by: Fenrir on December 28, 2015, 02:50:15 pm
Why I don't believe any of them is the same reason I don't believe in fairy tales. It has nothing to do with what other people do or don't believe. Religion is just a form of Little Red Riding Hood that's believed to me.Actually, the reason you don’t believe in fairy tales is probably because believing in fairy tales gets you socially ostricised. I don’t think anybody here ever ran through the Little Red Riding Hood story to find the indescrepancies. First, it wasn’t taught to you as a fact, and, second, you sure as hell wouldn’t start believing it later due to the social punishment you’d get for it. Yeah, maybe if it was taught to you as a fact and it was considered okay to believe it, you might have later in life worked through it and found it lacking, but then it’d be analogous to religion and you wouldn’t be able to just outright dismiss it.
When you say “Religion is ridiculous,” you’re just telling us that it’s worthy of ridicule. Maybe that works for less popular but still widespread beliefs (especially if you’re of a higher social class so people have more incentive to be seen agreeing with you), but religion seems to be too popular and entrenched for ridicule to work if you want to get rid of it.
Post by: Arx on December 28, 2015, 02:56:20 pm
This raises the issue that either you're a hypocrite/your argument is wrong or your argument is actually not so much an argument as an 'I say these must be false because they must be false', which I don't begrudge you, but isn't the same as, say, the problem of evil and an omnimax God.
I think. I'm tired and I'm struggling to phrase this, which almost certainly means I don't understand my argument well enough and it has holes in it.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 28, 2015, 03:01:37 pm
Second, your objections are rather moot. If we applied them to science (as publication bias and experimental inaccuracy could mean we're actually totally off); scientific consensus? Just the results most people want. Organized proponents of a theory, rather than muddled and disorganized? Just had more time. Respectability; Freud was respectable in his time! Intellectual accomplishment is what this measures in the first place, so it's even less applicable as a positive factor.
Your argument presupposes that religion is false, and what's more, the logic you use proves too much. Science is the practice of making belief conform to reality. Belief in god is rather different, if merely for the fact that many intelligent people believe in and feel they have good reasons to do so. Something which exists is inherently distinct from something which does not exist. This applies to belief systems as well; you can tell a lot about a belief by the fact that it isn't [commonly] held.
The reason I don't believe in fairy tales (currently) is because they were intentionally created as fictional stories (usually) for misbehaving children. They would also have very little impact on my life if they turned out to be true. The reason I don't believe in a certain type of God is because it is logically inconsistent with itself. The reason I don't generally believe in any spirits is because there is no evidence for them.
But the Shroud of Turin is a thing. There are historical accounts about Jesus. I don't believe that the miracles that are claimed to have happened, happened that way(distortions in the tellings &etc.), but I do believe that saying 'they're just deluded' is a terrible way to discuss your opponent's viewpoints. 'They want to believe it, so they find a way to' may or may not be true. But using it as the basis for your argument, which is essentially what you seem to be doing, is not a good practice. You've just equated religion to fairy tales. Both may be considered superstitions, yes, but you haven't given actual reasons. Just said that they're the same reasons. That's why it isn't helpful. You're not discussing anything. You're dismissing it. Or at least, that's what it appears that you're doing.
Everyone else is more concise than I am :-\
Post by: TD1 on December 28, 2015, 03:57:07 pm
As I said, I don't want to get rid of it. People can do as they please in regard to what faith they follow, and it doesn't faze me so long as it doesn't become damaging to any sizeable degree.Why I don't believe any of them is the same reason I don't believe in fairy tales. It has nothing to do with what other people do or don't believe. Religion is just a form of Little Red Riding Hood that's believed to me.Actually, the reason you don’t believe in fairy tales is probably because believing in fairy tales gets you socially ostricised. I don’t think anybody here ever ran through the Little Red Riding Hood story to find the indescrepancies. First, it wasn’t taught to you as a fact, and, second, you sure as hell wouldn’t start believing it later due to the social punishment you’d get for it. Yeah, maybe if it was taught to you as a fact and it was considered okay to believe it, you might have later in life worked through it and found it lacking, but then it’d be analogous to religion and you wouldn’t be able to just outright dismiss it.
When you say “Religion is ridiculous,” you’re just telling us that it’s worthy of ridicule. Maybe that works for less popular but still widespread beliefs (especially if you’re of a higher social class so people have more incentive to be seen agreeing with you), but religion seems to be too popular and entrenched for ridicule to work if you want to get rid of it.
Quote
Actually, the reason you don’t believe in fairy tales is probably because believing in fairy tales gets you socially ostricised.I doubt it. If I were really concerned about that, then I wouldn't be an atheist. You're right in that an added factor is that I wasn't told throughout that it was real, but rather was told on many occasions it was false. And that's part of my point - that's one of the key differences between mythology/fairy tale and religion. I also don't believe in it because to do so would require believing in it when the events recorded therein are contrary to every thing I can observe. Both fairy tales and religion carry verification of themselves almost exclusively within themselves.
---
My point is that if anyone's belief in, say, Christianity is brought about by their society, then your disbelief in, say, Christianity must comparably be brought about by your society.Society encourages belief in Christianity. It is beaten into people from birth, and whilst not exactly comparable to propaganda, it is similar. Atheism is not based on societal pressure - I only know one other atheist, and him for only a year. Similarly, I did not become an atheist because I wanted to be contrary to society. Belief coming about as a result of societal pressure is part of my argument (it's how it's perpetuated. If your parents, Sunday School, and everything to do with Christianity didn't exist and you stumbled on a Bible, you would most likely see it as fantasy on par with Homer's works. And if you felt you had to believe one, you could just as easily be praying to Pallas Athene rather than God.) How is disbelief perpetuated by society? Though I just may not be understanding your argument.
This raises the issue that either you're a hypocrite/your argument is wrong or your argument is actually not so much an argument as an 'I say these must be false because they must be false', which I don't begrudge you, but isn't the same as, say, the problem of evil and an omnimax God.
I think. I'm tired and I'm struggling to phrase this, which almost certainly means I don't understand my argument well enough and it has holes in it.
----
Quote
...I'm just gonna point out that 'your philosophy is about as valid as children's stories' is more or less being opposed to religion. At least, that's the message that comes across when you put it that way.Opposed to religion would be Richard Dawkins trying to enforce his beliefs. I am accepting enough of religion as a social phenomenon, I just don't buy into it. That it's as valid as a story book is just one of the reasons.
Quote
Second, your objections are rather moot. If we applied them to science (as publication bias and experimental inaccuracy could mean we're actually totally off); scientific consensus? Just the results most people want. Organized proponents of a theory, rather than muddled and disorganized? Just had more time. Respectability; Freud was respectable in his time! Intellectual accomplishment is what this measures in the first place, so it's even less applicable as a positive factor.Science may be influenced by want, to some extent, but most of the time it's governed by readings and other observations. People reach a consensus because it's the option that, given the evidence, seems most viable. Besides, no one takes science as...well, an exact science. Science never says it's absolutely correct. Even gravity is a theory. So yes, Science can be wrong. Its systems were built over time. A lot of respected people contributed to it. The attributes of science you listed - consensus, organisation, and respectability aren't the means by which Science deems itself correct, which you seem to imply religion does. Science deems itself correct - or at least as correct as possible - when its empirical findings most reflect the world/universe. Not by any of those other features.
Quote
Your argument presupposes that religion is false, and what's more, the logic you use proves too much. Science is the practice of making belief conform to reality. Belief in god is rather different, if merely for the fact that many intelligent people believe in and feel they have good reasons to do so. Something which exists is inherently distinct from something which does not exist. This applies to belief systems as well; you can tell a lot about a belief by the fact that it isn't [commonly] held.No. Science is the practice of finding that which is real. Often, the pursuit is started by a certain belief. In the process of finding reality, that belief undergoes rigourous testing until it is no longer just a belief - or, rather, it involves as little belief as is possible. Religion is a belief that finds evidence within itself. That intelligent people can have a belief means absolutely nothing. Intelligent people are, after all, still people. Absolute imbeciles are also religious. I could say this says something about religion, but I don't - nor does the fact that some religious people are also intelligent. Intelligent people are most often as susceptible to societal pressure as the rest of us.
Quote
You've just equated religion to fairy tales. Both may be considered superstitions, yes, but you haven't given actual reasons. Just said that they're the same reasons.Religion finds verification within itself. I've said religion is a fairly tale which is believed - a fantasy which finds verification within itself, and is perpetuated by society. Religions may have historical records pertaining to them - much as there are records of the deification of various emperors, Augustus Caesar amongst them. Such "evidence" was written from the perspective of the religion which was dominant at the time in that society - the religion being perpetuated, which was paganism mixed with emperor worship in the case of Augustus Caesar. This does not amount to evidence.
Post by: Frumple on December 28, 2015, 04:36:40 pm
Actually, the reason you don’t believe in fairy tales is probably because believing in fairy tales gets you socially ostricised.Point of order, but... not so much. Fairy tales and, more on the point, folk tales are still told and believed in a number of places without the least whit of social rebuffing, nevermind their prevalence in the past. Not believing (or, at least, professing belief) in any number of small tales can actually be what gets you ostracized, often enough. The thousand and one tiny superstitions about luck, the local but widely believed within the area stories of ghosts and ghoulies and whatnot... they're still very much there, and taken very seriously in many places. I've personally heard tales swapped with utmost seriousness and more or less accepted, with tales swapped back in tones just as serious, about things in the swamps and ghosts on the bridges, and that's stateside where thin pickings regarding local myths is a very well known phenomena.
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 28, 2015, 04:46:01 pm
Actually, the reason you don’t believe in fairy tales is probably because believing in fairy tales gets you socially ostricised.Point of order, but... not so much. Fairy tales and, more on the point, folk tales are still told and believed in a number of places without the least whit of social rebuffing, nevermind their prevalence in the past. Not believing (or, at least, professing belief) in any number of small tales can actually be what gets you ostracized, often enough. The thousand and one tiny superstitions about luck, the local but widely believed within the area stories of ghosts and ghoulies and whatnot... they're still very much there, and taken very seriously in many places. I've personally heard tales swapped with utmost seriousness and more or less accepted, with tales swapped back in tones just as serious, about things in the swamps and ghosts on the bridges, and that's stateside where thin pickings regarding local myths is a very well known phenomena.
One could easily argue that these sorts of folklore things are in fact religions of a sort... or at least have some of the hallmarks of religion. Humans love to identify themselves via group think as a way of separating us from them. Our brains simply love such things.
Post by: TD1 on December 28, 2015, 04:48:57 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 28, 2015, 05:00:42 pm
As in, ritual and social group stuff is healthy for you. Religious people tend to have better psychological health profiles, if I remember correctly. Probably has to do with believing in there being a purpose to life/having a strong founded philosophy making it harder to become nihilistic/filled with ennui/purely focused on the self as the only possible measurement of existence. Not that there aren't counter-examples, I'm just saying that it's another way of putting it that makes it less 'let's avoid this thing as much as possible' and more 'let's avoid this thing when it leads to bad outcomes'.
I'll see if I can find the specific evidence for counterpoints to your stuff later, DwArfY. Sorry. I will say that everything is a belief; whether the belief happens to accurately reflect what we believe is reality is separate from it being a belief. Belief =/= Faith. Well, it sorta equals faith, but only in the sense that I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow morning.
Post by: Fenrir on December 28, 2015, 05:22:31 pm
Oh sure, what is and is not acceptable to believe varies with context, probably pretty widely. I agree with that.Actually, the reason you don’t believe in fairy tales is probably because believing in fairy tales gets you socially ostricised.Point of order, but... not so much. Fairy tales and, more on the point, folk tales are still told and believed in a number of places without the least whit of social rebuffing, nevermind their prevalence in the past. Not believing (or, at least, professing belief) in any number of small tales can actually be what gets you ostracized, often enough. The thousand and one tiny superstitions about luck, the local but widely believed within the area stories of ghosts and ghoulies and whatnot... they're still very much there, and taken very seriously in many places. I've personally heard tales swapped with utmost seriousness and more or less accepted, with tales swapped back in tones just as serious, about things in the swamps and ghosts on the bridges, and that's stateside where thin pickings regarding local myths is a very well known phenomena.
Edit: He’s claiming that he’s rejecting religion by importing the same cognitive process that makes him reject fairy tales. I’m saying that he’s reasoning in retrospect in support of something he already believed, so it’s not super great evidence that religion is as trivially easy to debunk as he seems to be implying.
Edit 2:
TL;DR: “I don’t believe fairy tales because they’re obviously false because I can logic. Religions resemble fairy tales in all ways, they just have social support. Therefore, religions are obviously false. Therefore people should feel silly for believing them.” I object to premise 1 (and the conclusion that people should feel silly, but that’s thornier to address).
Post by: Bohandas on December 28, 2015, 06:59:29 pm
The other way of seeing that, MonkeyHead, is that humans are social animals, and we like to be part of a community.
As in, ritual and social group stuff is healthy for you. Religious people tend to have better psychological health profiles, if I remember correctly. Probably has to do with believing in there being a purpose to life/having a strong founded philosophy making it harder to become nihilistic/filled with ennui/purely focused on the self as the only possible measurement of existence.
Ceded, but we must keep in mind always that this in no way points to any religion being true. To reach such a conclusion from this premise would be an appeal to consequences.
EDIT:
Not that the existence of god would make life any less meaningless anyway, it just pushes the point of arbitrariness back one step. Humanity may find it's moral and existential foundation in God, but God is without foundation itself and therefore contributes nothing to resolve the problem. God does not remove the terror of science.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 28, 2015, 07:32:19 pm
Life being without inherent meaning (rather than inherently meaningless) is freeing, Bohandas. It means we are free to give it meaning, rather than having it forced onto us by some other.
Though really, the 'purpose' of life is to reproduce. :P
Post by: Bohandas on December 28, 2015, 07:42:03 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 28, 2015, 09:34:51 pm
(eg. The new Testament, everything after the exile, everything after King David... etc.)
Post by: Frumple on December 28, 2015, 09:49:24 pm
Post by: Bohandas on December 28, 2015, 10:01:05 pm
I have a question for everybody, how far back do you believe the Bible to be historically accurate?
(eg. The new Testament, everything after the exile, everything after King David... etc.)
Jefferson Bible only.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 28, 2015, 10:10:34 pm
The biggest break is obviously oral vs. written history. Genesis is entirely oral tradition as far as I know, so I would expect it to be significantly less accurate than, say, Kings, Chronicles, or Samuel, which are books of written history and seem to be at least roughly in line with other sources from around that time.
During the conquest of Canaan, there are a lot of incidents where God intervenes quite directly (Jericho, stopping the sun, and various other battles). I'm loathe to say these didn't happen, but I must admit it's a fair assumption to say they were embellished somewhat.
The exiles and late OT seems to be in about the same category as the kingdom period history books - written, and reasonably on point, although unfortunately a fair number of details seem to have been changed.
The New Testament is a little different. We have literally thousands of original copies, but these weren't written down until a few decades after the event. There are minor inconsistencies here and there (the most egregious being in the nativity stories) which IMO are best explained by fallible human memory.
...
In short, I believe the Bible is a spiritual document, and any historicity is mostly unnecessary. Whether or not that's the correct position I've no idea, but I think it's the safest.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2015, 10:37:24 pm
But well... I'm of the opinion that Jesus wasn't a single person, but was formed from a variety of characters (like King Arthur). I could be wrong, but the evidence seems to point in that direction. So that's most of the New Testament out.
As for the Old Testament, it says that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, for which there's a significant lack of evidence. It also constantly describes impossibly large armies for the time, and impossibly long lifespans. If it's true, it's because a powerful entity messed with reality quite a bit. So if I were a Christian I maybe could believe it.
The Old Testament did mention a group called the Hittites who turned out to be real, so it's not completely made up... And I think the post-Christ epistles/letters are probably accurate, though I haven't studied them closely.
In short, as a non-Christian, I naturally think it's mostly inaccurate and absolutely unreliable. It was written and edited (selection of canon) by people with political agendas and firmly held beliefs. If I were a Christian, I'd probably still doubt a lot of the text for that reason. I'd consider it an inaccurate legend about real events, and seek a personal relationship with God to get the true story.
Post by: Arcvasti on December 28, 2015, 11:33:31 pm
It also constantly describes impossibly large armies for the time, and impossibly long lifespans. If it's true, it's because a powerful entity messed with reality quite a bit. So if I were a Christian I maybe could believe it.
According to Religion class at the Catholic school I attend, most numbers in the Bible are symbolic[This is also the only thing that I've legitimately learned, since Religion class consists of learning the same "concepts" over and over again until you
Post by: Fenrir on December 29, 2015, 07:03:13 pm
I'm not saying it's true based on that. I'm saying that we shouldn't place religion into the 'Evil Things' category just because the cognitive processes that it leads to and cause it seem like status games.I think this kind of depends on what somebody’s values are. If you think that believing a thing because it feels good instead of believing it because it’s true is “evil”, then it might make sense to put religion in the “evil things” category. I’m not sure where I stand on this.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 29, 2015, 07:22:04 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 29, 2015, 07:35:31 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 29, 2015, 07:48:34 pm
Though most people probably prefer to balance it with other ideals, like minimizing unwanted suffering and maximizing satisfaction. As an extreme example, very few people would feel obligated to share a Mythos secret which doomed all who heard it to an alien hell dimension.
In general though, I consider it evil for an untruth to be allowed to spread. It's dishonest, even if people are happier being wrong. Pragmatically it can set back scientific and cultural development, which in turn hold back productivity and the pursuit of happiness. In the long run, following the truth seems like the best strategy for human happiness.
I do tell white lies of course... But I suck at it so much that it hardly counts, just transparent social politeness.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 29, 2015, 08:04:14 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 29, 2015, 08:06:02 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 29, 2015, 08:11:13 pm
Many religions today aren't necessarily untrue, though. They're unfalsifiable, which while not ideal still isn't the same thing as outright lying.Even if I agreed with the premise that religions aren’t necessarily untrue, just unfalsifiable, they’d still be shifting probability mass without adequate evidence, which, if it’s done knowingly, is exactly what lying is.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 29, 2015, 08:20:26 pm
Many religions today aren't necessarily untrue, though. They're unfalsifiable, which while not ideal still isn't the same thing as outright lying.Oh definitely. What I was talking about was intentionally spreading or allowing an untruth to spread. So, not the vast majority of religious people.
Con-men who use religion for profit are guilty, obviously. But also, you hear stories about church officials who don't actually believe what they preach, but think religion is good for people anyway. In my opinion such people would be making a mistake, in the long run, despite their intentions. Their intentions determine whether it's evil or just wrong. (Of course, maybe *I'm* wrong and a lie really is the best course).
Post by: Adragis on December 29, 2015, 08:21:55 pm
Post by: Graknorke on December 29, 2015, 08:29:49 pm
Peter Popoff is a shining example of a religious conman. Well, less shining and more filthy.I'm surprised people give Popoff money. He's been shown to be a fraud over and over and still somehow makes money.
Post by: Frumple on December 29, 2015, 08:31:33 pm
Post by: Adragis on December 29, 2015, 08:32:33 pm
I'd say his money is because he targets elderly or desperate people, myself.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 29, 2015, 08:37:46 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 29, 2015, 08:42:50 pm
I actually misstated this despite trying to clarify. What I meant was spreading an untruth *while knowing it isn't true*. IE, lying. I hope that came across anyway.Many religions today aren't necessarily untrue, though. They're unfalsifiable, which while not ideal still isn't the same thing as outright lying.Oh definitely. What I was talking about was intentionally spreading or allowing an untruth to spread. So, not the vast majority of religious people.
The whole religious fraud stuff really pisses me off. It's disgusting.Same. It's preying on people's needs for comfort, community, and higher meaning. It's large-scale theft from people who often have little to spare, and AFAIK it's usually legal.
It's completely different from actual religion, which provides real community and is honestly searching for higher meaning.
Post by: Fenrir on December 29, 2015, 08:43:25 pm
Post by: Adragis on December 29, 2015, 08:48:53 pm
I wonder if people like Popoff actually know they’re being asshats or if, through some kind of mental acrobatics, manage to justify what they do to themselves.Psychopathy: 'They're dumb enough to fall for it, why shouldn't I benefit from that?'
Although that's not always, well, psychopathy.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 29, 2015, 08:50:24 pm
Oddly, they do make for interesting protagonists in fiction. I guess because they're clever instead of strong, and villain protagonists can be fun.
ninja'd, yeah psychopathy helps a lot. Since it basically means being cut off from the normal social pressures, I think, including the contract.
Post by: Bohandas on December 29, 2015, 09:33:40 pm
I think confidence tricksters usually justify it as "If you can steal it, you've earned it".
So not that different from legitimate industry
Post by: Bohandas on December 29, 2015, 10:06:47 pm
In general though, I consider it evil for an untruth to be allowed to spread. It's dishonest, even if people are happier being wrong. Pragmatically it can set back scientific and cultural development, which in turn hold back productivity and the pursuit of happiness. In the long run, following the truth seems like the best strategy for human happiness.
I agree.
Post by: Fenrir on December 30, 2015, 12:09:39 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 30, 2015, 01:05:48 am
Post by: Fenrir on December 30, 2015, 01:11:50 am
Well, what do you do if you can't know if something is true or not?Short answer: neither believe it nor disbelieve it.
The answer seems obvious, so I think I’m misunderstanding you.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 30, 2015, 01:13:06 am
Other people will trust your theory because it's testable, and there's incentive to test it. If someone tests your theory and the data doesn't match, they get points and you lose. The fittest theories survive, until fitter theories replace them.
The sucky thing is that we *can't* know if something is true or not. We can only refine our theories. Fortunately our theories have gotten refined to the point that we can make computers, so.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 30, 2015, 01:23:22 am
Fortunately our theories have gotten refined to the point that we can make computers, so.In an alternate universe: "The new GodBook Pro: Christ Inside is on sale now for a bargain $1299 plus delivery!"
Post by: Egan_BW on December 30, 2015, 01:24:51 am
Well, what do you do if you can't know if something is true or not?Learn until you can.
Post by: Arcvasti on December 30, 2015, 11:32:04 am
Well, what do you do if you can't know if something is true or not?
Get bored searching for the answer and just have fun with other stuff. Can't have been THAT important.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 30, 2015, 11:46:40 am
Though, for those of you who don't believe in God; have you heard of Roko's basilisk (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk)?
Post by: Bohandas on December 30, 2015, 11:47:50 am
Well, what do you do if you can't know if something is true or not?
-Occam's razor
-Mediocrity principle
Post by: Bohandas on December 30, 2015, 11:56:15 am
Though, for those of you who don't believe in God; have you heard of Roko's basilisk (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk)?
The Singularity is this decade's UFO cults
Post by: Bohandas on December 30, 2015, 11:59:14 am
Eh, that’s probably true in a lot of areas, but much of religious belief doesn’t seem to intersect too much with daily life and scientific progress. Yeah, you’ve got America’s religious that fuck up a few facets of progress, so I’m not going to say you’re definitely wrong, but it’s not obvious to me that religion is a net impediment to progress. It seems to be fairly adaptable and willing to retcon (which is part of what makes it so pernicious).Don't single America out. The middle east and many parts of Africa are even worse in that regard.
EDIT:
Apologies. Just realized i triple posted there.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 30, 2015, 12:27:01 pm
Post by: Graknorke on December 30, 2015, 12:41:13 pm
Post by: Bohandas on December 30, 2015, 12:57:18 pm
...For the record, Islam was a bastion of scientific progress during the middle ages, and with today's stuff, while I can't speak much for the middle east with all the warfare and tension that's been going on there since the Ottomans fell, but Africa's held back by a bit more than just 'people are too religious', if that's even a factor.
They're holding back social progress
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 30, 2015, 01:01:59 pm
Religious states are different from religious people. Religious states are what's holding back social progress. Not the religion itself.
Post by: Bohandas on December 30, 2015, 01:09:27 pm
In general though, I consider it evil for an untruth to be allowed to spread. It's dishonest, even if people are happier being wrong. Pragmatically it can set back scientific and cultural development, which in turn hold back productivity and the pursuit of happiness. In the long run, following the truth seems like the best strategy for human happiness.
I agree.
In the interest of fairness it's worth pointing out that religion is not the only culprit of this. Alternative medicine, and psychics/mediums are rather vile examples of this as well.
They need to be stamped out.
Religious states are what's holding back social progress. Not the religion itself.
Unless you consider the holy writ or ancient tradition to be part of the religion
Post by: Frumple on December 30, 2015, 01:18:18 pm
Religious states are different from religious people. Religious states are what's holding back social progress. Not the religion itself.N... no, that's fairly untrue. The influence of christian people in non-religious states in africa (and south america, for what it's worth, not that anyone ever cares about SA) have definitely been contributing to the difficulties on that front in those regions, just as an example (one of many, really). Catholicism in particular has kinda been doing a number on africa, due to several things, but particularly its issues regarding sexual practices. There's a non-negligible amount of the aids epidemic pretty firmly on its shoulders, among other things.
That said, a lot of things are causing problems in those regions, not just religions or religion related activities, and by and large it's not even primarily religions (barring, of course, the occasional exceptions) causing the problem (though they're often contributory... and sometimes not, for what it's worth). As is fairly obvious, other areas have managed alright even under the burden of counterproductive religious influences. It's more than a little questionable whether it's really worth trying to fight things on that front in the areas in question -- just fix all the other stuff first, y'know? S'probably more tractable.
Just... maybe throw the fuckers that send money to have gays killed and whatnot in the name of their religion in jail or somethin'. That's probably pretty tractable.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 30, 2015, 01:58:47 pm
But I get annoyed when people bring up people doing shitty things in the name of religion and say it's the religion's fault, but when people do good things in the name of religion, it's because they were good people anyway. And vice versa, sometimes, for people supporting religion. Some people will do shitty things regardless of religion, some people will do shitty things because of it. Some people will do good things regardless of religion, some people will do good things because of it.
The same could be said of Bureaucracy and politics, Bohandas. Stamping it out isn't really a viable option.
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 30, 2015, 02:04:05 pm
I've talked to a Franciscan monk who spent a lot of time working in India. He said that minority Christians in India and minority Hindus in America act more like each other than they act like Christian and Hindu majorities. I've always found that pretty interesting.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 30, 2015, 02:05:40 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 30, 2015, 08:17:49 pm
Well, yeah. People doing shitty things in the name of religion is bad.It’s kind of like the argument in defense of guns. Okay, yeah, some people will murder each other anyway, but having a pistol or divine mandate make it much easier. Of course, the analogy breaks down a bit after that since I don’t think guns make charitable acts easier in the majority of cases, but you still can’t say religion doesn’t motivate violence. It does. A lot. I’m not going to say that it motivates violence more than it motivates charity, but it does motivate violence and it needs to be blamed for that when it’s at fault.
But I get annoyed when people bring up people doing shitty things in the name of religion and say it's the religion's fault, but when people do good things in the name of religion, it's because they were good people anyway. And vice versa, sometimes, for people supporting religion. Some people will do shitty things regardless of religion, some people will do shitty things because of it. Some people will do good things regardless of religion, some people will do good things because of it.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 30, 2015, 08:31:18 pm
Yeah, it is a lot like guns, in the sense that 'why can't I just not kill people in the name of my faith' is similar to 'why can't I just not shoot people with my gun'.
But also, I feel like in the broader sense of the word, Fenrir, it motivates violence about as much as sports does, in civilized countries. Verbal violence? Oh, way more. Status games galore. In-groups and out-groups and schnozzberry-groups. But in the developing countries we're seeing it in, I feel like it serves more as a rallying cry. That's what causes do in general. Religion happens to be a very good cause. And like anything else, rallying cries are tools; they can be used to help or hurt.
Post by: Frumple on December 30, 2015, 09:19:36 pm
Still, as I said, for all that they're a yoke around the neck in a lot of situations, religious beliefs are still only occasionally the primary cause of the various problems they contribute to, are at times a mitigating instead of exacerbating factor, and, as per various examples throughout history, can probably be worked around fairly capably. They slow a lot of what we've found to be good things down, but it's not an entirely one-way thing, nor is their abolition even remotely a necessary thing for moving forward with the proverbial good shit. Roughest part is probably that religious influence is generally a pretty strong one, regardless as to if it's positive or negative -- very volatile, basically, which is something to contributes to an argument to be leery of it.
*Not necessarily saying similar stuff doesn't exist in other ones, it's just the A-bros are kinda' the big elephants in the room, considering they have a fairly notably chunk of the human population under their umbrella.
**The area I'm personally in being pretty strongly on the net negative side of things is something I've had to spend quite a few years trying to get a handle on vis a vis religion in general, heh, and still prooobably have a ways to go.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 30, 2015, 09:43:47 pm
I mean, if you look at those mandates the way a lot of people seem to, in that they were made for the times and only apply nowadays if it's to do with morality and closeness to god, rather than, say, 'eat shellfish and you'll probably get sick and die'. Or 'STDs spread a lot faster when people aren't faithful'. Or 'stop screwing around with that guy's stab wound you're making it worse you incompetent fuckwits'.
Gender roles can be debated as to whether they're right and true and proper blah blah blah. Mostly I object because saying 'it's counterproductive to the worldview I want to create' can be used by anyone, and isn't all that valid of a criticism, since traditionalists can say that the progressive "muckery regarding gender roles and relationships...sexual practices"...you see where I'm going with this?
Also, sustainability? Isn't there a whole movement around being the stewards of the earth?
Religion isn't anything but how people interpret it. If they interpret it in a way that leads to Bad Stuff, it will lead to Bad Stuff. If they interpret in a way that leads to Good Stuff, it will lead to Good Stuff.
Post by: wierd on December 30, 2015, 09:51:28 pm
The prohibition is not against "medicine" exactly, but against "Sorceries", which when translated from the original greek the new testament was written in-- is written with the word "Pharmakeia" (http://biblehub.com/greek/5331.htm)
The intent is that using medicinal substances is prohibited.
Modern apologists will distort this to "mood altering" substances, like hallucinogens, used for divination purposes. (Like salvia divinorum, peyote cactus, and psilocybin mushrooms...) However the original word used, covers that, *AND* therapeutic medicine.
Taken in full context, the bible-advocated modality of human life is that of a nomadic tribesman, that lives outside of cities, and does subsistence agriculture in the absence of advanced medicine.
Naturally, the morality it extols is centered around that kind of existence.
Post by: Bohandas on December 30, 2015, 11:13:19 pm
Taken in full context, the bible-advocated modality of human life is that of a nomadic tribesman, that lives outside of cities, and does subsistence agriculture in the absence of advanced medicine.That's the impression I've gotten. It's part of the reason I'm so blithely antitheistic.
If that's what he wants on earth that's probably what it's like in heaven too, the upshot of which being that even on the longshot offchance I'm wrong the difference in uality of life between Heaven and he lake of fire and brimstone probably isn't too big. They would at the very least in this case be closer to each other than either are to where I am now.
Well, yeah. People doing shitty things in the name of religion is bad.
But I get annoyed when people bring up people doing shitty things in the name of religion and say it's the religion's fault, but when people do good things in the name of religion, it's because they were good people anyway. And vice versa, sometimes, for people supporting religion. Some people will do shitty things regardless of religion, some people will do shitty things because of it. Some people will do good things regardless of religion, some people will do good things because of it.
The same could be said of Bureaucracy and politics, Bohandas. Stamping it out isn't really a viable option.
Actually that time I merely meant that psychic mediums, homeopathy, and traditional chinese medicine need to be stamped out
Post by: Vilanat on December 31, 2015, 01:41:48 am
Whether Solomon did compose a book listing his herbalist knowledge is irrelevant (Probably wrong though). the moral is pretty obvious.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 31, 2015, 02:03:09 am
Post by: Arx on December 31, 2015, 02:09:36 am
... PTW.
All hope abandon, ye who enter here.
Modern apologists will distort this to "mood altering" substances, like hallucinogens, used for divination purposes. (Like salvia divinorum, peyote cactus, and psilocybin mushrooms...) However the original word used, covers that, *AND* therapeutic medicine.
That's not the impression I get from a quick search and the first modern apologist argument that came up. (http://www.ukapologetics.net/pharmakeia.html)
Sure, it mentions the hallucinogens, but it also covers a lot more.
Further, Strong's Concordance lists it as 'medicine, drugs or spells', 'magic, sorcery, enchantment'. If we look at the 'full context', the Bible forbids 'magic, sorcery, enchantment' repeatedly, but not so much medicine.
Post by: wierd on December 31, 2015, 02:22:56 am
There are numerous mentions where faith in the creator is given as the primary source of treatment that the ill or infirm should seek. The bible does go out of its way to discourage and condemn magical practices, such as drug induced hallucinations for divination purposes. (in fact, divination in general.) However, it also frequently puts apothecaries in the same bag as diviners, witches, and magicians. Remember, the oath of hippocrates was not a thing yet, and apothecaries frequently sold preparations that did very nasty things. (like outright poisons, toxins formulated to cause abortions, etc.)
Post by: Graknorke on December 31, 2015, 09:49:22 am
toxins formulated to cause abortionsWasn't that a thing the bible advocates at some point? Something about priests inducing miscarriages on cheating wives.
Found it, Numbers 5:20-24
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 31, 2015, 11:20:05 am
Taken in full context, the bible-advocated modality of human life is that of a nomadic tribesman, that lives outside of cities, and does subsistence agriculture in the absence of advanced medicine.That's the impression I've gotten. It's part of the reason I'm so blithely antitheistic.
If that's what he wants on earth that's probably what it's like in heaven too, the upshot of which being that even on the longshot offchance I'm wrong the difference in uality of life between Heaven and he lake of fire and brimstone probably isn't too big. They would at the very least in this case be closer to each other than either are to where I am now.Well, yeah. People doing shitty things in the name of religion is bad.
But I get annoyed when people bring up people doing shitty things in the name of religion and say it's the religion's fault, but when people do good things in the name of religion, it's because they were good people anyway. And vice versa, sometimes, for people supporting religion. Some people will do shitty things regardless of religion, some people will do shitty things because of it. Some people will do good things regardless of religion, some people will do good things because of it.
The same could be said of Bureaucracy and politics, Bohandas. Stamping it out isn't really a viable option.
Actually that time I merely meant that psychic mediums, homeopathy, and traditional chinese medicine need to be stamped out
What falls under 'traditional chinese medicine'? Because acupuncture, for all intents and purposes as far as I can tell, works. Making weird remedies with the bones of endangered animals, less so.
Though that's just me being curious, not actually trying to challenge anything.
I didn't know that, Graknorke. Interesting.
And wierd, that's basically what I was saying. If someone interprets the bible knowing it was originally written for a completely different lifestyle, and adapting it as would be necessary to modern life, it becomes much more palatable to modern sensibilities.
Post by: Ghills on December 31, 2015, 02:27:16 pm
And wierd, that's basically what I was saying. If someone interprets the bible knowing it was originally written for a completely different lifestyle, and adapting it as would be necessary to modern life, it becomes much more palatable to modern sensibilities.
This is one of the big reasons the LDS church is so emphatic about modern prophets and personal revelation. The Bible is a great spiritual text, but it was written for completely different people who had very different levels of scientific knowledge, culture and political structure. Applying it directly to modern life is just going to cause problems. While the spiritual principles carry over, modern prophets and personal prayer are needed to understand how to apply those principles to modern life.
Like with the medicine/sorcery issue. 'Medicine' back then was basically all wishful thinking, regardless of who a sick person went to. They had no concept of bacteria, no idea what the inside of the body looked like, no standardized education. Typical 'medical' treatment frequently included invoking local gods or spirits; witchdoctor/shaman/priests were commonly also healers/herbalists. Apothecaries were more likely to harm than help, right up through the Enlightenment, except in very straightforward cases. It's hard to imagine it from a standpoint of modern, standardized education and clinical drug trials, but I can see good reason for 'Stop going to the sorceror-barber-herbalists in random villages' given the knowledge and culture at that time.
Post by: Bouchart on December 31, 2015, 02:45:34 pm
In the Talmud there is a reference to an herbal medicine book written by Solomon that Hezekiah later destroyed completely out of existence (Pretty easy to do since there was probably only a single copy of every book back then). the Talmud considered it among the good things Hezekiah did since that book drove people away from relying on praying to god for their health. the irony is that Hezekiah himself died of a disease.
Whether Solomon did compose a book listing his herbalist knowledge is irrelevant (Probably wrong though). the moral is pretty obvious.
Off the top of my head I think the bible mentioned that Soloman studied plantlife/botany.
Post by: Fenrir on December 31, 2015, 02:59:01 pm
What falls under 'traditional chinese medicine'? Because acupuncture, for all intents and purposes as far as I can tell, works. Making weird remedies with the bones of endangered animals, less so.There have been studies of acupuncture and the evidence for it is inconclusive at the moment. It might help pain. Might. Traditional Chinese medicine, including acupunture, is unified by qi and a few other things that are kind of made up. The underlying assumptions are pseudoscience, if that.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 31, 2015, 03:54:23 pm
e.g. "Dear God, my car has a puncture, please jack it up and change the tyre"
Post by: Rolan7 on December 31, 2015, 04:05:01 pm
I know yous aren't Biblical literalists, but still. If we have to change the tire/tyre ourselves, or do the heart transplant or whatever, it seems like God is hiding in the gaps, so to speak. And isn't the same sort of God that the Israelites believed in.
Post by: redwallzyl on December 31, 2015, 04:08:24 pm
Praying to God is pointless if you're not actually trying to do things yourselfhow did you manage to puncture Tyre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon)? :P
e.g. "Dear God, my car has a puncture, please jack it up and change the tyre"
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 31, 2015, 04:10:05 pm
Long story short, the Bible never advocates laziness.
...
how did you manage to puncture Tyre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon)? :PMy name's Alexander.
Post by: Fenrir on December 31, 2015, 04:45:53 pm
Well, basically. God said to Israel that he would give them the promised land, but they still had to go out and fight the dudes who were there first. Abraham (and lots of other guys) were promised children, but they (presumably) still needed to go at it with their wives for that to happen. Jesus promised us that anything we pray for in good faith will be given to us, so it stands to reason that we still need to put the effort in, even if God has a hand in the results.You can’t be fucking serious.
Long story short, the Bible never advocates laziness.
So let’s assume that people regularly pray for loved ones with terminal illnesses. That’s not hard to believe. Cancer’s a classic, so let’s go with that one. With your assumption, if someone prays for a cancer victim and the victim dies anyway, the supplicant was being lazy and didn’t really give an effort. Now, you’ve got to assume one of a few things.
1. The vast majority of people don’t die from cancer if they receive both treatment and prayer.
2. Most people who pray for cancer victims don’t really try to save a loved one from cancer.
3. Jesus was full of shit.
4. Jesus never actually said that.
Now, 1 is testable. I really doubt you’re going to pick 1, since we might be able to look that one up. If you believe 2, you’re not only wrong, you’re an asshole. Sure, maybe you could explain away a few cases as laziness on the part of the supplicant (and this fact was somehow enough to condemn the cancer victim to suffering and death for some reason), but 1 would still have to be true. 3 is the one I’d go with personally. I’m not sure about 4, since I honestly never did read the bible.
(There are a number of other problems with this, but I don’t want to complicate things too much.)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 31, 2015, 04:58:46 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 31, 2015, 05:02:36 pm
Except that the amount of effort needed to save people from cancer is a societal thing. So it's not the supplicant, it's the pharmaceutical companies. And they...Aren't.No, you don’t understand.
Jesus promised us that anything we pray for in good faith will be given to us…Either you get what you want, or you didn’t ask in good faith.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 31, 2015, 05:08:42 pm
I mean, it's standard God of the Gaps I think. Like my fairies, they only exist where we can't yet observe.
Post by: Fenrir on December 31, 2015, 05:21:43 pm
I think OW is saying you need to ask in good faith, but also take the necessary steps. The cancer won't miraculously disappear, a doctor needs to cut it out and the patient has to undergo chemo. But if you do that, and pray, then God will operate in the gaps to make things succeed.So 1, then, which means it’s testable, and then you’ve got to explain away every death from terminal illness from before human beings even had medical interventions, and then you’ve got to explain how this doesn’t make god a complete douchbag for killing somebody because someone else didn’t really mean it when they asked for the victim to be spared, and then you’ve got to explain how you can call surgery and chemotherapy “necessary steps” when god can just cure people and he already knows whether they’re going to work but puts the victim through it anyway.
I mean, it's standard God of the Gaps I think. Like my fairies, they only exist where we can't yet observe.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 31, 2015, 05:26:58 pm
And many Christians believe God IS a "douchebag"... In human terms (IE, relevant ones).
The main issue is that God is said to have performed flashy, direct miracles in the past. Which is where my fairies are different from Jehovah... Fairies have always stayed outside of rigorous observation. Jehovah is said to have performed dozens of miracles specifically to convert people, but will not do so now.
Post by: Fenrir on December 31, 2015, 05:29:13 pm
Nah, the God of the Gaps (and my fairies) specifically *aren't* testable. They shy away from scientific identification.“God heals cancer victims if you treat them and pray for aid,” is testable. If you pray for someone and treat their cancer and they don’t get better that statement is wrong.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 31, 2015, 05:31:10 pm
Something about the fall being in the service of the greater good, aka redemption.
Oh yeah, and people go to heaven if they're faithful, so dying isn't actually all that big a deal, and God would know that. That probably helps His calculations on the subject.
Also; blessed are the meek, the poor, the whatever. To suffer for another is the greatest gift. Or something. See: Jesus.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 31, 2015, 05:32:40 pm
If you're praying in God's name, you're basically praying for what God wants to coincide with what you want, which isn't always going to happen. God may want the cancer patient to die, for whatever reason. Which seems like a cop-out seeing as I just said about Jesus saying your prayers would be answered. Strictly speaking a Christian is praying for God's plan to proceed, because God is good because God is good, so his plan is good as well, and we're praying for good things to happen, so we're praying for his plan to happen. The logic could win a gymnastics competition, but whatever.
It's kinda janky and awkward to explain of three hours of sleep. A fair bit is God of the Gaps stuff like Rolan said.
E: Rolep's point as well is part of it.
...
You can’t be fucking serious.I choose Option 5: This world sucks and you don't always get what you want.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 31, 2015, 05:35:26 pm
Stepping away because I'm arguing a position I don't fully hold, and might be doing a poor job.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 31, 2015, 05:47:29 pm
Post by: Frumple on December 31, 2015, 05:50:51 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 31, 2015, 05:53:09 pm
You only think that's symbolism.
Post by: Fenrir on December 31, 2015, 05:55:33 pm
Theodicy isn’t my main point, though I did mention it.
Okay, yeah, that was poorly explained. My point is that prayer is not a magical helpline. If anything it's more for the psychological benefits of getting things off your chest, so to speak.(http://i.imgur.com/Fzahd.gif)
If you're praying in God's name, you're basically praying for what God wants to coincide with what you want, which isn't always going to happen. God may want the cancer patient to die, for whatever reason. Which seems like a cop-out seeing as I just said about Jesus saying your prayers would be answered. Strictly speaking a Christian is praying for God's plan to proceed, because God is good because God is good, so his plan is good as well, and we're praying for good things to happen, so we're praying for his plan to happen. The logic could win a gymnastics competition, but whatever.
It's kinda janky and awkward to explain of three hours of sleep. A fair bit is God of the Gaps stuff like Rolan said.
E: Rolep's point as well is part of it.
...You can’t be fucking serious.I choose Option 5: This world sucks and you don't always get what you want.
I think I got whiplash from that 180.
Look, if you want to claim that you meant the complete opposite thing from what you said in your last post because you worded it badly, I’ll accept that and move on. I won’t believe you, but I’ll pretend like I do because debates like this don’t work if you don’t assume good faith like that.
Okay, yeah, that was poorly explained. My point is that prayer is not a magical helpline. If anything it's more for the psychological benefits of getting things off your chest, so to speak.Okay, so prayer only works if you’re praying for something god was going to do anyway. If you get the same outcome by praying as you do by not praying, prayer does fuck all. Which is fine, I wouldn’t expect god to take input from us anyway, but don’t go telling us that god gives us everything we ask for if we’re being sincere and not lazy.
If you're praying in God's name, you're basically praying for what God wants to coincide with what you want, which isn't always going to happen. God may want the cancer patient to die, for whatever reason. Which seems like a cop-out seeing as I just said about Jesus saying your prayers would be answered. Strictly speaking a Christian is praying for God's plan to proceed, because God is good because God is good, so his plan is good as well, and we're praying for good things to happen, so we're praying for his plan to happen. The logic could win a gymnastics competition, but whatever.
I choose Option 5: This world sucks and you don't always get what you want.You don’t get to dodge like that. You told us that Jesus said we get what we want as long as we aren’t being lazy. Which means that you either get 3 or 4; either Jesus outright lied or he never actually said that our prayers would be answered (I think “he was being metaphorical,” is the go-to explanation for that, which isn’t always implausible I guess).
Post by: Rolan7 on December 31, 2015, 05:56:20 pm
It may have just been one of the apostles, though.
Post by: Orange Wizard on December 31, 2015, 06:02:17 pm
...
I'm having trouble finding it, but I'm pretty sure Jesus condemned some cities because they had witnessed great miracles from him but refused to believe.I think I know what you mean, pretty sure that was an apostle. Jesus was kinda showy with miracles a couple of times IIRC though, just wasn't his main thing.
It may have just been one of the apostles, though.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 31, 2015, 06:03:02 pm
I'm having trouble finding it, but I'm pretty sure Jesus condemned some cities because they had witnessed great miracles from him but refused to believe.Honorary mention of Simon, who could fly and claimed to be the actual Messiah. Jesus denounced him, though the whole flying thing never did get explained.
It may have just been one of the apostles, though.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 31, 2015, 06:03:52 pm
Jesus also promised to come back with a sword sticking out of his mouth.He
You only think that's symbolism.
Jesus also promised to come back with a sword sticking out of his mouth.Of course he didn't do that particular trick during his first coming though. But when he comes back a second time, it will probably be the most terrifying thing humanity has ever seen. And I do believe that that will happen someday.
You only think that's symbolism.
Post by: Frumple on December 31, 2015, 06:18:03 pm
Maybe the biblical god can't help people out in regards to healing and whatnot to any substantial degree, which could be why prayers to help people just don't really seem to work. It would kinda' seem to follow the available evidence...
Post by: Fenrir on December 31, 2015, 06:21:08 pm
Edit: or maybe “It rubs the lotion on its sin or else it gets the flood again.”
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 31, 2015, 06:28:26 pm
On a side note, what does it say about the apostles that they believed in Jesus because they saw his miracles instead of through "true" faith?
Post by: Rolan7 on December 31, 2015, 06:33:37 pm
Though, doubting Thomas was kept on. Not sure if that's significant.
(Not at my best atm)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 31, 2015, 06:33:51 pm
Post by: Bouchart on December 31, 2015, 07:18:24 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 31, 2015, 08:23:27 pm
In other news, I just finished The Talos Principle, which was pretty damn cool.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on December 31, 2015, 08:46:48 pm
Jesus did all sorts of showy miracles. He drew in his first disciples by going out in public and filling their nets with fish. He transmuted loads of wine at a wedding and magically produced food for thousands of people. When he died, the world shook and the dead rose from their graves. His apostles were guided by pillars of flame and spoke tongues to people. Those last ones might be the Holy Spirit, but its will aligns with Jesus' will.Those weren't for show though. They were because he wanted to teach people or help them. I'll take the 5000 feeding one as an example because that is probably the biggest one. Jesus gave them all food because they were hungry and he wanted them to stay and hear him teach more:
On a side note, what does it say about the apostles that they believed in Jesus because they saw his miracles instead of through "true" faith?
Matthew 14: 15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”
16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 31, 2015, 09:06:48 pm
16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”17: "It's treason, then"
(https://45.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcfkqqQS191rnxq4ro1_500.gif)
Post by: Ghills on January 01, 2016, 01:35:30 am
Well, basically. God said to Israel that he would give them the promised land, but they still had to go out and fight the dudes who were there first. Abraham (and lots of other guys) were promised children, but they (presumably) still needed to go at it with their wives for that to happen. Jesus promised us that anything we pray for in good faith will be given to us, so it stands to reason that we still need to put the effort in, even if God has a hand in the results.You can’t be fucking serious.
Long story short, the Bible never advocates laziness.
So let’s assume that people regularly pray for loved ones with terminal illnesses. That’s not hard to believe. Cancer’s a classic, so let’s go with that one. With your assumption, if someone prays for a cancer victim and the victim dies anyway, the supplicant was being lazy and didn’t really give an effort. Now, you’ve got to assume one of a few things.
1. The vast majority of people don’t die from cancer if they receive both treatment and prayer.
2. Most people who pray for cancer victims don’t really try to save a loved one from cancer.
3. Jesus was full of shit.
4. Jesus never actually said that.
Now, 1 is testable. I really doubt you’re going to pick 1, since we might be able to look that one up. If you believe 2, you’re not only wrong, you’re an asshole. Sure, maybe you could explain away a few cases as laziness on the part of the supplicant (and this fact was somehow enough to condemn the cancer victim to suffering and death for some reason), but 1 would still have to be true. 3 is the one I’d go with personally. I’m not sure about 4, since I honestly never did read the bible.
(There are a number of other problems with this, but I don’t want to complicate things too much.)
It's actually 4 - Jesus did not say that everything we pray for sincerely we'll get. People keep misunderstanding the relevant scriptures because it is incredibly tempting to think that just by praying hard enough we can get whatever we want. But that's not how it works. Ex: We can't just pray for immortality and get it, although I'm sure some people have tried. God has a plan and that plan doesn't include never dying. People praying for that are going counter to what has been set in place.
Trying to remember the exact scripture references, but iirc the complicated part is that we have to pray in faith, nothing wavering, and faith means having a firm knowledge of God - so if we try to pray for something counter to God's will, we'll get 404: Real Faith Not Found, Re-Ponder And Try Again. Learning to communicate with God and understand what he wants us to do is key. This is part of how and why miracles happen - it's a mix of knowing that yes, you can ask for a miracle and yes, this is the right time and place for a miracle.
ETA: Could also be 403: Miracle Forbidden Right Now. HTML error codes, useful for so many areas of life. :P
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 01, 2016, 01:37:51 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 01, 2016, 01:38:58 am
When Jesus taught the disciples to pray, "Thy will be done" comes before "give us this day our daily bread."
*brain fart* I am sure I had something smart to say after that, but I can't remember it. Probably a good sign that I need sleep.
Post by: Ghills on January 01, 2016, 01:41:06 am
... though, re: flashy miracles, it did just occur to me that the bible wasn't very big on flashy positive ones. I can't recall many towns being cured en masse or anything like that -- jesus tended to do pretty small scale stuff, and he was about the only thing worth a shit in the text insofar as that kind of thing went. It was mostly mass slaughters and curses and plagues and whatnot when divine intervention occurred. Lotta' nasty stuff, but about the largest scale nice thing I can recall of note was the ark, and that was less god doing anything (except maybe fitting all that stuff in the box) and more it warning a few people who actually did all the work. Plus it was alongside what was purported by the text as global scale genocide. Most of the other vaguely nice acts were also accomplished/accompanied by mass infanticide, murder, rape, etc., etc., etc. There's maybe a promised mass resurrection, but it's again alongside great horrors inflicted for roughly no apparent reason but to be a colossal jackass.
Maybe the biblical god can't help people out in regards to healing and whatnot to any substantial degree, which could be why prayers to help people just don't really seem to work. It would kinda' seem to follow the available evidence...
Healings tend to happen one at a time to individual people, and so probably aren't nearly as likely to be noted in the historical record. I mean, what historian is going to even be able to track all the people a prophet healed? They'd have to practically glue themselves to him. Plus, how many times does someone want to read/write 'And then Isaiah healed Jonas of SomeTown of his piles'? Whereas an earthquake splitting the ground or a plague is going to be written down. Scriptures were written by people and suffer from the human tendency to focus on dramatic stuff and not the smaller but important events.
Post by: TD1 on January 01, 2016, 09:24:28 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 01, 2016, 09:59:41 am
I wasn't saying God did those miracles to be flashy - they obviously had other purposes. I was just saying that they were flashy. God did these things with no intention of hiding his actions or obfuscating proof of the divine.
I'll continue with the example of the feeding of the 5000. There are millions of hungry people in the world, but God would never feed them this way today. If he takes any action, it will be indistinguishable from those people getting food through their own means. Why the change?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 01, 2016, 10:43:27 am
Post by: Graknorke on January 01, 2016, 10:45:16 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 01, 2016, 10:56:32 am
Post by: Frumple on January 01, 2016, 11:00:15 am
So what are the people who do try supposed to do about the people who don't? I can't think of much you could do short of stealing everything from them.Critter was pretty big on murdering people that acted like that (and great swaths of uninvolved innocents, o'course) and janking their stuff, though. Maybe that's what it wants to happen. The plagues and unfettered rapine orgies will come when the proletariat rise up en masse and start fervently killing the scions of Gomorrah.
Then again, that kinda' doesn't make the most sense, either. Critter was noted to personally get up and shitkick folks that did that, no jewish impetus needed. Not the most consistent subject, I guess.
Post by: Graknorke on January 01, 2016, 11:02:07 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 01, 2016, 12:44:06 pm
He sort of told us to care for each other, he definitely gave humanity all the resources to end world hunger if only humans weren't so selfish.
It's not even necessarily selfishness. It's just difficulty coordinating. I mean, there's aspects of selfishness in it, and from what I've read the biofuel industry is basically the 'road to hell paved with good intentions' thing, but a lot of it's just that systems becomes self-perpetuating, and if you do things in a capitalist system that don't make money to spend to get more money, the people who do will eventually outcompete you. Which sucks, and is something I really hope we can change at some point, probably via hopefully competent governments. ANYWAY THAT WASn'T RELEVANT SORRY.
Look at this way, Graknorke. Suffering causes people to turn to religion for comfort more often, yes? So if you are barely able to feed yourself, which causes you to become closer to God, which means you get into Heaven, it's a net gain in God's eyes.
I might have found an interesting discussion piece? (http://squid314.livejournal.com/339814.html)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2016, 12:57:28 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 01, 2016, 01:32:00 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2016, 01:35:36 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 01, 2016, 03:22:54 pm
Post by: Adragis on January 01, 2016, 03:48:58 pm
BethlahamBethany la Ham?
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 01, 2016, 04:39:49 pm
Additionally, it's so old, and if you managed to convince people you were the Son of God (regardless of whether you yourself believed), and the human conscious mind essentially developed to rationalize events and justify itself to others, then you'd probably look at the old prophecies, find the parts you fit, say "look, see!", and for the parts you didn't fit, either discredit the author/find reasons why his stuff was actually heresy, or interpret it in more creative ways until you did fit, then have them revise the text to be more clear about what the prophecy was actually about.
This doesn't even look like scamming, from the inside. You don't realize you're doing it. You're obviously the Son of God, that guy just happened to wrong, might not have been his fault, he didn't realize it was actually the Devil deceiving him into believing that he'd been given a prophecy. You can't blame him for having been false. I mean, sure, you can't use his work since it's still heresy, but his predictions obviously didn't come to light when you were born...
For other authors, maybe they were just really unclear about what their prophecy meant,or were being metaphorical but it's not immediately obvious. I mean, if you look at it from the real perspective you should look at it from, then it makes sense and is both supported by the evidence that you fulfilled that interpretation, and supports the fact that you are the Son of God.
If I thought I was the Prophet come to Lead the People to the Promised Land? I would totally do that. It wouldn't be on purpose; to me, this would just be the self-evidently correct way.
Oracles, prophecies, and predictions are tricky things. There's a reason they tend to be as vague as possible; the people who don't like you/your method will just think you got lucky or that it happened for a different reason than you said it would (obviously invalidating/not providing any evidence for your ability to see the future/predict the market/speak with god) anyway, the people who support you will be disappointed if your wrong, you'll be disappointed if you're wrong, but if you can justify it to yourself that you sorta kinda predicted it if you look at this way, you won't feel as bad, your supporters won't feel betrayed, the opposition will just grumble about you being vague and this being kinda dumb, and so on.
The more vague the prediction, the more likely it is to be able to be interpreted as accurate. If it can be interpreted as accurate, it's more likely to survive the test of time. If someone makes a lot of vague predictions that are wrong on the surface but can be interpreted as correct, their legacy will live. If someone makes a lot of precise predictions that are right sometimes and wrong sometimes, they're obviously unreliable and the predictions they made are just noise, not signal. Even someone who's really good at prediction screws up sometimes, simply because humans are fallible, and don't always have all the information. But their opponents will leap on that every chance they get to tear them apart. If they're vague, instead, then while it doesn't give much useful information, it's much easier to justify after the fact, whatever happens.
Similarly, trying to act on precise prophecies and oracles screws up the whole process that predicts them. It either becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, or maybe it's in a field where making predictions actively reduces the predictability (markets is the example of this I read of), or it causes the prediction to be false where it would have been true if you'd never known. "You're about to walk off an invisible cliff." You stop walking. The prediction is now false, because it was expressed. Trying to say "I knew all along!" to avoid this carries it's own problems that should be immediately obvious.
The real tale of Oedipus is that using predictions to make decisions can have dire consequences if you don't take those decisions into account for the prediction. At least, in this context. Perhaps if it was interpreted differently, you could find something else that's true....
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 01, 2016, 04:49:41 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 01, 2016, 04:58:13 pm
I think Rolep's point is that we can't know if (a) the prophecies were doctored at some point, and (b) if the accounts about Jesus were fabricated to match. Unless we're an antitheist because then they definitely were because religion is bad mmkay.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 01, 2016, 05:08:10 pm
Ironically, of course, this whole spiel 'proves' the bit about the path to hell being paved with good intentions, if you look at it right.
Also that they're old enough that errors would sneak in, by this method added onto others, if nothing else; someone copies/says the wrong word because they were reminded of a discussion they had about theology/favorite verse/story/anything, and don't realize it, it happens to fit the passage in the view of the next person who doesn't realize that's not the original...and so on.
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 01, 2016, 06:45:34 pm
Oh, that and people tend to have a knack of making sure prophecies come true, acting in such a way to make sure they come to pass in a self fulfilling nature. *shrug*
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 01, 2016, 08:02:24 pm
... also, do not ignore the fact that prophecies are made and known in advance. As such, it would be literally trivial to present ones self as if you were fulfilling them thanks to knowing what it is you need to fulfil. In the case of Jesus, a well read bronze age Rabbi (or several of them, perhaps) would have the knowledge needed to pull off the pretence of fulfilling them. If one did or not... well, that's not going to be the sort of thing anyone will ever unravel, thanks to the depths of time involved.
Oh, that and people tend to have a knack of making sure prophecies come true, acting in such a way to make sure they come to pass in a self fulfilling nature. *shrug*
Oh. You're just gonna have to hope that your parents are on good enough terms with King Herod to get him to slaughter an entire city's baby population.
Post by: Graknorke on January 01, 2016, 08:10:05 pm
Oh. You're just gonna have to hope that your parents are on good enough terms with King Herod to get him to slaughter an entire city's baby population.Didn't happen m8. It was first recorded in the gospel and no other source mentions it alongside any of the other heinous shit he did. And killing a bunch of babies is usually a noteworthy event just saying.
But is saying that stuff didn't happen cheating in the religion thread? I mean up until now I've more-or-less had a policy of taking the truth of whatever's being discussed at face value and talking with that supposition.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 01, 2016, 08:22:20 pm
It's when you're talking metaphysics that you usually want to argue from a position of weakness.
Post by: Frumple on January 01, 2016, 08:29:37 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on January 01, 2016, 08:36:11 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 01, 2016, 08:54:00 pm
Post by: Frumple on January 01, 2016, 09:03:30 pm
And nah, eg, just meant that all the fancy stuff happened edgewise to actual reality. If anything, it just further emphasizes the spiritual (in the sense of a soul and whatnot) aspect of the faith, which can be pretty substantial (or completely nonexistent) depending on how you interpret the text.
Post by: Teneb on January 01, 2016, 09:51:44 pm
Does that mean that christians are actually extradimensional aliens trying to convert earthlings to a faith that originates in bizarro-earth?Damn illegal aliens! They are stealing our souls!
Post by: TD1 on January 02, 2016, 12:24:11 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 02, 2016, 11:08:44 pm
Post by: Bohandas on January 03, 2016, 12:26:57 am
Today i discovered that mortification of the flesh is an effective temporary means of controlling toothache pain
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 03, 2016, 12:35:07 am
Crosspost from WTF thread...
Today i discovered that mortification of the flesh is an effective temporary means of controlling toothache pain
...Interesting.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 03, 2016, 01:43:03 am
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 09:48:39 am
I was just wondering how that ties in with people saying humans are so much better than animals because they can speak, make music etc.
Also how it ties in with the Biblical notion of human stewardship - if there's such a thin line, then why be stewards?
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 09, 2016, 11:03:18 am
So lately I've read about animals that can understand and even speak English. For instance, there's a parrot that can tell the difference between colours, and even if there is no colour. And then I thought how my dog sits when I say sit, and how it finds my dad when I say "go find dad," no matter where he is on the farm.
I was just wondering how that ties in with people saying humans are so much better than animals because they can speak, make music etc.
Also how it ties in with the Biblical notion of human stewardship - if there's such a thin line, then why be stewards?
That's not speech, that's responding to a fixed stimulus. Saying "sit" and commanding a dog to sit is a learned behavior and fairly intelligent, sure, but it's not terribly different from learning to run away from the howl of a predator, or to respond to another bird's mating call. We've tried to teach apes sign language, and although they're smart enough to have a triple-digit vocabulary, it's still a far cry from
Quote from: Nim Chimpsky
Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you
to
(https://en.wiki2.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Syntax_tree.svg/im320-560px-Syntax_tree.svg.png)
The latter has a defined structure, dependency relations, and is built upon very well-defined and complex notions of constituency and phrase structure. The former has the semantics, but it doesn't have any of the syntax, so it isn't language.
(NB for the linguists out there: I actually think X-Bar is very much a half-baked theory that succeeds mostly in making whatever language you're writing your dissertation on look like English, no matter how ugly you have to make it look. But I think it should go without saying that the structures of Cree, Mohawk, or Choctaw would be even less transparent to a gorilla than that of ASL.)
Post by: Bohandas on January 09, 2016, 11:30:33 am
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 11:55:29 am
I think it's less a question of me being overly impressed, and more one of you being under impressed. That an animal can recognise a colour and then give the associated word for that colour shows a rationale and understanding which is the basis of our own language. You may talk of advanced semantics, go into individual morphemes and phonetics, but that association is the heart and only true purpose of language. The transfer of ideas - even (or perhaps especially) abstract ones such as colour. So yes, most animals did not evolve with a mind to advanced language. But that association between word and meaning shows that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that animals may eventually develop better language skills. It's almost like saying rudimentary speech in a child is not real language - it is. It transfers ideas, albeit not in an advanced form.
Fortunately for us we have evolved for language. Presumably, and for obvious reasons, speech helped us survive. But it's highly based on age - there's a critical stage during which those advanced meanings must be learned or what we come out with is "give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." Semantically speaking, they can learn words. Syntax...not so much. Some morphology if you're lucky. And yet we don't call them animals.
Language should not be the barrier which defines human or animal - it's a trait which we, as a species, have developed. That does not mean that we're somehow the ultimate species, or that we're no longer a species on par with all other species.
Post by: Adragis on January 09, 2016, 11:56:53 am
It's a Pavlovian response IIRC.
Post by: Arx on January 09, 2016, 11:59:30 am
I'm not saying that animals have advanced language on par with human language. We seem to be built for language in a way that animals are not - and yet under some circumstances notions are passed from human to animal. "Sit" causes the dog to sit.
I think it's less a question of me being overly impressed, and more one of you being under impressed. That an animal can recognise a colour and then give the associated word for that colour shows a rationale and understanding which is the basis of our own language.
Technically, yes, I guess. But then, my sister has an acacia tree bonsai that folds its leaves at night. It recognises a change in the light and performs an associated action. It can't learn anything else, of course, not in its own generation, but it reacts to a stimulus.
Yes, the line is finer than it sometimes seems. I'm not sure what that changes, though.
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 12:04:58 pm
Besides which, your acacia tree is somewhat different from this (Link to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot))):
Before Pepperberg's work with Alex, it was widely believed in the scientific community that a large primate brain was needed to handle complex problems related to language and understanding; birds were not considered to be intelligent as their only common use of communication was of mimicking and the repetition of sounds to interact with each other. However, Alex's accomplishments supported the idea that birds may be able to reason on a basic level and use words creatively.[4] Pepperberg wrote that Alex's intelligence was on a par with that of dolphins and great apes.[5] She also reported that Alex seemed to show the intelligence of a five-year-old human, in some respects,[3] and had not even reached his full potential by the time he died.[6] She said that the bird had the emotional level of a human two-year-old at the time of his death
Post by: Arx on January 09, 2016, 12:47:58 pm
It changes a lot. Biblical accounts would have you believing in a clear cut line. Here is animal, here is human. One is made in God's image, and therefore naturally superior. This (arrogant, I would say) notion of superiority is often backed up by our use of language as an exclusively human trait.
Which Biblical accounts are you thinking?
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 12:52:55 pm
Quote from: Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
Post by: Arx on January 09, 2016, 01:08:57 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 01:23:59 pm
Also, how does the opinion that
Quote
we're just the best at tool use, the best at complex communication, the best at higher reasoningnot create a line between "best" and "not-best."
Although, the boyoh who wrote this seems to disagree, I will admit:
Quote
Ecclesiastes 3:18-21This seems to be individual opinion though - "I said."
I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?
Luke disagrees:
Quote
Luke 12:24
Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds!
How many Christians would say there isn't a division between man and beast, anyway?
Post by: wierd on January 09, 2016, 01:25:43 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXoTaZotdHg
Then there's the whole bag of worms involved in dolphin echograms that strongly resemble language...
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 01:27:45 pm
Post by: Arx on January 09, 2016, 01:30:35 pm
How many Christians would say there isn't a division between man and beast, anyway?
Does it matter?
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 01:59:16 pm
Humans are animals.
The Bible shows a different origin for each - god created animals, and then, individually, men.
Quote
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.The superiority of humanity - that it is "above animal" is seen in that we are in God's image. We are stewards.
If asked, a Christian would say that yes, we are better than animals.
Man ate the Forbidden Fruit - he has knowledge of good and evil, which animals don't. Your idea of the division between man and beast being their intelligence is somewhat linked to this, although this may be slightly more epistemological.
So, really, what I'm saying is that there is an assumption that man is the best. He is the supreme being on earth. This is in many ways supported by the Bible. There isn't, for example, a bird heaven or a Bible for pigs. They're not the ones God speaks to. They're not in his image. Another supporting factor for this hypothesis seems to be linguistic, and other supports include intelligence and appreciation of music. Even the terms support this - they are "human" and "animal." That homo sapiens is simply the name for our species isn't really considered that much. There are the humans, then the lower forms of life, the generally-labelled "animals." To quote Homer Simpson, to weasel is "what separates us from the animals."
Some go so far as to say that we were never animals. These seem to be the same ones who believe that the world was made in six days, and that evolution is a myth. Hence the out roar against our shared ancestry with other animals. Such a revelation - that we're not so very different from animals at all - strengthens the theory of evolution's viability to such, if those that go against it can be reasoned with.
How many Christians would say there isn't a division between man and beast, anyway?
Does it matter?
I may have answered this previously, but I got interrupted mid type, so I may be repeating myself. But yes, it does matter - people who think like that think there is a distinction between man and beast. Not that we're just ones who have developed certain traits that enable us to appreciate certain things, but that we are different. A cat and dog are different, but they're both still animals. Man and dog? Man and Pig? Giraffe? What most Christians get from the Bible is that they are the owners of animals - stewards - and as such can kill them for sport, eat them ad infinitum, eve use them in medicinal practices instead of humans, and so on. My R.E. teacher was one such as this.
Post by: Arx on January 09, 2016, 02:05:30 pm
Quote
If asked, a Christian would say that yes, we are better than animals.
Mind the generalisations there.
I still can't work out what your actual point is. Are you saying you think it's a problem that a lot of Christians think that way?
Post by: wierd on January 09, 2016, 02:14:16 pm
So, Yes, it is a problem.
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 02:19:16 pm
That's a generalisation, but nonetheless true. I assume. Saying that most Christians think of themselves as better than animals is almost a given. Most people do. Christianity just has some supporting back stories.
And it's not a problem until it begins to be applied in harmful ways to animals. It can justify hunting and medical experiments. Cosmetic testing too.
Besides whether or not it's a problem, though, is that I just think that it's not true. ((This point seems to have been ninja'd by wierd.)) We don't have any inherent qualities which make us better. And that in itself can call into question some biblical assumptions - a seemingly accepted assumption in the Bible is that the earth is flat. Another is that humans are the rulers of animals, and that we are God's special children which gives us this right. If there isn't all that much difference between human and beast, why take this as granted?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 09, 2016, 02:20:36 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 02:27:58 pm
As to its validity, well, origami seems to believe animals act only on instantaneous instincts. To counter this, we could again refer back to Alex, who seemed quite capable of more than base instinct. Animals seem quite capable of long consideration of things, and humans seem quite capable of bestial things which you would say characterise those without free will.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 09, 2016, 02:45:27 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 02:51:12 pm
Actually, the (sadly now dead, birds have shorter lifespans than people) african grey parrot, Alex, seemed able to understand and invoke complex, and even abstract understanding of spoken language, and was not mere pavlovian conditioning, or mere stimulus/response and or babble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXoTaZotdHg
Then there's the whole bag of worms involved in dolphin echograms that strongly resemble language...
It changes a lot. Biblical accounts would have you believing in a clear cut line. Here is animal, here is human. One is made in God's image, and therefore naturally superior. This (arrogant, I would say) notion of superiority is often backed up by our use of language as an exclusively human trait.
Besides which, your acacia tree is somewhat different from this (Link to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot))):
Before Pepperberg's work with Alex, it was widely believed in the scientific community that a large primate brain was needed to handle complex problems related to language and understanding; birds were not considered to be intelligent as their only common use of communication was of mimicking and the repetition of sounds to interact with each other. However, Alex's accomplishments supported the idea that birds may be able to reason on a basic level and use words creatively.[4] Pepperberg wrote that Alex's intelligence was on a par with that of dolphins and great apes.[5] She also reported that Alex seemed to show the intelligence of a five-year-old human, in some respects,[3] and had not even reached his full potential by the time he died.[6] She said that the bird had the emotional level of a human two-year-old at the time of his death
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 09, 2016, 03:00:42 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 03:06:35 pm
And actually, I'm not sure that he does get rewards. The wikipedia page just mentions him talking with and taking roles with his instructor in order to teach other parrots.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 09, 2016, 03:10:47 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 03:20:03 pm
As for children making their own choices, that's comparable to a cub and a bear, for example. The mother nurtures and teaches it, and it obeys. When it gets old enough it makes its own decisions on where to feed, what mate to choose, where to live, where to sharpen its claws, which trees to climb. The same may be said for human children.
I'm failing to understand what makes you think animals don't make choices outside of pure instinct - at least to the extent in which any species can.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 09, 2016, 03:24:45 pm
(the "r" button on my keyboard is not working very well, so if I type words with missing r's that's why.)
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 03:36:46 pm
Animal packs are known to help others - a lone wolf may become integrated into a pack it did not know previously.
Morality, at its core, is about picking the right and wrong action. But for me it's wrong to rape women. For others it's acceptable, especially if they were flaunting themselves. Morality, even in humans, is varied and relative. Wolves choose not to kill each other. This is presumably as a result of evolution - they work together towards a common aim, and all share the spoils. No doubt they don't think that, though. They just don't kill other wolves because it's the right thing to do, despite the fact that to kill them as they slept would grant a good, albeit temporary, supply of food. Similarly, what's good for humanity is good for the person, which is why we have a concept of working towards a common good. Perhaps we don't think of it like that - it's just the right thing to do after all - but we still do it, and we reap the benefits. You wouldn't kill your employer, 'cause then you're out of a job.
Perhaps human morality is more nuanced - we certainly seem to add in more rules from various religions than any animal would - but that doesn't mean animals don't have morals. They just have different morals, and aren't particularly good at expressing them to humans.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 09, 2016, 03:40:51 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 03:44:44 pm
Post by: k33n on January 09, 2016, 03:49:36 pm
Mainly in morality. I have seen no indication of animals deciding what is right from wrong. This really depends on your worldview. For example, I assume your morality code is "whatever benefits mankind as a whole" or something like that. (feel free to correct me) While animals are limited to helping themself and possible others in a pack and children. Therefore human morality (whatever it might be) is already more complicated than what animals think. And if you are a christian, than it is even more complex. Much more decision making about what is right and wrong for humans than for animals.
(the "r" button on my keyboard is not working very well, so if I type words with missing r's that's why.)
Humans, as animals, often decide between right and wrong. Animals do also, specifically social mammals. It is entirely based on the "instinctual code" of the species. Wolfs et all suffer punishment and even execution for serious injustice. Humans are no different. We just also have very strong brains, and so we can build upon our instinctual code to better it and create better societies with nuanced ethics.
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 03:51:57 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 09, 2016, 03:52:08 pm
Well, yes...but I'm backing up my opinions with evidence. I'm giving cases in which animals demonstrate what may be called morality - group work, striving for a similar goal. Lions, as an example, don't kill random animals when they're already full, just as human morality would have us not being wasteful. If you don't need to eat, you shouldn't hunt is a prominent moral out look.But that depends on your opinion of what morality is.
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 03:56:45 pm
Quote
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
And yourself? What is morality, would you say?
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 09, 2016, 04:05:58 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 04:08:51 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 09, 2016, 04:14:17 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 04:17:46 pm
So yes. If you're right, then animals are devoid of proper morality. So am I, as a matter of fact, for my secular morality.
Which raises the question - am I an animal because I don't have the right - see your- morality?
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 09, 2016, 04:17:54 pm
...
Which raises the question - am I an animal because I don't have the right - see your- morality?Scientifically, we're all animals. But you were also born human, and as such are superior to beasts and fish and so on, even if you don't acknowledge it.
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 04:19:56 pm
Christian morality is God's law. Animals (as far as we know) don't really have the capacity to learn and understand God's law. Of course you could enforce it in a tribe of intelligent monkeys or whatever, but it takes a human (again, as far as we can tell) to actually come to the conclusion that the Law must be followed, despite it being of an entity that we can't see or interact with directly.
More to the point, it takes man to impose a form of man's morality.
Some basic Christian rules - do not murder - are upheld by animals as much as they are by humans. They don't believe in God, of course, but nor do I and I wouldn't consider myself as below a Christian in any way.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 09, 2016, 04:24:07 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 04:31:39 pm
But no, animals don't follow that. That's a morality imposed on humanity by humanity (humans of a specifically Christian flavour, that is) much like morality imposed on a gorilla would be. Take away the imposition of a child's elders, and they wouldn't follow that morality. In fact, they don't - most people don't follow God, but rather various other gods.
I'm not trying to say animals are Christian moralists, in some way, just that many share values which are common enough in humans that they were recorded in a religious text. These values, presumably, predate the texts.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 09, 2016, 04:32:33 pm
What about the most basic of Christian rules: "You shall have no other gods before me"? Animals can't follow that because they have no concept of gods and spirituality. You don't follow that because you chose to reject it....Technically, atheists and animals do follow that :P
Not really the intent behind it though. Though even then, technically, we don't choose to reject it.
Post by: wierd on January 09, 2016, 04:36:54 pm
Namely, the Denisova and the Neanderthal.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 09, 2016, 04:40:57 pm
The fossil record gives several distinct, but closely related species to humans, who appear to have had spiritualityYeah, I find that stuff really interesting. No idea how it works, but vov.
Namely, the Denisova and the Neanderthal.
Post by: Frumple on January 09, 2016, 04:44:40 pm
Scientifically, we're all animals. But you were also born human, and as such are superior to beasts and fish and so on, even if you don't acknowledge it.That... depends a hell of a lot on what you consider "superior" to mean. We're definitely better than most at a few things, mostly boiling down to communication and building from that, and a bit of (specific sorts of) endurance and hand/eye coordination, but we're categorically worse in most other ways and even in many of the fields outside of communication, we're fairly regularly outperformed by a number of other species. We're also not even remotely the dominate form of life on the planet, that particular mantle falling mostly on various sorts of bacteria, with a side of insects and fish.
Superior's not really the word I'd use, m'self. We've got a helluva' hat trick that we've used to arguably good effect, but as an animal qua animal we're easily identifiable as not terribly impressive. We're less good than we are least bad with a solid degree of coordination. Being fair, aggressively mediocre counts for a lot, but I'm damn sure not going to walk up to the hungry shark and say I'm the better swimmer, y'know?
... though it's probably worth noting regarding the morality aspect, that command-based ethics (which is what christian morality is) is generally, uh. Not considered superior ones. The problems involved with it(s simplistic nature) are well traveled, really...
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 04:52:34 pm
My point is that God is involved in Christian morality, and is therefore inherently superior. I hope.
No offence, but there are many instances in which I would not follow the morality of God. That approach...isn't the best.
Also, some form of deity is involved in most/possibly all religions' morality. Doesn't make them inherently better. What religious morality seems to is take a load of common sense morals - don't kill, don't fight for no reason - it hurts you and others, that's why silly - and then adds a backstory and some form of eschatological or physical reward.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 09, 2016, 04:54:27 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 05:00:00 pm
I'm not a bad person, believe it or not, simply because I don't believe in some transcendent Father who turned up to make me and then disappeared.
You may read a book that gives you morals, but in the end you simply do what you feel is right. There are an awful lot of adulterers out there who wear a cross about their necks.
Post by: wierd on January 09, 2016, 05:01:07 pm
EG, "Dont poop near where you prepare food", "Don't take other people's things", etc.
Basically, the basic underpinnings necessary for social groups larger than just a few people. Since these underpinnings are so important to larger group cohesion, it makes sense that they would be enshrined in some way.
Traditionally, human culture favored authoritarian rule by a small subclass within the society. These were typlically "Elders" who were given special excemptions for having lived a long time, seen a lot of things, and thus presumably have some wise insight into managing problems within a society. This typically also coincides with belief systems. The connection between village elders and village priests is pretty strong as a correlation.
Naturally, it does not take much to explain how religious undertones to simple civic ordinances can come into vogue, and how those religious undertones can help to enshrine and perpetuate adherence to those norms better than threat of violence can.
Religion first and foremost is an attempt by the early humans to understand the world around them. Supernatural agencies like gods help explain previously inexplicable occurrences of phenomena. (Such as the rising and setting of the sun, or the varying lengths of the day with the changing of the seasons.)
For those two alone, there are countless gods in numerous pantheons, with myths expounding upon them.
Post by: Bohandas on January 09, 2016, 05:19:09 pm
My point is that God is involved in Christian morality, and is therefore inherently superior. I hope.
No offence, but there are many instances in which I would not follow the morality of God. That approach...isn't the best.
Also, some form of deity is involved in most/possibly all religions' morality. Doesn't make them inherently better.
Great wall of prophecy, reveal to us God's will that we might blindly obey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeV6pxSkcso)
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 09, 2016, 05:30:14 pm
The crux of the issue here seems to be that you don't seem to realise that Christians believe Christian morality is special, whether really it is or really isn't notwithstanding.My point is that God is involved in Christian morality, and is therefore inherently superior. I hope.No offence, but there are many instances in which I would not follow the morality of God. That approach...isn't the best.
Also, some form of deity is involved in most/possibly all religions' morality. Doesn't make them inherently better. What religious morality seems to is take a load of common sense morals - don't kill, don't fight for no reason - it hurts you and others, that's why silly - and then adds a backstory and some form of eschatological or physical reward.
Post by: wierd on January 09, 2016, 05:40:26 pm
The same is true of Judaeism, Islam, and quite a few others that are not of Abrahamic origin.
Any religion that proclaims itself to be the absolute truth, and also contains a moral code, will suffer from this problem. The problem is inherent in the invocation of a-priori axom: "This is the absolute truth."
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 09, 2016, 05:48:05 pm
Or something. I dunno...
Post by: Frumple on January 09, 2016, 05:50:27 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 06:32:03 pm
The crux of the issue here seems to be that you don't seem to realise that Christians believe Christian morality is special, whether really it is or really isn't notwithstanding.I know they do. I just think that it's wrong to do so.
Edit: Oh, and has no reason to claim to be so. That's important too. :P
Post by: Rolan7 on January 10, 2016, 08:35:20 pm
In high school I spent a week at a Christian (Baptist) camp and tried talking to God. Begging to become a Christian. At the time I desperately wanted something divine to believe in and... Well, to believe that there was some grand cosmic plan where everything was okay. I sat outside under the stars and just begged. I wasn't angry afterwards, just disappointed and numb.
That was a pretty dark time for me. I had been reading the Bible a lot, and knew what Jehovah is said to have done. I was essentially willing to pledge to a Mythos beast.
Nowadays I say I believe in fairies, or "little people". I actually do mean that. I want them to exist, I think it's possible, and it would explain things more than it raised questions (since they have superpowers and hide from scrutiny). Is that belief? Do I have faith? I don't know if that's what the words mean.
What IS faith?
Is it "Acting like a thing is true without solid evidence"? Because that's how I feel about the fey, sure. But I can't imagine being *evangelical* about something if I can't provide evidence. It's one thing to act like something is true, it's another to *tell* people it's true with any certainty.
I guess probably most religious people feel some personal, unshareable evidence. Not literally "talking to God" necessarily, but a feeling that a divine spirit is confirming their belief as true.
If that's true, I definitely believe in the Fey. (Not that I would serve them, but they don't demand service. And most of them are fucking terrifying aliens, nearly as bad as Jehovah)
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 10, 2016, 09:00:45 pm
I was drinking with a Sunni Turk and a Sikh Sri Lankan the other week and we had an excellent rant when my Turkish acquaintance remarked that all the religions believe they're the first and last and my Sikh was all "excuse me m8 generalizations?" - With Sikhism shooting off from Islam and Hinduism of course, and a lot of the Dharmic faiths holding impermanence of all things (including their own creeds) as a core beliefThe crux of the issue here seems to be that you don't seem to realise that Christians believe Christian morality is special, whether really it is or really isn't notwithstanding.My point is that God is involved in Christian morality, and is therefore inherently superior. I hope.No offence, but there are many instances in which I would not follow the morality of God. That approach...isn't the best.
Also, some form of deity is involved in most/possibly all religions' morality. Doesn't make them inherently better. What religious morality seems to is take a load of common sense morals - don't kill, don't fight for no reason - it hurts you and others, that's why silly - and then adds a backstory and some form of eschatological or physical reward.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 10, 2016, 09:27:57 pm
What IS faith?Dunno.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 09:34:35 pm
I really, really don't understand faith at all. I'm not proud of that or phrasing it as an attack, in fact I'm kinda ashamed? Considering how much time I've spent in arguments with Christians both online and in person. I just... don't... understand.Faith is believing that something is true, in your heart, without evidence or even against evidence. At least in the way I think you're talking about it (and the way I usually use it). It could also be simply the leap from somewhat supported evidence to taking it as fact. And of course, how you described it. Acting like it's true without evidence, or acting on the assumption that it will turn out true/alright/whatever.
In high school I spent a week at a Christian (Baptist) camp and tried talking to God. Begging to become a Christian. At the time I desperately wanted something divine to believe in and... Well, to believe that there was some grand cosmic plan where everything was okay. I sat outside under the stars and just begged. I wasn't angry afterwards, just disappointed and numb.
That was a pretty dark time for me. I had been reading the Bible a lot, and knew what Jehovah is said to have done. I was essentially willing to pledge to a Mythos beast.
Nowadays I say I believe in fairies, or "little people". I actually do mean that. I want them to exist, I think it's possible, and it would explain things more than it raised questions (since they have superpowers and hide from scrutiny). Is that belief? Do I have faith? I don't know if that's what the words mean.
What IS faith?
Is it "Acting like a thing is true without solid evidence"? Because that's how I feel about the fey, sure. But I can't imagine being *evangelical* about something if I can't provide evidence. It's one thing to act like something is true, it's another to *tell* people it's true with any certainty.
I guess probably most religious people feel some personal, unshareable evidence. Not literally "talking to God" necessarily, but a feeling that a divine spirit is confirming their belief as true.
If that's true, I definitely believe in the Fey. (Not that I would serve them, but they don't demand service. And most of them are fucking terrifying aliens, nearly as bad as Jehovah)
And of course, if you believe it (and usually if you believe it, if you aren't aware of it and avoid it specifically, you find post hoc evidence; way the brain works), then you know it's true. If other people not knowing that could mean they go to Hell...well who would wish that on someone?
Post by: Bohandas on January 10, 2016, 09:55:05 pm
Delusion is believing that something is true, in your heart, even against evidence.
FTFY
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 10:01:43 pm
There is no objective basis for morality that does not lead to conclusions that the vast majority of people find repugnant. Wireheading or Pascal's Mugging or the Repugnant Conclusion or the Sadistic Conclusion.Psychosis is believing that something is true, in your heart, without evidence or even against evidence.
FTFY
I still believe in morality. I still believe in my morals, despite the evidence. That doing the right thing still matters, even if people are just atoms and we can't get off this world and the sun will explode and kill us all. Is that what you would describe as 'psychotic'?
Post by: Rolan7 on January 10, 2016, 10:10:46 pm
Honestly I do think it's madness to believe that doing the right thing matters. It's a madness I subscribe to, to some degree anyway, because I am afflicted with it. And there's no reason to shake it.
More seriously, religion and morality are learned in childhood. Ideally from responsible guardians, though the harsh realities of life break through for many people.
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 10:33:39 pm
There is no objective basis for morality that does not lead to conclusions that the vast majority of people find repugnant. Wireheading or Pascal's Mugging or the Repugnant Conclusion or the Sadistic Conclusion.
False.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 10, 2016, 10:35:20 pm
False.That's not particularly constructive.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 10, 2016, 10:40:02 pm
Indeed.False.That's not particularly constructive.
Why not?
Post by: Bohandas on January 10, 2016, 10:43:58 pm
There is no objective basis for morality that does not lead to conclusions that the vast majority of people find repugnant. Wireheading or Pascal's Mugging or the Repugnant Conclusion or the Sadistic Conclusion.Psychosis is believing that something is true, in your heart, without evidence or even against evidence.
FTFY
I still believe in morality. I still believe in my morals, despite the evidence. That doing the right thing still matters, even if people are just atoms and we can't get off this world and the sun will explode and kill us all. Is that what you would describe as 'psychotic'?
More of an appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences
Post by: Rolan7 on January 10, 2016, 10:46:45 pm
So rolepgeek made an unsupported assumption, k33n claimed it was false... Then you demand that k33n provide proof? I wouldn't comment except that I feel like I offered the counterexample you're asking for...Indeed.False.That's not particularly constructive.
Where is this basis set out?
You could use a democratic morality which most people, by definition, wouldn't find repugnant. "Avoid killing, avoid stealing, avoid lying, support your relatives" would probably qualify. Sounds familiar...
Edit: To clarify, K33n didn't provide support either, and did make a claim.
And it's not necessarily necessarily to support every claim one makes.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 10, 2016, 10:53:43 pm
Whoops.
'Scuse me while I facepalm...
And edited.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 10, 2016, 11:12:48 pm
The funny thing about prayer is that it is not you placing your will and desires on God, but you conforming to God's will. So whatever reason God had for not answering your prayers in the way you think they should be answered is all part of his will for your life.
Faith as defined by the Bible is "being sure of what you hope, and certain of what you do not see."
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 10, 2016, 11:27:56 pm
Nowadays I say I believe in fairies, or "little people". I actually do mean that. I want them to exist, I think it's possible, and it would explain things more than it raised questions (since they have superpowers and hide from scrutiny). Is that belief? Do I have faith? I don't know if that's what the words mean.Ain't that the truth. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt5lB-RoAi4)
If that's true, I definitely believe in the Fey. (Not that I would serve them, but they don't demand service. And most of them are fucking terrifying aliens, nearly as bad as Jehovah)
Roland, I myself have never had an experience with God talking to me directly. However, whenever I pray about something, it seems like in weeks to come, I find myself realizing that whatever I prayed for did end up happening in a peculiar way, one I wasn't expecting when I prayed. And I had long forgotten the prayer at that time, but when I realized it sort of answered, I remembered it. You guys will probably just think that it is coincidences, but it has happened quite a lot, so that is how my relationship with God is right now. (I need to improve it a lot though.)Not coincidence, but confirmation bias. You aren't testing God's presence through prayer, you already believe he's listening. Because of that, you allow yourself to widely interpret your own prayer as having been answered in some unorthodox manner, pun intended.
It's like how a person convinced of the power of tarot will make "accurate" predictions from a reading, and because they know themselves some of these may even contain actual insight that they are otherwise unaware of.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 10, 2016, 11:35:36 pm
So rolepgeek made an unsupported assumption, k33n claimed it was false... Then you demand that k33n provide proof? I wouldn't comment except that I feel like I offered the counterexample you're asking for...Democratic morality isn't objective, though. It's going to change over time as popular opinion changes. It's subjective by definition.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 11:41:21 pm
So rolepgeek made an unsupported assumption, k33n claimed it was false... Then you demand that k33n provide proof? I wouldn't comment except that I feel like I offered the counterexample you're asking for...While I'm not denying that I didn't provide support for it, if you believe that there is nothing more to the universe than the interactions of atoms, there is no such thing as something being inherently right or wrong, objectively speaking. Things just are. Going by the opinion of the vast majority of people accomplishes nothing in this regard (certainly not for me). But yes, that's not an objective basis for morality, which was my point.
Humans are very good at making finding connections and patterns that don't exist, origami. It's how narrative works. No offense meant. Happens in most things with a brain. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, and with small enough sample sizes, it doesn't even do that. Given a wide enough interpretation, you can justify anything as having happened (as I was saying when I made the WALLOFTEXT post about predictions and oracles).
Post by: Rolan7 on January 10, 2016, 11:47:31 pm
The funny thing about prayer is that it is not you placing your will and desires on God, but you conforming to God's will. So whatever reason God had for not answering your prayers in the way you think they should be answered is all part of his will for your life.But that means God didn't want me. And while that may sound like a "gotcha" now... At the time, it was just disappointing. Painful, to be honest, because I *needed* something.
And the things I found, in desperation, aren't... let's say, things the Bible approves of. And this was ~8 years ago. So if this is God's plan, it's a long plan indeed. We'll see, I suppose.
Faith as defined by the Bible is "being sure of what you hope, and certain of what you do not see."... Thank you for trying to explain, but I still have trouble understanding how someone could consider that a good or reasonable course of action. Obviously it goes against reason and science, but more than that... It goes against harsh experience. Hope is something we consider possible, even if it's probably wrong, because we need it. "This *might* be true, despite all indications".
Which is useful, even necessary for survival. But why would one try to convince others -
Oh right. Christianity, and other successful religions, have probably evolved to be evangelical. Which is why they're successful.
There are more Christians than Jews, after all.
Ain't that the truth. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt5lB-RoAi4)yeah. That sure is like some nightmares I've had, over and over.
As Jehovah demands that people believe or be punished... imagine the opposite. The more you know of them, the more they see you.
There are no Androsynth now, only Orz.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 11:53:59 pm
When someone comes to me and tells me their moral system says X and Y? If mine doesn't match up, then I tell them that they built it wrong.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 10, 2016, 11:59:28 pm
...I actually missed the word "objective" in:So rolepgeek made an unsupported assumption, k33n claimed it was false... Then you demand that k33n provide proof? I wouldn't comment except that I feel like I offered the counterexample you're asking for...Democratic morality isn't objective, though. It's going to change over time as popular opinion changes. It's subjective by definition.
There is no objective basis for morality that does not lead to conclusions that the vast majority of people find repugnant. Wireheading or Pascal's Mugging or the Repugnant Conclusion or the Sadistic Conclusion.Psychosis is believing that something is true, in your heart, without evidence or even against evidence.
FTFY
Maybe because... what the hell does objective mean in that context? Either there's objective morality or there isn't, it doesn't matter whether people find it repugnant.
So I was pointing out that there are definitely moral codes that the "vast majority of people" wouldn't "find repugnant". Meaningful, useful ones... Which happen to be the 10 commandments (minus the Jehovah-worship and women-as-property). Are they "objective"? They're objectively useful, and I don't know what else to say.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 11, 2016, 12:05:18 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 11, 2016, 12:20:33 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 11, 2016, 12:29:45 am
Post by: jaccarmac on January 11, 2016, 12:33:39 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 11, 2016, 12:37:14 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 11, 2016, 01:12:37 am
Post by: Adragis on January 11, 2016, 02:18:22 am
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 03:27:52 am
As for morality, it's my view that you simply learn how best to interact within society. There are always new rules being made up on how to be moral - highway code - and we should follow them where reasonable as it helps society get along better,
Post by: Bohandas on January 11, 2016, 05:56:33 am
Most of this seems to be unnecessary qualifiers. Let's jsut leave it at "there is no objective basis for morality"There is no objective basis for morality that does not lead to conclusions that the vast majority of people find repugnant. Wireheading or Pascal's Mugging or the Repugnant Conclusion or the Sadistic Conclusion.Psychosis is believing that something is true, in your heart, without evidence or even against evidence.
FTFY
Post by: Antioch on January 11, 2016, 08:25:13 am
Why DO people think the Bible/Quran/other religious books give an accurate description of reality?
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 08:32:10 am
It's not a question of which is more valid as a reality - it's a question of the book which is being taught as real in whatever period of time. Today, it's the Bible. Yesterday, Homer. Tomorrow? Who knows.
Ultimately, one's believed because people want to believe it. It's got nothing to do with which is more likely.
Post by: Grimlocke on January 11, 2016, 08:32:38 am
Europe for instance did not start killing, stealing and adulterating much more or less after Christianity became widespread (mostly through decidedly immoral means by the way).
Oh, and 'objective morality' goes in the same category as 'objective best ice cream flavor'.
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 08:37:43 am
I think it's fairly safe to say that as it became more established it got more violent, but the original spread also had a lot to do with the shared culture of Greeks and Romans which allowed communication over vast distances - only two languages - and also the fact that quite a few pagans were getting miffed at their after life. Eternity as a ghost in Hades? They preferred the whole angelic paradise idea. Before Christianity they were trying to add "mysteries" into polytheism that gave a better afterlife, but not quickly enough it would seem.
Post by: Bohandas on January 11, 2016, 03:26:27 pm
Why DO people think the Bible/Quran/other religious books give an accurate description of reality?
Mindless tradition. I blame the fact that parents are given leeway to raise their children however they like
Post by: Bohandas on January 11, 2016, 03:29:29 pm
Christianity didn't begin violently necessarily. There was some tolerance of polytheists in places such as Athens - but, yet in others, places of worship were burned.
It did by virtue of being derived from Judiasm; from the old testament. That's where the true beginning of all the Abrahamic religions lay.
Post by: Adragis on January 11, 2016, 03:31:24 pm
I blame the fact that parents are given leeway to raise their children however they likewhat
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 03:33:49 pm
So, specifically speaking of Christianity, an individual sect of Abrahamic religion, it didn't start overly violently.
Well, it is kinda true. Parents are allowed to bring up their children believing whatever religion they deem fit, not necessarily the truth. In bad cases it leads to extremism.I blame the fact that parents are given leeway to raise their children however they likewhat
Not a reason for severing that parent-child connection I would say, though.
Post by: Adragis on January 11, 2016, 03:37:48 pm
Post by: martinuzz on January 11, 2016, 03:43:58 pm
Christianity is the worship of Christ, with some God worship thrown in. Judaism is its father, but not it.Nope, separating kids from their parents would be way too extreme. Now a rule that disallows religion for minors, just like alcohol and tobacco, would be an idea. Only teach people about the various world religions in the last years of highschool, in philosophy classes. Once they're eighteen, they're free to join any religion they like, or none at all.
So, specifically speaking of Christianity, an individual sect of Abrahamic religion, it didn't start overly violently.Well, it is kinda true. Parents are allowed to bring up their children believing whatever religion they deem fit, not necessarily the truth. In bad cases it leads to extremism.I blame the fact that parents are given leeway to raise their children however they likewhat
Not a reason for severing that parent-child connection I would say, though.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 11, 2016, 03:46:47 pm
good luck.Christianity is the worship of Christ, with some God worship thrown in. Judaism is its father, but not it.Nope, separating kids from their parents would be way too extreme. Now a rule that disallows religion for minors, just like alcohol and tobacco, would be an idea. Only teach people about religion in the last years of highschool, in philosophy classes. Once they're eighteen, they're free to join any religion they like, or none at all.
So, specifically speaking of Christianity, an individual sect of Abrahamic religion, it didn't start overly violently.Well, it is kinda true. Parents are allowed to bring up their children believing whatever religion they deem fit, not necessarily the truth. In bad cases it leads to extremism.I blame the fact that parents are given leeway to raise their children however they likewhat
Not a reason for severing that parent-child connection I would say, though.
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 03:57:43 pm
If the latter, then you're right. It is unlikely that parents won't attempt to teach their children what they see as the truth, despite it...perhaps...not being so, but were such a blanket ban to be introduced it would at least give some easily-manipulated-children-who-are-now-less-manipulatable-adults the chance to choose their own path, or to not choose one at all. Practices such as Sunday School - which, depending on your church, can be akin to indoctrination and at best gentle coercion - would no longer be legally valid. It may even promote tolerance if everyone chose their own faith. Also, it may promote tolerance in other ways - I distinctly remember a Sunday School teacher of mine laughing at Jews because they didn't believe in Jesus.
Post by: Adragis on January 11, 2016, 04:00:22 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 11, 2016, 04:01:02 pm
Do you say "good luck" because you're against it, or because you think it's unlikely?I said it sarcastically because I knew it wouldn't happen. You'd piss off about 85% of the world.
If the latter, then you're right. It is unlikely that parents won't attempt to teach their children what they see as the truth, despite it...perhaps...not being so, but were such a blanket ban to be introduced it would at least give some easily-manipulated-children-who-are-now-less-manipulatable-adults the chance to choose their own path, or to not choose one at all. Practices such as Sunday School - which, depending on your church, can be akin to indoctrination and at best gentle coercion - would no longer be legally valid. It may even promote tolerance if everyone chose their own faith. Also, it may promote tolerance in other ways - I distinctly remember a Sunday School teacher of mine laughing at Jews because they didn't believe in Jesus.
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 04:03:05 pm
It'd also mean the schools would teach non-religious points of view as absolute fact with no protest.
The schools would teach fact, you mean? They could throw in the odd bit of "this religion thinks this, though, and this one that" if they wanted.
I would. And wouldn't it be glorious? Sometimes, for advancement, people need to be peeved off.Do you say "good luck" because you're against it, or because you think it's unlikely?I said it sarcastically because I knew it wouldn't happen. You'd piss off about 85% of the world.
If the latter, then you're right. It is unlikely that parents won't attempt to teach their children what they see as the truth, despite it...perhaps...not being so, but were such a blanket ban to be introduced it would at least give some easily-manipulated-children-who-are-now-less-manipulatable-adults the chance to choose their own path, or to not choose one at all. Practices such as Sunday School - which, depending on your church, can be akin to indoctrination and at best gentle coercion - would no longer be legally valid. It may even promote tolerance if everyone chose their own faith. Also, it may promote tolerance in other ways - I distinctly remember a Sunday School teacher of mine laughing at Jews because they didn't believe in Jesus.
Edit: Though, I must say it shows a certain insecurity in your faith's validity if you don't think non-indoctrinated children would choose it.
Post by: Adragis on January 11, 2016, 04:13:38 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 04:15:21 pm
As opposed to:
There is one true religion. This is what it says. You'd better stick with it, or hell/associated companies.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 11, 2016, 04:17:49 pm
This is basically what happens in NZ. Even religious schools are required to teach evolution etc. as part of the curriculum. We also had compulsory classes on Hinduism and... some other religion I don't recall.It'd also mean the schools would teach non-religious points of view as absolute fact with no protest.The schools would teach fact, you mean? They could throw in the odd bit of "this religion thinks this, though, and this one that" if they wanted.
Post by: martinuzz on January 11, 2016, 04:26:27 pm
It's more how saying atheism is fact and then saying 'yo hav the religuns' is kinda, well, indoctrination.If an educational system would only teach scientific fact, and have no mention of world religions, and their main views on science, then it would be, in the light of all religions in existence, be incomplete information, and I might even agree when you say indoctrination, because information is being witheld.
However, when education about the various religions and their main views is included as part of the total curriculum, I disagree.
I don't believe in atheism by the way, just like I don't believe in any god. You cannot prove or disprove the existance of a god, so both are dogmatic beliefs.
Hence I would never advocate any institution to teach atheism as fact.
Atheism is not the same as science.
Which is why the term 'agnost' literally means 'not knowing' (in Old Greek), which, if I had to place myself in any group, would be where to put me.
This is basically what happens in NZ. Even religious schools are required to teach evolution etc. as part of the curriculum. We also had compulsory classes on Hinduism and... some other religion I don't recall.Same in the Netherlands. For over 35 years already.
Post by: Graknorke on January 11, 2016, 04:31:21 pm
I don't believe in atheism by the wayUh, you know atheism is a real thing right? As in, lots of people say they are (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_%28surnames_T_to_Z%29). Unless they're all deluding themselves and secretly believe in a god and are lying about it.
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 04:32:28 pm
Post by: martinuzz on January 11, 2016, 04:33:43 pm
Uh, you know atheism is a real thing right? As in, lots of people say they are (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_%28surnames_T_to_Z%29). Unless they're all deluding themselves and secretly believe in a god and are lying about it.No their delusion lies in thinking that it is absolute certainty that there is no god. That is philosophically unprovable.
butyeah I might have worded it a bit multi-interpretable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 04:40:06 pm
Still, nothing is impossible. An Almighty Father in heaven who sent his son - who is also himself - to earth in order to die for our sins which we committed because of his plan just isn't high amongst the possibilities, along with all other religions.
To give an oft used example: The FSM is philosophically possible. Doesn't mean anyone ought to believe in flying, sentient spaghetti.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 11, 2016, 04:46:19 pm
I wouldn't say that I believe it's absolutely impossible that there is a god. I'd just say the possibility for there to be one is next to nil, or that if there is one it probably stretches the definition of "god."Every option has an absurdly small chance if looked upon with a logical standpoint. Since I don't think Humans can quite comprehend what a God would actually be like. But the chance that Earth was in the perfect place around the perfect star with the perfect substances and the perfect conditions to support life is also absurdly small.
Still, nothing is impossible. An Almighty Father in heaven who sent his son - who is also himself - to earth in order to die for our sins which we committed because of his plan just isn't high amongst the possibilities, along with all other religions.
To give an oft used example: The FSM is philosophically possible. Doesn't mean anyone ought to believe in flying, sentient spaghetti.
Post by: Graknorke on January 11, 2016, 04:49:55 pm
No their delusion lies in thinking that it is absolute certainty that there is no god. That is philosophically unprovable.Those are some pretty flimsy straw men you have set up there. I don't think you'd find many atheists who define atheism like that. Bar yourself obviously. It's not a truth statement, just the absence of a particular one.
Every option has an absurdly small chance if looked upon with a logical standpoint. Since I don't think Humans can quite comprehend what a God would actually be like. But the chance that Earth was in the perfect place around the perfect star with the perfect substances and the perfect conditions to support life is also absurdly small.That one's subject to some heavy confirmation bias. Namely that life isn't going to develop somewhere life can't develop. So if you took a survey of all life in the universe you'd find that all of it came from improbably hospitable conditions.
Post by: martinuzz on January 11, 2016, 04:50:09 pm
I wouldn't say that I believe it's absolutely impossible that there is a god. I'd just say the possibility for there to be one is next to nil, or that if there is one it probably stretches the definition of "god."And then again, what is a god? if I were suddenly plucked from the ground by a giant hand from the sky, would that be a divine act, and acceptable proof of god, or would it just be some extradimensional bored gamer's mouse cursor?
Still, nothing is impossible. An Almighty Father in heaven who sent his son - who is also himself - to earth in order to die for our sins which we committed because of his plan just isn't high amongst the possibilities, along with all other religions.
To give an oft used example: The FSM is philosophically possible. Doesn't mean anyone ought to believe in flying, sentient spaghetti.
Those are some pretty flimsy straw men you have set up there. I don't think you'd find many atheists who define atheism like that. Bar yourself obviously. It's not a truth statement, just the absence of a particular one.Let's just say then that a lot of people who call themselves atheist just aren't versed enough in philosophical terminology to realize that they are actually agnosts.
It's kindof like a lot of people who call themselves feminists are actually emancipationists, because they're not sexists.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 11, 2016, 04:50:51 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 04:52:48 pm
I wouldn't say that I believe it's absolutely impossible that there is a god. I'd just say the possibility for there to be one is next to nil, or that if there is one it probably stretches the definition of "god."Every option has an absurdly small chance if looked upon with a logical standpoint. Since I don't think Humans can quite comprehend what a God would actually be like. But the chance that Earth was in the perfect place around the perfect star with the perfect substances and the perfect conditions to support life is also absurdly small.
Still, nothing is impossible. An Almighty Father in heaven who sent his son - who is also himself - to earth in order to die for our sins which we committed because of his plan just isn't high amongst the possibilities, along with all other religions.
To give an oft used example: The FSM is philosophically possible. Doesn't mean anyone ought to believe in flying, sentient spaghetti.
Indeed, if you assume it happened once.
If, however, you assume that the universe is infinite (or at least hugenormous - which it certainly is) then it was bound to happen at least once, and probably quite a few times beside.
To paraphrase Libby Aluhwahlia, perhaps the dice had to land some way, and landed as they did by chance.
As I said, if there is something that is momentous, it does not necessarily mean it is a god. I suppose I would define a god as a creator ex nihilo.I wouldn't say that I believe it's absolutely impossible that there is a god. I'd just say the possibility for there to be one is next to nil, or that if there is one it probably stretches the definition of "god."And then again, what is a god? if I were suddenly plucked from the ground by a giant hand from the sky, would that be a divine act, and acceptable proof of god, or would it just be some extradimensional bored gamer's mouse cursor?
Still, nothing is impossible. An Almighty Father in heaven who sent his son - who is also himself - to earth in order to die for our sins which we committed because of his plan just isn't high amongst the possibilities, along with all other religions.
To give an oft used example: The FSM is philosophically possible. Doesn't mean anyone ought to believe in flying, sentient spaghetti.
Post by: martinuzz on January 11, 2016, 04:58:45 pm
Every option has an absurdly small chance if looked upon with a logical standpoint. Since I don't think Humans can quite comprehend what a God would actually be like. But the chance that Earth was in the perfect place around the perfect star with the perfect substances and the perfect conditions to support life is also absurdly small.
Actually, general scientific consensus is the opposite. The chance that there aren't more stars with planets with conditions favourable to life, is regarded as absurdly small.
Post by: Arx on January 11, 2016, 05:01:39 pm
Post by: Graknorke on January 11, 2016, 05:03:45 pm
That's because they're both. Agnostic atheists. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism) Agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive with theism either, just for the record.Those are some pretty flimsy straw men you have set up there. I don't think you'd find many atheists who define atheism like that. Bar yourself obviously. It's not a truth statement, just the absence of a particular one.Let's just say then that a lot of people who call themselves atheist just aren't versed enough in philosophical terminology to realize that they are actually agnosts.
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 05:05:21 pm
Post by: Frumple on January 11, 2016, 05:10:22 pm
Idle curiosity Dwarfy, doesn't that mean that you must per force believe in some form of deity? Seeing as presumably the universe originated somewhere. Not that there's any scientific way of testing that, I suppose.Nah. If a deity could appear out of nothing and be the origin of the universe, the universe can appear out of nothing and need no outside originator -- they're roughly equally unprovable in their assumptions, though the latter has less of them. If you're already presupposing the existence of something from nothing or something that "just is" in the form of the deity that creates everything, there's nothing really stopping you from just... not assuming the middleman existed.
Post by: martinuzz on January 11, 2016, 05:10:38 pm
That's because they're both. Agnostic atheists. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism) Agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive with theism either, just for the record.
I'm not sure that I agree with Robert Flint's view there. I'd say that the atheist man, convinced that there is no god, after coming to the conclusion that the existance of god is incapable of proof, ceases to be an atheist, and becomes an agnost, and not an atheist agnost. Because if you're uncertain, you are no longer convinced.
But then I guess, if we stick to the definitions as they are set right now, you are right.
EDIT: although, from the wiki link you gave: "The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview."
Post by: TD1 on January 11, 2016, 05:15:21 pm
Post by: wierd on January 11, 2016, 09:23:43 pm
Assuming the universe started somewhere, I'd put it down to some form of force, as much a deity as gravity is. I suppose I should edit my definition - a god is a creator ex nihilo which has sentience.
No, sentience is not really necessary.
(admission: Hard agnostic mode ON)
From what I have seen/read about Christian god, and various other gods in other pantheons, a god need not be sentient, awake, or active. Passive gods exist in several pantheons.
Take for instance, the role of the DF.EXE process in world creation in dwarf fortress. It runs "extra dimensionally" to the world(s) it generates and manages. It knows everything. Oversees everything. Everything obeys the order it demands, and deems everything that obeys its ordered mechanical rules as being good. (When working correctly anyway) The process is the actual "god" to dwarf fortress worlds. The player represents an input to that god. The process is static. It does not change itself on disk unless you update to a new version. It creates worlds ex nihilo.
It is not sentient.
Similar arguments could be made (in a vacuum anyway) about Old Testament god. Old Testament god exists prior to the creation of the universe. (Exists extradimensionally to our universe, by necessity.) Old Testament god asserts that he is inside all of creation. (The same is true of DF.EXE, with DF worlds. Everything (in the game) exists inside the process's allocated memory footprint. Thus, everything in the game represents a part of that process-- the statement is literally true.) OT god is static and unchanging (like the DF process), and "Timeless"; The beginning and the end. (As is the DF process to DF worlds.) OT god is omniscient and omnipotent (As is the DF process to DF worlds.) but seems to be either unwilling or unable to disclose itself to its creations. (The DF process does not go out of its way to tell Urist that yes, he is running inside a simulation, and here's how to manipulate his own simulation logic either.)
The typical arguments against omniscient and omnipotent gods usually boils down to an implied fallacy-- That these beings need to adhere to a creed about "benevolence" that caters to human pleasure centers. This implication is not a requirement. Instead, the goal appears more to be self-consistency, with self-affirmation and consistency of the systems they manifest as being the primary objective "Good" these entities strive for. The benevolence of these beings is that they create and maintain systems that enable humans and human thoughts. (Much like DF enables dwarven thoughts. It is not that DF.EXE needs to always assure that Urist is bathed in alcohol, and that goblins never invade-- Even though the game engine is quite capable of doing this. INVADERS=FALSE does nearly all of that in the config section. Does the game do that by default? No- What is considered "Proper behavior" by the game is for Urist to have his brains splattered across several tiles when the trolls come and bash down the door, and smash his head in with a giant club.) OT god seems to have created the universe to reaffirm his own views about how an orderly creation should be operated and maintained. The creation of humans is to reaffirm the authority and integrity of the OT god-- Not to bathe humans in pleasure up to their eyeballs.
With that in mind, other arguments against the omnipotence angle become tautologies. "A god that is capable of anything is capable of self destructing!" etc. Yes. and DF.EXE is capable of initiating self-termination. That does not mean that self-termination is a good thing, or is the intent of the omnipotent god. Termination of the simulation is against the ethos of the creator-- which creates the simulation, to have a simulation. Self termination destroys the simulation. The god is capable of this, but does not wish it/does not consider it a very useful thing to do. Pretty much all arguments in this intellectual bent hit this block when viewed this way.
The more I have contemplated the possible modes of existence of an actual divine creator, the more I have come to favor the idea of a completely non-sentient process, such as this. It makes decisions, but is not sentient. It operates entirely on its own internal order and mechanics, and is not "willful". It all at once explains the seemingly capricious nature such a divine creator must have (Really, as long as the laws of physics are obeyed, anything goes-- and why seemingly contrary things are considered "good") as well as why the creator appears indistinguishable from a simple force of nature. Philosophical question: Is DF.EXE "natural", or "artificial"? To the simulated dwarves living inside its process, would it not just appear to be nature itself?
Granted, this is a completely different kind of theism to the human-like gods of nearly all religious pantheons. It however, is a valid interpretation of a divine creator god. It has similarities to the "Sleeping god creates universe by dreaming" archetype, but being non-sentient, is not actually dreaming. The existence of the universe is instead the result of the active machination of this god, which does what it does for its own reasons, completely divorced from what the child processes inhabiting its simulation want or feel.
After a rather long time cogitating this, this appears to fit the "holy spirit" incarnation of the OT god perfectly. Pretty much any descriptive verse of this entity can be explained through this mechanic. The existence of the "divine savior", the christ, can be explained as an error correction routine being spawned to herd misbehaving subprocesses back into line, rather than simply terminating them.
"Machine god" is a perfectly valid kind of god. The fact that you cannot sway the machinations of machine god with politics is inconsequential. That machine god does not have actual desires or wants, is also inconsequential. The fact that worshiping machine god does not change machine god's mind is inconsequential. Machine god has already decided everything, and does not need to change its mind.
I cannot discount the existence of such a wholly self-consistent, deterministic, mechanical 'god' being behind our universe's physics. To us, its active machinations would be indistinguishable from fundamental forces of nature. The parameters it has set for the simulation simply are. (Why does an electron have the spin and charge that it does? et. al.) From machine god's POV, our debate about machine god is moot-- We obey its rules, regardless, and that is good. If you choose not to believe machine god is a god-- machine god does not care. If you choose to believe that machine god is a god, machine god does not care. It is only when you try to break physics, that machine god cares. The closest thing to direct imaging of machine god in action is going to be things like spontaneous symmetry breaking, and the fact that at the deepest level, our universe exists in a quantized fashion, with discrete quanta of energy. (when you try to say, go smaller than the plank length, you see machine god's hand slapping you, saying "no, plank length is the smallest allowed length.")---Everything else derives from the simulation maintained by machine god, and machine god thinks this is good.
I cannot prove that machine god is "a god." That appellation is moot. The universe exists, and is quantized in nature. That is all that I really need to know or care about.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 11, 2016, 09:57:02 pm
That's because they're both. Agnostic atheists. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism) Agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive with theism either, just for the record.
I'm not sure that I agree with Robert Flint's view there. I'd say that the atheist man, convinced that there is no god, after coming to the conclusion that the existance of god is incapable of proof, ceases to be an atheist, and becomes an agnost, and not an atheist agnost. Because if you're uncertain, you are no longer convinced.
But then I guess, if we stick to the definitions as they are set right now, you are right.
EDIT: although, from the wiki link you gave: "The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview."
Eh, if you act on the assumption that there is no god, whilst still being uncertain whether there really is one, I'd say that counts as agnostic atheist.
I consider myself atheist mostly because I find whether or not there is a god to be irrelevant. I would not worship the Judeo-Christian god even if I was shown incontrovertible evidence of his existence.
Plus, it's also philosophically unprovable that any of you exist, and that this isn't just a simulation. But Cartesian uncertainty isn't a very useful philosophy, and philosophy can't really be 'true' in and of itself, so...
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 11, 2016, 11:28:20 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on January 11, 2016, 11:32:06 pm
Agnostic atheist is a funny way of saying atheistFIFY
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 11, 2016, 11:38:22 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 11, 2016, 11:44:36 pm
I'm totes an agnostic nihilist atheist syncretic hindu jewish ismali sunni methodist practicing illuminatiNo offence to you personally, but I hate everybody who follows that religion.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 11, 2016, 11:49:58 pm
UGH YOU'RE SO JUDGEMENTAL PEOPLE LIKE YOU SHOULD JUST DIEI'm totes an agnostic nihilist atheist syncretic hindu jewish ismali sunni methodist practicing illuminatiNo offence to you personally, but I hate everybody who follows that religion.
Post by: Rose on January 11, 2016, 11:51:31 pm
And agnostic atheist is not the same as atheist.
An atheist will not accept the possibility of God. An agnostic will.
As an agnostic theist, I personally believe there's a God, but I know that it's impossible to know, one way or other, and I accept that I might be wrong.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 12, 2016, 12:06:12 am
DON'T TELL ME HOW TO STOP LIVING MY LIFE >:(UGH YOU'RE SO JUDGEMENTAL PEOPLE LIKE YOU SHOULD JUST DIEI'm totes an agnostic nihilist atheist syncretic hindu jewish ismali sunni methodist practicing illuminatiNo offence to you personally, but I hate everybody who follows that religion.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 12, 2016, 12:43:56 am
I'm an agnostic theist, myself.
And agnostic atheist is not the same as atheist.
An atheist will not accept the possibility of God. An agnostic will.
As an agnostic theist, I personally believe there's a God, but I know that it's impossible to know, one way or other, and I accept that I might be wrong.
I would disagree with you about the way you define atheist. But alright.
Post by: Adragis on January 12, 2016, 01:41:19 am
thats racistUGH YOU'RE SO JUDGEMENTAL PEOPLE LIKE YOU SHOULD JUST DIEI'm totes an agnostic nihilist atheist syncretic hindu jewish ismali sunni methodist practicing illuminatiNo offence to you personally, but I hate everybody who follows that religion.
Post by: Rose on January 12, 2016, 01:44:06 am
I would disagree with you about the way you define atheist. But alright.How would you define atheist?
Post by: Grimlocke on January 12, 2016, 01:50:28 am
Atheism = Not believing there is a god.
Which is not the same as 'Believing there is no god'.
That last one is semantic bunk made up by religious fundamentalist crackpots to try and put atheism on their own level.
And none of the semantics and silly mis-definitions even matter. Fact is that no part of reality points to any kind of deity existing, and believing there is one anyway is a matter of faith.
Trying to win silly online discussions with an endless stream of fallacies and wordplay really doesn't do anyone any favors.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 12, 2016, 03:07:04 am
Though not necessarily that any specific god is possible. Many definitions of god are self-contradictory.
Atheism doesn't involve any claim, though. It's simply not making a claim about gods. A lack of religion.
Post by: TD1 on January 12, 2016, 03:28:41 am
An atheistic cookie.
I'm fairly certain it doesn't exist, but if it does, Rolan is gonna be a happy camper :P
Post by: Rolan7 on January 12, 2016, 03:36:27 am
Or it's a frustratingly paradoxical cookie. If I believe I have it, I don't... If I don't believe in it, there it is. Oscillating in and out of existence at the speed of thought has got to be harnessable as an energy source, somehow. Maybe the cookie is magnetic?
Post by: TD1 on January 12, 2016, 03:38:57 am
That cookie just got very complicated. The power of philosophy!
As for it being harnessable as an energy source, that depends on whether oscillating in and out of existence creates energy. You could rig it up to a pressure plate, I suppose, in that if you had enough cookies oscillating at once, the weight would press the plates like pistons.
Need a lot of cookies though.
Post by: Grimlocke on January 12, 2016, 04:18:27 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 12, 2016, 06:29:35 am
Post by: wobbly on January 12, 2016, 06:39:34 am
Atheism = Not believing there is a god.On this I'm going to have to disagree. Trouble is I meet a lot of atheists who claim to be the 1st sentence, yet have an attitude to the topic of religion that is a closer match to the 2nd sentence. Once you start mocking the religious as stupid, gullible or ignorant you're more in line with the second (in my own opinion) & a lot of atheists do behave that way.
Which is not the same as 'Believing there is no god'.
That last one is semantic bunk made up by religious fundamentalist crackpots to try and put atheism on their own level.
Post by: Arx on January 12, 2016, 06:43:15 am
Is there a word for someone who simply doesn't care about religion?
Apatheist gets thrown around a bit.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 12, 2016, 06:44:13 am
Post by: TD1 on January 12, 2016, 07:25:55 am
Urgh, not really. I do think belief in a god is rather silly, but that's not because I'm certain there is no god. Again, it comes down to the probabilities involved, and the internal problems of the religion when it tries to conform to reality (and where it doesn't.)Atheism = Not believing there is a god.On this I'm going to have to disagree. Trouble is I meet a lot of atheists who claim to be the 1st sentence, yet have an attitude to the topic of religion that is a closer match to the 2nd sentence. Once you start mocking the religious as stupid, gullible or ignorant you're more in line with the second (in my own opinion) & a lot of atheists do behave that way.
Which is not the same as 'Believing there is no god'.
That last one is semantic bunk made up by religious fundamentalist crackpots to try and put atheism on their own level.
Thinking something is silly doesn't mean you don't think they may on a veeeeery long shot be right, is what I'm trying to say.
Post by: wierd on January 12, 2016, 07:40:06 am
Did you know that it is actually more probable that the universe is a simulation, than real? It's true!
http://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs
And some other fun things..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chfoo9NBEow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4NkItgf0E
Post by: TD1 on January 12, 2016, 07:52:33 am
Post by: wierd on January 12, 2016, 07:55:00 am
I refer you to my prior (admittedly wall o text sized) shpeel about "machine god".
Creator god does not need to be sentient to satisfy all of the criteria normally ascribed to creator god. Machine god satisfies just fine, and would be true in a simulation universe.
Also, the simulation argument goes like this:
There are three possible outcomes of technological advancement of a civilization.
1) For some reason, it is unable to progress to a point where ancestor simulations are possible. (See Fermi's paradox, and various others.)
2) If we assume that it is possible that they can achieve the technology to run ancestor simulations, then it is possible that universally, all civilizations with this theoretical capacity decide that it is without merit to do so, and so don't do so.
3) If we reject those two, then each real civilization is able to spawn many orders of magnitude more simulated civilizations, making the probability that any given civilization will be a simulated one highly likely. (EG, one out of every hundred billion civilizations will be a simulation, if we assume that each real civilization is able to run one hundred billion other civilizations as simulations.)
When you throw in curious things like the error correcting block codes being found, and other curious hints that lean toward our being inside a simulation, with the simulation hypothesis, it looks pretty intriguing.
Is it still a sensible idea to pray to machine god? No. Machine god does not give a flying white pony ride about your worship.
Post by: Antioch on January 12, 2016, 08:08:26 am
My position:
1. It is wrong to believe that for which there is insufficient evidence.
2. There is insufficient evidence for the existence of a god.
Post by: wierd on January 12, 2016, 08:09:38 am
Post by: Grimlocke on January 12, 2016, 08:37:22 am
Atheism = Not believing there is a god.On this I'm going to have to disagree. Trouble is I meet a lot of atheists who claim to be the 1st sentence, yet have an attitude to the topic of religion that is a closer match to the 2nd sentence. Once you start mocking the religious as stupid, gullible or ignorant you're more in line with the second (in my own opinion) & a lot of atheists do behave that way.
Which is not the same as 'Believing there is no god'.
That last one is semantic bunk made up by religious fundamentalist crackpots to try and put atheism on their own level.
Sooo, some atheist people did a thing you don't like, and so you want 'atheist' to mean that thing?
Applying the same logic to 'Catholic', 'Right-wing voter' or 'BMW driver' could lead to some undesirable generalization too. Except for BMW drivers, there its entirely valid.
Post by: wierd on January 12, 2016, 08:43:56 am
The two do not appear to converge.
Pointing out the lack of convergence is not making a strawman. Extrapolating from the lack of convergence to arrive at a conclusion, however, does.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 12, 2016, 09:21:23 am
Partially because it's all done from arbitrary priori, and partially because it's a convoluted bit of logic that honestly feels like cheating. Probabilities can't be calculated from single events.
Also, I think the difference wobbly, is that atheists often have strong objections to particular ideas of a god. That doesn't mean they necessarily believe against any and all ideas of a god.
Post by: wobbly on January 12, 2016, 11:19:28 am
Atheism = Not believing there is a god.On this I'm going to have to disagree. Trouble is I meet a lot of atheists who claim to be the 1st sentence, yet have an attitude to the topic of religion that is a closer match to the 2nd sentence. Once you start mocking the religious as stupid, gullible or ignorant you're more in line with the second (in my own opinion) & a lot of atheists do behave that way.
Which is not the same as 'Believing there is no god'.
That last one is semantic bunk made up by religious fundamentalist crackpots to try and put atheism on their own level.
Sooo, some atheist people did a thing you don't like, and so you want 'atheist' to mean that thing?
Applying the same logic to 'Catholic', 'Right-wing voter' or 'BMW driver' could lead to some undesirable generalization too. Except for BMW drivers, there its entirely valid.
Why would I care whether atheism is a thing or not? Just saying there are atheists & there are atheists. Some fit the 1st sentence you gave, some fit the 2nd. It's not just a thing made up by "fundamentalist crackpots".
Post by: Rolan7 on January 12, 2016, 11:39:25 am
Well shoot, guess I'm an antitheist after all. And an atheist, of course.
Though you could have a theist antitheist - Kratos comes to mind ;) Or Satanists who actually believe in Satan (most "Satanists" just worship an ideal of opposition, which always struck me as misleading).
Post by: Grimlocke on January 12, 2016, 01:48:02 pm
@Th4DwArfY1 - I was talking about stronger opinions then just a little silly. Find plenty of things religious people believe or say silly myself.Atheism = Not believing there is a god.On this I'm going to have to disagree. Trouble is I meet a lot of atheists who claim to be the 1st sentence, yet have an attitude to the topic of religion that is a closer match to the 2nd sentence. Once you start mocking the religious as stupid, gullible or ignorant you're more in line with the second (in my own opinion) & a lot of atheists do behave that way.
Which is not the same as 'Believing there is no god'.
That last one is semantic bunk made up by religious fundamentalist crackpots to try and put atheism on their own level.
Sooo, some atheist people did a thing you don't like, and so you want 'atheist' to mean that thing?
Applying the same logic to 'Catholic', 'Right-wing voter' or 'BMW driver' could lead to some undesirable generalization too. Except for BMW drivers, there its entirely valid.
Why would I care whether atheism is a thing or not? Just saying there are atheists & there are atheists. Some fit the 1st sentence you gave, some fit the 2nd. It's not just a thing made up by "fundamentalist crackpots".
I will just point that back to this.
There is the dictionary definition of what an atheist is, and there is the statistically likely behavioral stereotype of how people who self-identify with that appellation have.
The two do not appear to converge.
Pointing out the lack of convergence is not making a strawman. Extrapolating from the lack of convergence to arrive at a conclusion, however, does.
Just that you have come to associate two things, doesn't change the definition of a word.
A lot of people behave badly, both religious and atheist, but making widespread generalisations to the point that you change the meaning of a word to something bad for yourself will only needlessly antagonise people you might have otherwise gotten along with fine.
That does not only go for atheists, but also for Muslims, right wing voters and maybe even BMW drivers.
Post by: wierd on January 12, 2016, 03:56:35 pm
See for example: "Gay", and or, "Patriarchy". "Lesbian" as well. (Originally used to describe somebody from, and or a relation to, the Aegean island of Lesbos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbos).)
Post by: TD1 on January 12, 2016, 04:10:15 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 12, 2016, 04:13:15 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 12, 2016, 05:26:59 pm
The patriarchy of Constantinople is oppressing me
Better than him sodomizing you, frankly.
Unless you are into that sort of thing.... YMMV, and all that.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 12, 2016, 06:28:07 pm
The patriarchy of Constantinople is oppressing meDon't worry, the Muslims are here to help
1453 best year of my life
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 12, 2016, 07:08:30 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 12, 2016, 07:10:26 pm
Imagine if we tried to have this thread on a Youtube comment section.The Internet would explode.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 12, 2016, 07:16:45 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 12, 2016, 07:19:29 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 12, 2016, 07:20:26 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 12, 2016, 07:23:30 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 12, 2016, 07:25:49 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 12, 2016, 07:27:30 pm
I change the title every time someone mentions the title.*waits*
Post by: TheDarkStar on January 12, 2016, 07:54:53 pm
Post by: Bohandas on January 12, 2016, 07:59:34 pm
Semi-random note, I misread the title and thought it say 'I am enlightened by my Ethiopia'.
Something something Ras Tafari
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 12, 2016, 08:24:53 pm
Post by: martinuzz on January 12, 2016, 08:27:31 pm
Semi-random note, I misread the title and thought it say 'I am enlightened by my Ethiopia'.
Something something Ras Tafari
I and I be irie while Bablyon burns mon
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 12, 2016, 10:30:11 pm
"Everyone's a cryptic in their own way"POPERY
...
Also, I'm going to be a colossal hypocrite and everyone to tone the shitposting down a bit. We're getting slightly too derailed here.
Post by: Frumple on January 12, 2016, 10:34:13 pm
... I'll ask it, though, to lessen the post's frippery, does anyone have any idea how well the underground relic market is doing these days? How much would a jar of pope-infused potpourri run for?
Post by: DragonDePlatino on January 12, 2016, 10:53:38 pm
Lately, I've been getting into some arguments with my mother. She is Protestant Christian while I consider myself Agnostic. I try to be as objective as possible in all aspects of life so I don't completely accept nor deny anything in the Bible. Some of its writings are very fantastic, yes, but I think it's ignorant to disregard something just because it conflicts with your view of the world.
Anyways, my mother wants me to attend church, read the Bible and listen to speeches like this (http://m.oneplace.com/ministries/love-worth-finding/listen/evolution-fact-or-fiction-490315.html), but I've turned them all down. She wants me to be Christian but I've told her that I'm happy in life without religion and it would just be "going through he motions" if I did all of this for her. I'm not the type of person to put complete faith in anything so I don't want to lie and say I have sincere faith in everything in the Bible. In response she said that she's very concerned for my soul and does not want me to face eternal damnation.
To be clear, I've never been condescending towards her religion or argued against the Bible in our arguments. I've tried to remain as neutral as possible but she's interpreted my hesitation as complete Atheism. I've very heavily stressed that I am Agnostic but she's not satisfied with that. I hate seeing her so unhappy so can anyone offer advice about how to resolve this?
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 12, 2016, 11:14:00 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 12, 2016, 11:14:57 pm
The issue isn't whether or not you've disrespected her religion, your very state as not being a Christian is offensive from where she's standing. This trait is fairly ubiquitous among universalizing religions.
The ideal solution for the both of you here, and I'm being completely serious here, is for her beliefs to become so severely mired and confused that she stops thinking about your agnosticism entirely. You can't really make that happen, though.
Post by: Bohandas on January 12, 2016, 11:18:44 pm
Life Advice would probably be the better place for this, but I'd rather not make an entire topic out of it.
Lately, I've been getting into some arguments with my mother. She is Protestant Christian while I consider myself Agnostic. I try to be as objective as possible in all aspects of life so I don't completely accept nor deny anything in the Bible. Some of its writings are very fantastic, yes, but I think it's ignorant to disregard something just because it conflicts with your view of the world.
Anyways, my mother wants me to attend church, read the Bible and listen to speeches like this (http://m.oneplace.com/ministries/love-worth-finding/listen/evolution-fact-or-fiction-490315.html), but I've turned them all down. She wants me to be Christian but I've told her that I'm happy in life without religion and it would just be "going through he motions" if I did all of this for her. I'm not the type of person to put complete faith in anything so I don't want to lie and say I have sincere faith in everything in the Bible. In response she said that she's very concerned for my soul and does not want me to face eternal damnation.
To be clear, I've never been condescending towards her religion or argued against the Bible in our arguments. I've tried to remain as neutral as possible but she's interpreted my hesitation as complete Atheism. I've very heavily stressed that I am Agnostic but she's not satisfied with that. I hate seeing her so unhappy so can anyone offer advice about how to resolve this?
I'm gonna go with my fallback suggestion here, which is to quote Ecclesiastes (http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/1-2.htm) all the time
Post by: Bohandas on January 12, 2016, 11:23:15 pm
Did somebody say "probabilities"?
Did you know that it is actually more probable that the universe is a simulation, than real? It's true!
http://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs
And some other fun things..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chfoo9NBEow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4NkItgf0E
I haven't read through all the links but I've read this sort of argument before and will give my standard rebuttal. It satisfies the mediocrity principle but violates occam's razor as much as anything possibly can; and generally results in an infinite regression.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 12, 2016, 11:23:33 pm
I'm gonna go with my fallback suggestion here, which is to quote Ecclesiastes (http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/1-2.htm) all the timeThis is fantastic
Post by: Bohandas on January 12, 2016, 11:34:00 pm
("Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.")
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 12, 2016, 11:41:54 pm
I'm hoping someday someone will ask me rhetorically if I know what the Good Book says about hard work, so I can pull out Ecclesiastes 2:11 (http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/2-11.htm)Solomon was starting to go bonkers when he wrote that. If you read proverbs, he is... quite different.
("Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.")
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 12, 2016, 11:48:28 pm
...
E:
~~~There's no real way around that, I'm afraid. She's doing what she thinks is best for you, but appears to have missed the boat a little.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 12, 2016, 11:55:50 pm
I'm gonna go with my fallback suggestion here, which is to quote Ecclesiastes (http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/1-2.htm) all the timeThis really is lovely.
A solider argument, though I'm not saying it'll help or be a good idea, is 1 Timothy 2:12
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Seriously though...
I was in a situation with similar pressure, though I was about 22 at the time. I just went. I brought a notepad to draw and write unrelated ideas, and sometimes I took the opportunity to study the religious.
I would have liked to have told them I was atheist (anyone who doesn't believe is technically atheist... technically). But honesty would have been pointless foolishness.
Even so I eventually tried to give myself to God, in a way confirming something I'd often assumed: That nobody, no matter how rational, is immune to being indoctrinated. Just look at how many brilliant people embrace religions. It's hardcoded in the human mind. It's necessary to either avoid it, or to face it head on. To look at the apologetic arguments, and the rebuttals, and decide for yourself. To stay rational.
If you just sit there in church with nothing else to pay attention to, you will eventually believe. That's what hymns do, and fellowship, and sheer boredom. Lack of external stimuli is the core of brainwashing. That's WHY THEY DO IT.
Post by: Bohandas on January 12, 2016, 11:58:36 pm
Solomon didn't write Ecclesiastes, though.
Indeed.
Even if we take the author's identification in the beginning of the book as not being a lie (which many historians find questionable at best) I know enough about about biblical idiom to know that "son of david" could theoretically refer to any male descended from King David, no matter how distantly
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 13, 2016, 12:00:40 am
Post by: Bohandas on January 13, 2016, 12:02:46 am
Post by: IronyOwl on January 13, 2016, 12:07:12 am
I hate seeing her so unhappy so can anyone offer advice about how to resolve this?Religion and children both tend to be high-concern, low-thought topics, which breeds a lot of needless bullshit in regards to them. Placing the two together is a recipe for bad things for no reason, so at some point you might just have to accept that she's mentally ill and will remain unhappy because of that.
In response she said that she's very concerned for my soul and does not want me to face eternal damnation.That said, if you don't like your options, try to find a different direction to go in. Ask her if she's talked with clergy about her concerns, for instance, and what they've said; most priests will probably not have the stones to assure her that her child is damned if he doesn't get his ass to church at a certain frequency.
Different ways of thinking about it are also good. It's possible the cultural aspect is bothering her more than the literal soul quality thing, and that not being as devout as her makes it feel like you're distant.
Regardless, it's probably not going to be a quick, clean resolution. You're probably going to have to commit to a fairly in-depth, lengthy project that still might not pay off, or just leave it sitting at a poor spot.
Post by: hops on January 13, 2016, 12:15:41 am
Post by: DragonDePlatino on January 13, 2016, 12:35:06 am
There is no resolution that will leave both of you happy.
Uuuuugh! I feared that might have been the case. I'll give the prostration thing a shot, though. Even if I don't get spiritual insight from reading the Bible it'll lend me more insight into how others view the world. What version would you suggest? I've read some pretty old literature so I wouldn't mind reading the King James Bible if that's the most accurate and/or popular one. Or should I try one of the newer versions?
I'm gonna go with my fallback suggestion here, which is to quote Ecclesiastes (http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/1-2.htm) all the time
I'm...not sure I follow. I'll have to read more into Ecclesiastes and digest this.
...nobody, no matter how rational, is immune to being indoctrinated. Just look at how many brilliant people embrace religions. It's hardcoded in the human mind. It's necessary to either avoid it, or to face it head on. To look at the apologetic arguments, and the rebuttals, and decide for yourself. To stay rational.
But that's the rub. I feel that once I commit to either Atheism or Christianity, that room for being rational will disappear. Committing to one side pushes out the other so I've never wanted to face that kind of commitment. But then again, I've got a lot of my life ahead of me so we'll see...
You could also compromise and join the Church of the SubGenius, which worships the christian god, but mostly just does so to be ironic.
Good grief. First I find out about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, now this. She'll think I'm insane and/or Satanic when she pulls up images like this (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Subgenius-JHVH-1-by-St-Ken.jpg) so no thanks. XD
Religion and children both tend to be high-concern, low-thought topics, which breeds a lot of needless bullshit in regards to them. Placing the two together is a recipe for bad things for no reason, so at some point you might just have to accept that she's mentally ill and will remain unhappy because of that.
I know, right? Me and her are on good terms in literally everything else but every time she brings this up it creates nothing but strife. You weren't far off on your mentally ill guess, either. She suffers from chronic anxiety so avoiding this subject might be the best approach...
That said, if you don't like your options, try to find a different direction to go in. Ask her if she's talked with clergy about her concerns, for instance, and what they've said; most priests will probably not have the stones to assure her that her child is damned if he doesn't get his ass to church at a certain frequency.
That's a very nice suggestion. Getting a third party involved might be what we need. I remember the pastors around here being pretty nice (I attended church in childhood) so they might give her some consolation. She's attended church more frequently recently so I'll suggest that the next time she goes. And yeah, I know there's not going to be a quick resolution for all of this...The pessimist in me says that this will drag on for years if nothing works so I've mentally prepared myself for that. DX
Post by: Rolan7 on January 13, 2016, 12:40:49 am
Yeah, if you commit wholly to anti-theism (being sure there is no god), you'll have closed your mind to some extent. I'm anti-theist but I'm not suggesting that for you. Just stay rational. Believe things because there are good arguments for them. Keep freethinking. If that leads you to God or gods? Great! I won't agree with you but I'll have the utmost respect, and will listen to you as a peer....nobody, no matter how rational, is immune to being indoctrinated. Just look at how many brilliant people embrace religions. It's hardcoded in the human mind. It's necessary to either avoid it, or to face it head on. To look at the apologetic arguments, and the rebuttals, and decide for yourself. To stay rational.
But that's the rub. I feel that once I commit to either Atheism or Christianity, that room for being rational will disappear. Committing to one side pushes out the other so I've never wanted to face that kind of commitment. But then again, I've got a lot of my life ahead of me so we'll see...
Just please don't squander your intelligence. If the tables were turned, and antitheism was the predominant belief, the right course would be the same... Think for yourself. Being skeptical is purely virtuous, even if you have to hide it. Even though it's difficult.
Beware all brainwashing, not just religion.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 13, 2016, 01:01:01 am
I'm...not sure I follow. I'll have to read more into Ecclesiastes and digest this.Ecclesiastes is essentially nihilistic literature, with a lot of passages that appear to contradict many popular Christian ideas. In other words, it's a lot of fun to bring up when discussing Christianity and watching as people fumble around to explain it.
But that's the rub. I feel that once I commit to either Atheism or Christianity, that room for being rational will disappear. Committing to one side pushes out the other so I've never wanted to face that kind of commitment. But then again, I've got a lot of my life ahead of me so we'll see...I pride myself on being a very rational Christian, unfortunately that mostly results in admitting that my faith is irrational.
Post by: Tiruin on January 13, 2016, 01:40:36 am
[...] That nobody, no matter how rational, is immune to being indoctrinated. Just look at how many brilliant people embrace religions. It's hardcoded in the human mind. It's necessary to either avoid it, or to face it head on. To look at the apologetic arguments, and the rebuttals, and decide for yourself. To stay rational.Err, this bit is very misleading. :-\ It's lacking the criticality of noting the subjects it mentions (and lacking specificity to the attitude it claims to be hardcoded. When you're working with concepts and how concepts are being accepted into the field of logic...please don't mix up how the process works. >_<
If you just sit there in church with nothing else to pay attention to, you will eventually believe. That's what hymns do, and fellowship, and sheer boredom. Lack of external stimuli is the core of brainwashing. That's WHY THEY DO IT.
That's where fear comes in--when you're uncertain of the specifics you're facing. Commitment does not mean the lack of rationality (nor do those who follow a religion mean they are any where less rational than those who don't, atheistic or anti-theistic); the core point lies in how interpretations go and what they mean as a lifestyle habit (which in regards to you and your mother, talk it over with the pastors there)....nobody, no matter how rational, is immune to being indoctrinated. Just look at how many brilliant people embrace religions. It's hardcoded in the human mind. It's necessary to either avoid it, or to face it head on. To look at the apologetic arguments, and the rebuttals, and decide for yourself. To stay rational.
But that's the rub. I feel that once I commit to either Atheism or Christianity, that room for being rational will disappear. Committing to one side pushes out the other so I've never wanted to face that kind of commitment. But then again, I've got a lot of my life ahead of me so we'll see...
Um ._. IO, and DDP...I'd like y'all to beware using the idea of mentally ill (when you're pertaining to 'something this person does repeatedly and attached-ly'). It's...misleading (and pathologizing x_x) because it's not covering 'why' she does that, the many possibilities that can be done to work with it, and the context which makes this happen (and many other factors that lead me to nudge the use of those terms).Religion and children both tend to be high-concern, low-thought topics, which breeds a lot of needless bullshit in regards to them. Placing the two together is a recipe for bad things for no reason, so at some point you might just have to accept that she's mentally ill and will remain unhappy because of that.
I know, right? Me and her are on good terms in literally everything else but every time she brings this up it creates nothing but strife. You weren't far off on your mentally ill guess, either. She suffers from chronic anxiety so avoiding this subject might be the best approach...
The anxiety, though, can be really worked on [See note above on Talking this over with your pastors.] since it is bound to concepts and interactions/interpretations. [If she is concerned about your soul being damned forever because you do not attend church, totally bring this up with your Pastors since you may need a trustworthy third-party to help you there. And this thread really won't help you solve the problem since we can't fully see what's going on there.]
I pride myself on being a very rational Christian, unfortunately that mostly results in admitting that my faith is irrational.High-five much? :P I disagree on the latter part, and agree more on 'people's interpretations may lead to irrationality'. A lack of rationality can only be said when the only one method being used, is the only one method being described.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 13, 2016, 01:51:18 am
... Tiruin, you're great, but I really don't understand what you're saying this time ):[...] That nobody, no matter how rational, is immune to being indoctrinated. Just look at how many brilliant people embrace religions. It's hardcoded in the human mind. It's necessary to either avoid it, or to face it head on. To look at the apologetic arguments, and the rebuttals, and decide for yourself. To stay rational.Err, this bit is very misleading. :-\ It's lacking the criticality of noting the subjects it mentions (and lacking specificity to the attitude it claims to be hardcoded. When you're working with concepts and how concepts are being accepted into the field of logic...please don't mix up how the process works. >_<
If you just sit there in church with nothing else to pay attention to, you will eventually believe. That's what hymns do, and fellowship, and sheer boredom. Lack of external stimuli is the core of brainwashing. That's WHY THEY DO IT.
I'm advising free thought and skepticism. I'm also pointing out that churches brainwash, or let's say "indoctrinate". And that even the smartest people can be swayed by these tactics given enough time, pressure, and sensory deprivation.
But I'm also saying not to jump on the antitheist bandwagon, even though I think it's correct. So what's wrong?
Post by: Bohandas on January 13, 2016, 01:52:31 am
I'm gonna go with my fallback suggestion here, which is to quote Ecclesiastes (http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/1-2.htm) all the time
I'm...not sure I follow. I'll have to read more into Ecclesiastes and digest this.
Ecclesiastes is a book in the bible which for the most part promotes a nihilistic worldview. While it asserts the existence of God it states that many other points of religious faith, in particular the afterlife and the idea that there exists such a thing as the meaning-of-life, are questionable at best. Also it could probably be used to argue in favor that "just going through the motions" of worship is sufficient, as its view on worship is (this explanation is extremely simplified, btw) that it should be done not because it's worthwhile - especially not in this life - but because there's not anything worthwhile to do anyway.
Post by: Bohandas on January 13, 2016, 01:58:32 am
Now let them give us two oxen; and let them choose one ox for themselves and cut it up, and place it on the wood, but put no fire under it; and I will prepare the other ox and lay it on the wood, and I will not put a fire under it. Then you call on the name of your god, and I will use a butane lighter and gasoline, and the God who answers by fire, He is God
Post by: Tiruin on January 13, 2016, 02:03:01 am
... Tiruin, you're great, but I really don't understand what you're saying this time ):I love you too, dude. x3
But...um, my messy wording aside, what I mean is the word 'indoctrinated' is...a bit more of a presumption, given how you worded your stuffs there. Or how you say, a superlative (given that it implies a lacking critical nature towards what beliefs you will inculcate) :O People can believe a religion, and be rational. People can also not believe in a religion and be rational.
I'm advising free thought and skepticism. I'm also pointing out that churches brainwash, or let's say "indoctrinate". And that even the smartest people can be swayed by these tactics given enough time, pressure, and sensory deprivation.Uhhh ._. I think what seems wrong (but isn't wrong as in 'you mentioning it = wrong') is how your wording follows.
But I'm also saying not to jump on the antitheist bandwagon, even though I think it's correct. So what's wrong?
...
It's like one of those old behaviorism interrogation methods by that kind of wording. xD (But I can get what you mean)
What's lacking is the scope of how far it applies. :) There are many churches which advocate understanding of the religion they follow (because that's pretty much important and ethical...in as much as there are churches which follow-to-the-point because 'it's what is written down here' [not-that-much-noticing that they're already following an interpretation]), but that's a whole field of generalizing which I won't get into because of how unspecific it goes.
Free thought and skepticism is totally ok :D People do that no matter where they are, but context is just as important as how you follow with free thought and skepticism (it's also that vocalism also gives room to how much exposure they receive, and this influences how their concepts go.). Like in DDP's example--his mother just wants the best for him, and that includes his immortal soul o_o That's something we can't fully advise him in because of the context of his situation which remain unknown to us, and the experiences that influence him/her. So...my point was that, advise shouldn't be dictative, but more for understanding.
With regard to science vs. religion, here is an experiment I would like to attempt if I ever get the resources:In which the experiment is more literal than anything else [God gave you fire via butane lighter and gasoline{...}]. :P
Now let them give us two oxen; and let them choose one ox for themselves and cut it up, and place it on the wood, but put no fire under it; and I will prepare the other ox and lay it on the wood, and I will not put a fire under it. Then you call on the name of your god, and I will use a butane lighter and gasoline, and the God who answers by fire, He is God
But yeah .__. Not the best way to introduce a discussion, that one.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 13, 2016, 02:25:09 am
When I spoke of churches, I was speaking of those that put people into a room with nothing to do but listen to a preacher. Providing constant distraction with loud memetic music, and maybe constantly distracting people's thoughts by having them stand up and sit down.
That scenario is an optimal indoctrination situation. Community pressure, sensory deprivation, confusion, and very loud repetitive claims from an authority figure.
But that's just my experience from Baptist church. Maybe other churches or denominations don't do that?
I *think* they do, but I don't really know.
That wasn't all my church did, to be fair. There were Bible studies as well. They took place on Wednesdays, AFTER church, at people's houses instead of church. Those were fun, rational discussions. Even though nobody questioned the book (openly), there was still disagreement and actual discussion. It was nothing like the preaching, which was simply literally indoctrination.
And that preaching was terrifying to me, then and now. As terrifying as if I was in 1984 being forced to participate in 2 Minute Hate, except it lasts an hour. I don't want to be brainwashed, and I don't think I'm immune.
In case this isn't clear, I think I would have been an excellent Mormon, Muslim, Catholic, or Puritan... I simply got lucky and had parents who (despite both being Christian!) let me grow up without indoctrination.
I feel drawn to such doctrines, like something's missing. It's very scary. Particularly since I'm not drawn to any particular one. That's why I'm sure it's just a weakness, one I'm especially vulnerable to.
Edit: And that's largely why I feel the need to argue against them, rationally. I shouldn't need reasons not to adopt these doctrines, but it helps to have reasons.
Edit2: I say "lucky" but I'm convinced I would be happier serving a doctrine. It's just how I am. I satisfy it with my work and my fucked up family, instead.
Post by: TD1 on January 13, 2016, 09:08:57 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 13, 2016, 09:13:54 am
EDIT: I have no idea who else is the "Son of David, King of Jerusalem"
Post by: Fenrir on January 13, 2016, 09:19:51 am
Given insanity has been defined as doing the same thing many times and expecting different results, does prayer fit the bill?That's a terrible definition of insanity. And I think most religious people expect prayer to be a crapshoot anyway.
Post by: DragonDePlatino on January 13, 2016, 09:33:16 am
Given insanity has been defined as doing the same thing many times and expecting different results, does prayer fit the bill?
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein
To be honest, I'm not sure that quote could be applicable to religion. If I recall correctly, in the original context Einstein was talking about the scientific method. And if you think about it, the scientific method is pretty insane. You come up with a hypothesis, prove yourself right via testing, then spend the rest of your life repeating the experiment and trying to prove yourself wrong. In contrast to religion, science revolves around constantly trying to prove itself wrong. It is...insanity.
Post by: hops on January 13, 2016, 10:25:27 am
Post by: Graknorke on January 13, 2016, 12:20:39 pm
Post by: Grimlocke on January 13, 2016, 02:03:04 pm
Okay, I think I understand better. Thanks!
When I spoke of churches, I was speaking of those that put people into a room with nothing to do but listen to a preacher. Providing constant distraction with loud memetic music, and maybe constantly distracting people's thoughts by having them stand up and sit down.
That scenario is an optimal indoctrination situation. Community pressure, sensory deprivation, confusion, and very loud repetitive claims from an authority figure.
But that's just my experience from Baptist church. Maybe other churches or denominations don't do that?
I *think* they do, but I don't really know.
That wasn't all my church did, to be fair. There were Bible studies as well. They took place on Wednesdays, AFTER church, at people's houses instead of church. Those were fun, rational discussions. Even though nobody questioned the book (openly), there was still disagreement and actual discussion. It was nothing like the preaching, which was simply literally indoctrination.
And that preaching was terrifying to me, then and now. As terrifying as if I was in 1984 being forced to participate in 2 Minute Hate, except it lasts an hour. I don't want to be brainwashed, and I don't think I'm immune.
In case this isn't clear, I think I would have been an excellent Mormon, Muslim, Catholic, or Puritan... I simply got lucky and had parents who (despite both being Christian!) let me grow up without indoctrination.
I feel drawn to such doctrines, like something's missing. It's very scary. Particularly since I'm not drawn to any particular one. That's why I'm sure it's just a weakness, one I'm especially vulnerable to.
Edit: And that's largely why I feel the need to argue against them, rationally. I shouldn't need reasons not to adopt these doctrines, but it helps to have reasons.
Edit2: I say "lucky" but I'm convinced I would be happier serving a doctrine. It's just how I am. I satisfy it with my work and my fucked up family, instead.
I'd guess that any person with an inclination to thinking stuff through is going to find some pretty massive loopholes in any religious doctrine.
Yet there is a fairly large number of people who do quite a bit of thinking while still holding to some religion or another. I imagine that would require some 'double thinking', hooray for 1984 and useful references!
That said I think you may be overestimating the strength of doctrine. It's terribly vulnerably to people thinking on their own, which is why religions and police states in both past and present have highly discouraged it would rather you leave that to your local priest/party member.
Lots of religious groups have been stepping away from that kind of mentality though so if you feel the need for something spiritual in your life you can always see if there are any more moderate sects nearby, or even just practice religion without the need for churches and priests. Their usefulness has always been debatable anyway.
What I'm trying to say is, spirituality does not necessarily require dogma and institute, and anyone who can think for themselves won't be that happy with dogma anyhow.
Post by: Frumple on January 13, 2016, 02:36:06 pm
What version would you suggest? I've read some pretty old literature so I wouldn't mind reading the King James Bible if that's the most accurate and/or popular one. Or should I try one of the newer versions?NIV is the better version these days, iirc. Think there's a couple other ones that at least don't screw up as much as the KJV does, too. KJV is probably still more popular, but it does things like manage to screw up the ruddy 10 Commandments, among other issues -- it's something I'd recommend to pretty much no one at this point, save to see what many others are (unfortunately) reading. While you're at it, you might want to pick up the Vedas (generally a much more fun read than the biblical texts, which is why I'd recommend them first), maybe a few other holy books for flavor. Even if many of them are full of really nasty stuff, there's still a lot of rather aesthetically pleasing writing and good moral/spiritual lessons among the mess.
In any case, if you're looking for spiritual insight of substantial note, you're not going to find it limiting yourself to one belief system. Shop around, as the saying goes, and realize there's truths to be found in nigh on everything, but the likelihood of any one thing having the Truth is essentially nil. No text written by the hand of man can fully express the will of the divine, no matter how inspired those words are.
As for the whole commitment thing... just. Don't? There's no real need, save as a psychological salve for other people, and a lie works just as well there as actual investment, with considerably less needless personal sacrifice. If your parent's worried about your soul, you could always give a try of gently reminding them that it's God that decides what happens on that front, not them, not the church, and not you, and that you feel that chaining yourself to a single denomination is against its plan for you. Things will go according to its plan, and attending church or proclamation of adherence to a particular denomination will no more change that than you can lift a mountain with one hand. Could even be a true statement, ha.
Post by: Arx on January 13, 2016, 03:04:17 pm
As for reading the Bible, plus one to the NIV. It's a very good, very tight translation. Good News and... NRSV, I think, are a little worse for hard study but easier reading if the exact phrasing and translation doesn't matter that much to you. I'd rather have an NIV in an argument, though.
I'd avoid the KJV, except to see the differences. It uses pretty archaic English and has some (IIRC) straight-up mistranslations. It's got quite a nice poetic style to it which I enjoy reading sometimes, but I'd say one of the biggest weaknesses of the Skeptic's Annotated is that it's based on the KJV.
Biblegateway.com and biblehub.com are good online resources. Particularly Biblehub lets you easily compare translations of a passage, which is nice.
Obviously I think you should believe, but telling you that doesn't help much. :P Knowing what you want to do is good. Making an informed decision is also good.
Post by: inteuniso on January 13, 2016, 03:09:14 pm
I guess that's my problem with Christianity, and all human religion. They haven't actually fixed the problems we have been dealing with for millenia and the largest religions primary tenet is "it will get better when you're dead." Anyway, suppose it doesn't matter. With how fast the world is changing we'll probably have brand new religions in nine years.
Post by: Arx on January 13, 2016, 03:20:56 pm
I'm wondering if the whole sacrifice of Isaac story was fabricated by the Council of Nicaea.
Nope. It's in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are at a conservative estimate two centuries older than the Council of Nicaea, and at a liberal estimate closer to six.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 13, 2016, 03:41:18 pm
What version would you suggest? I've read some pretty old literature so I wouldn't mind reading the King James Bible if that's the most accurate and/or popular one. Or should I try one of the newer versions?I'd Recomend the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) It is not as well known as some of the others, but it is very colsely translated to the original Hebrew/Greek that the Bible was written.
Post by: Bohandas on January 13, 2016, 03:45:10 pm
Thanks for the replies, everyone.There is no resolution that will leave both of you happy.
Uuuuugh! I feared that might have been the case. I'll give the prostration thing a shot, though. Even if I don't get spiritual insight from reading the Bible it'll lend me more insight into how others view the world. What version would you suggest? I've read some pretty old literature so I wouldn't mind reading the King James Bible if that's the most accurate and/or popular one. Or should I try one of the newer versions?
Why settle for one? Use Biblehub's paralell translations, either of five side-by-side translations of whole chapters (http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/9.htm) or well over a dozen translations of individual verses (http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/25-17.htm).
I'm partial to Young's Literal Translation (YLT) (http://biblehub.com/ylt/revelation/6.htm) and Berean Literal Bible (http://biblehub.com/blb/revelation/6.htm) myself though
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 13, 2016, 03:56:34 pm
Upon reading up on Carthaginian Child Sacrifice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Carthage#Child_sacrifice) and the new camp that says that it's probably a blood libel the Romans came up with, I'm wondering if the whole sacrifice of Isaac story was fabricated by the Council of Nicaea.
... if you scroll down you'll see that there's too much awful evidence of Carthagian child sacrifice for it to be just the product of propaganda.
Post by: DragonDePlatino on January 13, 2016, 04:28:55 pm
After looking through my options I've settled on the New King James Version. It uses the same design principles and source as KJV, but with much more modern language like NIV. There's also a nice series of readings (https://www.youtube.com/user/GodCENTEREDLives/videos) online so I can listen while drawing. Right now, I'm midway through the Gospel of Mark and it's been very interesting. Mark 4:16 (http://biblehub.com/mark/4-16.htm) really jumped out at me because it felt like it was specifically addressed towards people like me.
@Arx
Thanks. One of the greatest things about Christianity is how open it is to interpretation with things like this. I'll keep these passages in mind and bring them up in our next discussion. And don't worry, I don't plan to make an informed descision about my faith until I've poured through every last word of this book. :)
@origamiscienceguy
@Bohandas
So many options! Even though I've committed to this version, I'll definitely have to look through these other versions. Translation accuracy has always been a favorite subject of mine. (Blame Clyde Mandelin)
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 13, 2016, 04:41:26 pm
Personally I go with NIV most often, but I use biblegateway.com so I can switch around to any translation I want. Though I usually only check multiple translations when I'm picking at specific language. I have a paper Bible too that I like (it's a very well made book) and it's Today's New International Version. I have no idea what the differences are between that and the regular NIV.
Post by: wierd on January 13, 2016, 04:44:03 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 13, 2016, 04:48:54 pm
You might be thinking of a different site. I've accidentally ended up on similar-but-worse Bible sites many times.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 13, 2016, 04:53:34 pm
NIV is the better version these days, iirc.NIV is considered more accessible, but the ESV is a better translation, and is what I would recommend. King James is cool-sounding, so I lean towards that one for presentations and such, although it retains a few errors.
Post by: Tiruin on January 14, 2016, 02:21:57 am
It's not applicable there, because of the unspoken context that gives credit to the quote being lost due to how prevalent its use is nowadays [especially for superficial prevalence, or "[I'll use this quote because it makes sense with my statement]" x_xGiven insanity has been defined as doing the same thing many times and expecting different results, does prayer fit the bill?
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein
To be honest, I'm not sure that quote could be applicable to religion. If I recall correctly, in the original context Einstein was talking about the scientific method. And if you think about it, the scientific method is pretty insane. You come up with a hypothesis, prove yourself right via testing, then spend the rest of your life repeating the experiment and trying to prove yourself wrong. In contrast to religion, science revolves around constantly trying to prove itself wrong. It is...insanity.
@ArxAlways be reminded of context so some words won't be lost due to association with modern definitions. :) Many people...accidentally misinterpret many verses due to incomplete context. x_x
Thanks. One of the greatest things about Christianity is how open it is to interpretation with things like this. I'll keep these passages in mind and bring them up in our next discussion. And don't worry, I don't plan to make an informed descision about my faith until I've poured through every last word of this book. :)
Post by: Bohandas on January 14, 2016, 02:44:42 am
Given insanity has been defined as doing the same thing many times and expecting different results, does prayer fit the bill?
I don't think you can counter a platitude with another platitude
EDIT:
Or was it that you can only counter a platitude with another platitude?..
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 14, 2016, 03:35:57 am
Post by: Graknorke on January 14, 2016, 04:34:56 am
the entire point of empirical science is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different resultsWhat no it isn't? It's about doing smilar things with slight differences to try and find what factors relate to what outcomes and in what way.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 14, 2016, 04:46:51 am
Post by: Graknorke on January 14, 2016, 05:00:09 am
Details, details.Yes, exactly! Well, or sometimes when you realise the whole model was wrong but that doesn't happen too often.
Post by: Bohandas on January 14, 2016, 10:07:18 am
Does the "original" in "original sin" simply mean "first" as I had always assumed, or is the word being misused to imply "pertaining to origins", like what we are, where we've come from, etc.?
Post by: Reelya on January 14, 2016, 10:28:09 am
The concept seems linked to the Greek concept of "ancestral fault", i.e. sin passed down to your descendants, so it would seem that "original sin" = "the source of all sin", not necessarily just "the first sin".
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 14, 2016, 10:35:01 am
Post by: TD1 on January 14, 2016, 11:20:43 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 14, 2016, 11:24:07 am
Post by: Rolan7 on January 14, 2016, 11:42:52 am
Post by: Egan_BW on January 14, 2016, 11:50:30 am
Satan≠GodCitation needed.
Post by: Frumple on January 14, 2016, 12:14:17 pm
Metaphysically, insofar as christianity goes the source of sin is kinda' necessarily God, regardless as to if Satan (or whatever else) is the primary source of inculcation or not, because God in christian metaphysics is the source of everything. The serpent was God's creation, the inclination towards sin in the garden was God's design, etc., etc. The closest way of sidestepping that that exists, so far as I'm aware, is considering sin to be a lack (generally of God's presence, or something along those lines), but even that falls fairly flat -- God would have made the conditions for the lack, as well. God being the source of sin is kinda' axiomatic to the metaphysics in question.
The rebellion thing is pretty much entirely extra-biblical, so far as I can recall -- genesis makes no mention of rebellion, if my memory's not failing me (which, being fair, it might -- I just woke up from a nap), and the adversary (/adversaries) are shown elsewhere in the texts to be subordinate to God's will (as everything is). There's just not really all that much canonical support for it, heh.
That said, satan as the source of sin (for whatever reason) and whatnot is a relatively common belief among individual denominations. It's just one of those kinda' fanfic-y ones, heh.
Post by: martinuzz on January 14, 2016, 12:33:01 pm
Surely the ultimate source of sin is God?Ofcourse, God is almighty, and created everything. Satan is God's creation as well, he even used to be his favourite angel, Lucifer, keeper of light.
So yeah, if Satan's rebellion brought sin to earth, God is most definitly to blame for that.
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 14, 2016, 01:05:16 pm
Apparently Milton interpreted a verse in Revelation to be about pre-Genesis times, wrote it into Paradise Lost, and you know the rest. Bible scholars nowadays seem to agree that it refers to a war during the End Times or that it's a metaphor. But pop Christianity is pretty disconnected from Bible scholars, so Satan's Rebellion lives on because it's a good story.
Post by: Arx on January 14, 2016, 01:24:08 pm
he even used to be his favourite angel, Lucifer, keeper of light.
This is also a claim that needs to be sourced.
Post by: martinuzz on January 14, 2016, 01:49:32 pm
I don't claim anything, I'm an agnost, but here's a link with some info on the concept in abrahamic religions. Note that that wiki was written either by someone who's bad at grammar, or more likely someone who is heavily biased by his own religion, but it still has at least some basic info.he even used to be his favourite angel, Lucifer, keeper of light.This is also a claim that needs to be sourced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_angel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_angel)
Post by: Arx on January 14, 2016, 02:07:00 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on January 14, 2016, 02:12:00 pm
[Old discussion snipped]
Is that all supported by the Bible, though?
For instance, as someone already pointed out, Lucifer is only mentioned in the Bible once - Isaiah 14:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/14.html#12
There's a lot of evidence that Lucifer, Light-Bringer, meant the current King of Babylon.Quote from: Isaiah 1414:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!So far, looks like Satan. Matches the story of Satan leading fallen angels in rebellion, though I haven't checked for Biblical basis of that story yet.
14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
But then:Quote from: Isaiah 1414:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.Future tense - the subject hasn't been cast into hell yet.Quote from: Isaiah 1414:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;The subject is a "man". Note that angels have fearsome, inhuman visages such as being made of burning wheels.Quote from: Isaiah 1414:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?The subject had a prison (despite not being in Hell yet) and is being blamed for not opening it. And he destroyed cities. An unjust king could do these things. Satan never destroyed cities (just God), and he doesn't have the ability to release souls from Hell. And again, the subject isn't even in Hell yet, so it's definitely not the prison being referred to.Quote from: Isaiah 1414:18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.The subject will not be buried with other kings of nations, because he destroyed his land and killed his people. Clearly he was a mortal king.
14:19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
14:20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
I haven't read the relevant apocrypha though, so there may be some basis for an Archangel Lucifer there. I think that's where the story of the angelic rebellion comes from.
But even if that's so, I think it would be a different Lucifer than in Isaiah 14.
Post by: martinuzz on January 14, 2016, 02:32:11 pm
Yep, and that wiki page bears me out. Lucifer may refer to an angel, but is more likely just the King of Babylon. Further, assuming the angel interpretation to be true, there's little to suggest that he/she/xe/it (I think angels are genderless?) is/was favoured of God.There's a reference to him being one of the archangels. The archangels were god's first, and favourite angels. Combine that with the tradition back in those days that names weren't just names, they almost always had meaning. Lucifer literally translates to bearer/keeper of light.
Then again, I claim nothing. I don't believe in the myth, so I can't claim it to be true. I just note, out of scholarly interest, that there are ancient abrahamic scriptures that could be interpreted to point at Satan originally being and archangel named Lucifer(or rather, the Hebrew word for that).
Post by: Fenrir on January 14, 2016, 03:48:11 pm
Post by: Graknorke on January 14, 2016, 03:49:44 pm
Post by: Descan on January 14, 2016, 04:02:25 pm
Satan is a fallen angel -> God causes Satan to fall
Satan is the cause of sin -> God is the cause of Satan -> God is the cause of sin
Post by: TD1 on January 14, 2016, 04:05:18 pm
Angels don't have free will -> God causes them to fall
Satan is a fallen angel -> God causes Satan to fall
Satan is the cause of sin -> God is the cause of Satan -> God is the cause of sin
I haven't checked this thread in a bit, but that's what I was saying in my previous post.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2016, 04:14:43 pm
I'm pretty sure the standard way Christians deal with god being the originator of sin is some "free-will" handwaving.That's not what sin means though
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 14, 2016, 04:41:57 pm
Isaiah 14:12-15 "How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations! For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet you shall be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."
And God gave the Angels free will as well, and it was Satan's Pride (see above) that stated sin in the angels, and then brought it to humans. God didn't create Satan with sin, but he gave him free will which Satan used foolishly.
Post by: Telgin on January 14, 2016, 04:53:40 pm
Quote
God didn't create Satan with sin, but he gave him free will which Satan used foolishly.
Or is it possible that Satan was created to betray God to set things in motion? After all, wouldn't Satan have known it was impossible to overthrow God? What would the point have been?
I find it interesting that some people say that Judas effectively did the same thing and betrayed Jesus because he had to in order to move things along. It's not a completely crazy viewpoint.
Post by: martinuzz on January 14, 2016, 05:01:47 pm
Quote from: Isaiah 1414:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;The subject is a "man". Note that angels have fearsome, inhuman visages such as being made of burning wheels.
When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. — Genesis 6:1-4https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God)
Clearly angels must have had more humanlike avatars. Kinda hard to make love to a burning wheel of fire. Being described as a man did not exclude angels back then.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 14, 2016, 05:18:30 pm
Where did the idea that angels had no free will but humans did come from anyway? Was it supposed to be part of the explanation on why God created humans when angels already existed? I don't remember it ever being stated in the Bible anywhere at least.Satan is not all knowing, so he did not know for certain that he couldn't overthrow God. He tied to get many angels on his side (there is a verse I think that says he got about 1/3 of all the angels) but God is all knowing, and all powerful so Satan didn't have a chance. Satan probably should have known that he couldn't ovethrow God, but his pride probably made him do foolish things.QuoteGod didn't create Satan with sin, but he gave him free will which Satan used foolishly.
Or is it possible that Satan was created to betray God to set things in motion? After all, wouldn't Satan have known it was impossible to overthrow God? What would the point have been?
I find it interesting that some people say that Judas effectively did the same thing and betrayed Jesus because he had to in order to move things along. It's not a completely crazy viewpoint.
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 14, 2016, 05:26:01 pm
Quote from: Revelation 12:1-6
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.
Once again, it's highly metaphorical and pretty much everyone agrees it's talking about the apocalypse, not pre-genesis. But if you trust that John Milton was divinely inspired or just heard this cool story somewhere, it can be about Satan's Rebellion.
Post by: Telgin on January 14, 2016, 05:26:52 pm
Unless God created him specifically for that purpose, maybe. Not too unlike characters in a video game, in a sense. "Go and be bad for my amusement."
Or maybe the whole idea of Satan really is just an odd amalgamation of ideas that had nothing to do with each other and got mixed together through the years by mistake or to explain things like the serpent in Genesis.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2016, 05:30:02 pm
That's kind of what I was saying though. How could it not be obvious that God was undefeatable? He basically snapped His fingers to make the universe exist, so... He could do the same thing to get rid of Satan and any of his followers, right?When I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do so
Unless God created him specifically for that purpose, maybe. Not too unlike characters in a video game, in a sense. "Go and be bad for my amusement."
Or maybe the whole idea of Satan really is just an odd amalgamation of ideas that had nothing to do with each other and got mixed together through the years by mistake or to explain things like the serpent in Genesis.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 14, 2016, 05:31:44 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 14, 2016, 05:51:26 pm
When I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do soBut if you also designed the dorf's AI then you're going to have a fair idea of what they're likely to do
God allowed Satan and all the other angels free will.sauce pls
Post by: martinuzz on January 14, 2016, 06:00:56 pm
sauce plshttp://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187791-d2285269-i136158845-Pietro_al_Pantheon-Rome_Lazio.html
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 14, 2016, 06:02:32 pm
Jude 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day
Post by: TD1 on January 14, 2016, 06:09:52 pm
After all, God works in mysterious ways is a house hold response to bad/strange/unbelievable things God does.
Clearly angels must have had more humanlike avatars. Kinda hard to make love to a burning wheel of fire. Being described as a man did not exclude angels back then.
Hey, if Johnny Cash could manage it, so can we.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 14, 2016, 06:12:34 pm
Post by: martinuzz on January 14, 2016, 06:13:46 pm
Hey, if Johnny Cash could manage it, so can we.drat, I did think of adding "except if you're Johnny Cash" but didn't
Post by: Telgin on January 14, 2016, 06:16:04 pm
When I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do soBut if you also designed the dorf's AI then you're going to have a fair idea of what they're likely to do
This. It's come up in the thread a few times by now I believe, but the idea is that God knows exactly what Satan will do under all circumstances, so by engineering the circumstances like He did, He effectively made Satan for that purpose. Otherwise He could have done things differently.
Unless you subscribe to the idea that God isn't omniscient or omnipotent, which again might not be an unreasonable claim. As has been discussed so many times in this thread, making God less than omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent removes a lot of these issues.
Either way, God probably had a very, very good idea of what would happen. Depending on whether you believe God to be omniscient, it's kind of like writing a book and making Satan the designated villain, or creating a video game character with a high level of jealousy / ambition / pride, making him second banana and sitting back to watch the inevitable fireworks.
The bible says that God is good in several places. So either you believe that God and that bible are infallible, or both are not. And you and I are in the opposite boats.
I don't think it would be hard to accept that the Bible is fallible. If it can be mistranslated... isn't that already fallibility?
Also, one could always argue that God's definition of good is different from ours, I suppose. I've seen that argument floated a few times.
Post by: TD1 on January 14, 2016, 06:17:35 pm
The bible says that God is good in several places. So either you believe that God and that bible are infallible, or both are not. And you and I are in the opposite boats.
Oh, any time I make theories than involve God existing I'm playing Devil's Advocate anyway. (see what I did there? :P)
The Bible was made by men, and then translated by men. It was made in many different parts, sometimes generations apart, then stitched together by Bishops in 4th Century Rome. Assuming God exists, he may be infallible - men, however, are not.
Anyway, I don't call most of what God does in the OT good. Either you agree, or you think that mass murder and rape is good, or you don't think the Bible is infallible.
Beat ya to it I'm afraid. At least you're not a boy named Sue.Hey, if Johnny Cash could manage it, so can we.drat, I did think of adding "except if you're Johnny Cash" but didn't
Post by: Antioch on January 14, 2016, 06:28:55 pm
Apparently there were no angels that disliked working under God for all of eternity and wanted to do their own thing or something. Apparently it is either submission to God or into hell with the ones that like horrible crimes.
So basically any angels that would have simply wanted an ideal such as "freedom" (not really an odd thing to want when you have freedom of will) would have been cast down as a sinner into hell.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2016, 06:31:16 pm
Read Toady's devlog to see why that's wrongWhen I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do soBut if you also designed the dorf's AI then you're going to have a fair idea of what they're likely to do
I quite dislike the "with or against us" attitude all the Christian mythology has.First rule of Abrahalalism is thou shalt have no big cheese besides me
Post by: Rolan7 on January 14, 2016, 06:36:37 pm
Yeah, I concede that point. I wonder how humanlike they actually were, but it doesn't matter - they are clearly describable as men.Quote from: Isaiah 1414:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;The subject is a "man". Note that angels have fearsome, inhuman visages such as being made of burning wheels.When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. — Genesis 6:1-4https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God)
Clearly angels must have had more humanlike avatars. Kinda hard to make love to a burning wheel of fire. Being described as a man did not exclude angels back then.
I also remember now that the people of Sodom wanted to sleep with Lot's angel-guests. Though... that city was pretty deviant :P
Also, if any angel is particularly good at appearing human, I think it would be Satan!
I think my other points are strong though. He was destined for hell in the future, yet is blamed for imprisoning people in the present. And he won't be buried with other kings specifically because he's been bad.
The bible says that God is good in several places. So either you believe that God and that bible are infallible, or both are not. And you and I are in the opposite boats.Sure, the Bible says that he is good. It doesn't say he's virtuous, and he doesn't need to be, because he wrote the law and made himself an exception.
He calls *himself* wrathful
and jealous,
is monumentally prideful,
took a day off despite being omnipotent (not to mention the last 1800-2000 years),
demands sweet-smelling sacrifices of meat and blood,
demands a tithe,
and unnecessarily impregnated a married woman.
If he was just a superpowered mortal he would be guilty of every deadly sin by his own laws. Plus a TON of death, rape, and torture on his specific order. Despite all this he is, by definition and only be definition, absolutely good. Because he said so, supposedly.
Of course any non-Christian or freethinking Christian is free to look at this character and judge him as evil. Maybe these parts of the Old Testament are unreliable stories from a warlike desert tribe and God didn't do this stuff. Maybe the Cathars (or various gnostics) were right and God is an evil that can be escaped through virtue. Lots of options.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2016, 06:40:47 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on January 14, 2016, 06:49:51 pm
It never explicitly states it, but since some amount of angels (maybe 1/3, but it doesn't really matter) chose to sin, and God is all good, then it must mean that the angels chose it of their own accord and therefore have free will.I do agree with this though, angels appear to have free will. While "free will" is a weird and nebulous concept, surely beings without free will can't rebel. Like, by definition.
Jude 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day
I think the Quran says they don't, or maybe just the Djinn (who apparently serve Satan in this tradition) don't.
Post by: Telgin on January 14, 2016, 07:30:53 pm
Edit:
Read Toady's devlog to see why that's wrongWhen I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do soBut if you also designed the dorf's AI then you're going to have a fair idea of what they're likely to do
I was going to say something about God being much smarter than any human, but you know... maybe this is a compelling argument that the universe is an artificial simulation set up by God and it got out of control.
Post by: wierd on January 14, 2016, 10:35:02 pm
When I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do soBut if you also designed the dorf's AI then you're going to have a fair idea of what they're likely to do
This. It's come up in the thread a few times by now I believe, but the idea is that God knows exactly what Satan will do under all circumstances, so by engineering the circumstances like He did, He effectively made Satan for that purpose. Otherwise He could have done things differently.
Unless you subscribe to the idea that God isn't omniscient or omnipotent, which again might not be an unreasonable claim. As has been discussed so many times in this thread, making God less than omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent removes a lot of these issues.
Either way, God probably had a very, very good idea of what would happen. Depending on whether you believe God to be omniscient, it's kind of like writing a book and making Satan the designated villain, or creating a video game character with a high level of jealousy / ambition / pride, making him second banana and sitting back to watch the inevitable fireworks.The bible says that God is good in several places. So either you believe that God and that bible are infallible, or both are not. And you and I are in the opposite boats.
I don't think it would be hard to accept that the Bible is fallible. If it can be mistranslated... isn't that already fallibility?
Also, one could always argue that God's definition of good is different from ours, I suppose. I've seen that argument floated a few times.
this is missing another obvious solution, and the solutions tendered, again, fall into the "good is defined by what makes my pleasure center activate", and not "satisfaction of god's wishes."
That missing option goes like this:
Yes, God created the adversary/satan for the purpose of testing human kind. The purpose of human kind is to ultimately become like god is, or as close as any created being can become so. Since God does not play the hipocrite, he does not violate his own rules or plans. This is ultimately why he does not tend toward producing flashy miracles, except where necessary to assure the culmination of this objective (No, he isnt going to bring your wife back from the dead just because you keep pestering him, etc. any more than the petulant 3 year old will get a 10lb bag of candy if they keep pestering thier parent. The parent may indulge on halloween, but once a year is very spread out in time to a 3 year old.) The way the world was created, was done purposefully and with foreknowledge of all events. God intervened when it was essential and necessary, knowing in advance what would be required, when and where. The assertion that since god knows this information, that he could have done "better", boils down to "better == activates my pleasure centers", and not "better == better at producing beings ultimately capable of properly being like him and living harmoniously like him."
Often used biblical example: spanking.
A parent can know, in advance, that a child is going to break a specific rule. Say, "dont take cookies from the cookie jar without permission." The temptation of cookies, to a very young child, may well be irresistable. The logic you are trying to use will paint any parent with a cookie jar in the home, who has kids, as an evil, mean parent if they likewise institute a "no sneaking cookies" rule. This makes sense if you are a butt hurt little kid, getting spanked for sneaking cookies; mommy and daddy are just plain meanies for having cookies in reach and not sharing them, and doubly so for KNOWING that you would want one, and that you would try to take one, and punishing you anyway with a slap on the bottom.
The parent has cookies as a "sometimes treat." They tell the child not to just take cookies, because they want the child to grow up to be a sensible adult with impulse control. They are well aware that the child will try to sneak the cookies, but keep both the cookie jar, and the no cookie sneaking rules. The parents are not evil, but instead loving, because they both provide cookies as is sensible, and also teach their child impulse control by discouraging hedonistic consumption.
Another may be the parent of a teenager, who knows the teen will try to sneak out of the house. Similar story there.
The argument that god, being all knowing and all powerful, can be neither because he fetters himself with internal rules to govern his actions, is absurd. I am capable or being a bank robber, but am not one because I choose not to be because I consider doing such things reprehensible for a wide assortment of reasons. Likewise, God does not do certain things, for similar reasons. I dont need to go rob a bank for you to prove that I am capable of being a bank robber. Why do you insist that God engage in highly contrary behavior to his objective goals just to satisfy you?
EG, please abandon "3 year old wants cookie damnit" mode.
God's plan is not for people to sit around all day strumming harps, but instead to rule the universe along side him as "adult" children. That is a very big responsibilty, and he provides ample testing in our mortal childhoods to assure we are ready for that task.
that's my take on the biblical narrative anyway.
Basic premise:
God has a complete and total understanding of sin, and willfully chooses to abstain from it, because he has determined that engaging in those kinds of actions has seriously negative consequences.
He intends for you to become like him, both in power and in mindset. He wants you to have a complete understanding of sin, and to willfully choose to abstain from it, having determined that engaging in those kinds of actions has seriously negative consequences.
To accomplish that goal, he created a testing center, the earth, to test his child-creations. He created the source of sin to seed the test environment with sin, so that his child-creations can experience it, and decide that yes-- sin is a bad thing and should be abstained from.
This process has unavoidable (since god does not break his own rules, despite being capable of doing so) consequences, such as people being addicted to sin, and choosing the very bad consequences instead of choosing to abstain. This is lamentable, and the bible has many references to god feeling great sadness over this. However it is again unavoidable for god to acheive his goal.
What is "good" by gods standard in this case, is for humans to learn about sin first hand, and choose to abstain from it. Not for humans to sin endlessly, and bitch about why god institutes consequences for it, or to bitch about how if god wants us to live sinless lives, why he introduced sin to us.
good != activates my pleasure centers
good == promotes responsible independent desicion making and behavior, in accordance with god.
sometimes being responsible is no fun at all. Accepting that is part of being responsible.
What greater responsibility is there than being a god? Maybe now you will better understand why god wants more then just a theoretical understanding of why sin is bad from you, and tests you on earth.
at least, that has been the deeper understanding I have gained from tearing at the bible anyway.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2016, 10:43:27 pm
On paper it should all play out according to the formula, but there's a lot of possibilities, and some of them are weirdI was going to say something about God being much smarter than any human, but you know... maybe this is a compelling argument that the universe is an artificial simulation set up by God and it got out of control.Read Toady's devlog to see why that's wrongWhen I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do soBut if you also designed the dorf's AI then you're going to have a fair idea of what they're likely to do
I bet God didn't even want life to appear on Earth and just wanted the Universe as a powder game simulation
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 14, 2016, 10:48:58 pm
snipThat is a very good explanation. Quick question: When you said God wanted us to become as close to him as possible, what did you mean?
Post by: Rose on January 14, 2016, 11:09:53 pm
Post by: Descan on January 14, 2016, 11:51:56 pm
I'm gonna answer for him for this, though of course he can answer this himself:snipThat is a very good explanation. Quick question: When you said God wanted us to become as close to him as possible, what did you mean?
My favourite interpretation of religion, and one I'd follow if I were inclined towards magical thinking. (http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html)
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 15, 2016, 12:15:36 am
I quite dislike the "with or against us" attitude all the Christian mythology has.It's even funnier because Jesus said "if they are not against us then they are for us", which is a slightly awkwardly phrased way of saying that everyone who doesn't persecute Christians is our friend.
...
I only skim-read it, but it sounds like he means close to God in the tradition Christian sense of closeness to God - i.e., abstaining from sin, engaging in prayer and suchlike.snipThat is a very good explanation. Quick question: When you said God wanted us to become as close to him as possible, what did you mean?
Honestly, I don't agree with that interpretation, but tbf most people don't really want to get behind the idea of a god who is notably cruel.
Post by: Frumple on January 15, 2016, 01:03:02 am
I do agree with this though, angels appear to have free will. While "free will" is a weird and nebulous concept, surely beings without free will can't rebel. Like, by definition.They can definitely be forced to abandon their positions of authority and whatnot, though. Go through all the motions of rebellion even if their will is set against it.*
Not really sure you can make the argument they couldn't have been forced to rebel outright as well, either... that (unfortunate) bit of retconning with the pharaoh paints the christian god as something entirely willing to strip something of its free will and screw with its head when the godcritter feels like there's a need. It may have been that the angels had free will, did not want to rebel, and was not given a choice. Or that they left heaven on god's command, or any number of things along those lines.
And yeah, the whole teaching/testing/responsibility thing kinda' falls apart in... quite a great number of situations. At least unless reincarnation is actually a thing (which, to be fair, some christian denominations hold to, to various degrees) -- soul can't exactly pick up much in the way of lesson from dying in utero, or starving before they can walk, or so on. Plus the thing's own actions flies in the face of that pretty hard -- there's not exactly a lesson to be learned from getting genocided, having your children murdered, your pregnant wives ripped apart, etc., etc., etc. If th'thing's intent is teaching it's really gorram bad at it. Either that or the people that wrote the text really screwed up the transcription, heh.
... it'd make a sort of sense that instead of cruel, the thing's just incredibly incompetent, though. Like, all powerful, all knowing, all good, but... kind of stupid (to the point of not figuring out how to use that omnipotence to fix the problem), and not really that good at using the tools available. Would explain a hell of a lot. Would also kinda' slot in with how we're really bad at dealing with information overload -- maybe we were substantially made in its image, and it's basically spent the last ever being mostly crippled by the omniscience. Less cruelty, more flailing migraine seizure.
*E: Well, set against it or nonexistent. As always, it's possible the people writing the text misinterpreted what happened, and saw rebellion or abandonment where there was only obedience.
Post by: Telgin on January 15, 2016, 01:09:10 am
*snip*
Using punishment to improve someone's behavior makes sense under the circumstances you described, yeah. If you don't have complete control over someone and want to discourage them from being bad, then it makes sense. So, if you're trying to raise humanity to be more mature and refuse to just manhandle them into it, then that's a valid option.
The spanking analogy kind of falls apart if you believe in an eternal afterlife though. To me at least, it seems extremely cruel to allow someone to have less than eternal bliss in exchange for misbehaving during a finite period of their life, when you could have stopped it completely by intervening directly. If you don't believe that Hell is a place that humans go, or believe that all humans go to Heaven or nowhere, then it's not such a big deal.
That's the difference for a parent disciplining their kid. Even if they set up a situation just to teach their kid a lesson, they have only limited control over their future and are just using the best tools they have.
Anyway, the thing about all of this is that it still kind of leaves open the questions of why God created us and why He thinks it's so important for us to find our own way in the universe. Why not just show us the answer / program us to know it instinctively?
Ultimately it's unknowable I guess. Why God does anything is unknowable, kind of like how His definition of good is probably very different from any human's, as terrifying as the thought is.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 15, 2016, 01:15:31 am
I do agree with this though, angels appear to have free will. While "free will" is a weird and nebulous concept, surely beings without free will can't rebel. Like, by definition.They can definitely be forced to abandon their positions of authority and whatnot, though. Go through all the motions of rebellion even if their will is set against it.
Not really sure you can make the argument they couldn't have been forced to rebel outright as well, either... that (unfortunate) bit of retconning with the pharaoh paints the christian god as something entirely willing to strip something of its free will and screw with its head when the godcritter feels like there's a need. It may have been that the angels had free will, did not want to rebel, and was not given a choice. Or that they left heaven on god's command, or any number of things along those lines.
Yeah it could all be theater, with God pulling the strings...
The bit with Pharoah had a clear purpose, though. Vindictive and atrocious (the firstborn) but a purpose: Demonstrating God's power to the Israelites. And to the Egyptians (except that they conveniently kept no record of the Jews ever even being present).
The war in heaven wasn't observed by mortals, though. And demons don't show up much in the Bible... I think they possessed some pigs, and drove a man into a raving fit? Which Jesus took care of in front of witnesses. But surely there was more to this elaborate production than *that*... Maybe not though.
Post by: Frumple on January 15, 2016, 01:24:41 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 15, 2016, 01:29:52 am
Alternatively, he knew he couldn't overthrow God but, being of free will and wanting things to go in accordance with God's plan, which required an adversary to test His creations, rebelled, presenting such a high degree of subservience instead as pride to make the charade all the more convincing, perhaps eventually forgetting the original reason, and thereby fulfilling his role as both he and God intended.Where did the idea that angels had no free will but humans did come from anyway? Was it supposed to be part of the explanation on why God created humans when angels already existed? I don't remember it ever being stated in the Bible anywhere at least.Satan is not all knowing, so he did not know for certain that he couldn't overthrow God. He tied to get many angels on his side (there is a verse I think that says he got about 1/3 of all the angels) but God is all knowing, and all powerful so Satan didn't have a chance. Satan probably should have known that he couldn't ovethrow God, but his pride probably made him do foolish things.QuoteGod didn't create Satan with sin, but he gave him free will which Satan used foolishly.
Or is it possible that Satan was created to betray God to set things in motion? After all, wouldn't Satan have known it was impossible to overthrow God? What would the point have been?
I find it interesting that some people say that Judas effectively did the same thing and betrayed Jesus because he had to in order to move things along. It's not a completely crazy viewpoint.
To sacrifice one's soul for the sake of God is a far greater burden than merely the body. Judas Christ, in Hell forever for our sins.
Here's a notion: What if God is testing us for some utterly up fathomable purpose even higher than He is (even if it's just as simple as 'get on my level, punks'), but doesn't want us to succeed because then we would have to leave Him or change irrevocably to something which is not us, and His love is so great that this would be as unbearable as not helping us to succeed. So he rigs the test to be asymptotic.
Side note: Or Ra is a particularly powerful angel/demon which has been referred to as a god, but is not the God.
Oh! Other thing. Explanation of evil for an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent entity if you believe in multiverse theory. He instantiates all possible universes with a sum total of good. This includes universes that do include some evil. We happen to be in one of them. (And yes, it's a shitton of universes given the tiny changes one can make. We did say omnipotent)
Post by: Frumple on January 15, 2016, 01:38:49 am
Side note: Or Ra is a particularly powerful angel/demon which has been referred to as a god, but is not the God.In that case, you'd have something subordinate to god in power violating something's free will, which... would instead replace the first bit of that catch 22 with "is not omnipotent" :P
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 15, 2016, 01:45:48 am
Humans violate each other's free will all the time. Literally forcing someone to do something, or changing their mind through wheedling tactics, or mind-affecting drugs...it still happens. If God doesn't prevent it, that just means he's not stopping them from using their free will to commit sin. 'Hardened his heart' could as easily mean a little whispering voice in the back of his head telling them how all those Jews are such terrible people and don't you remember the last time you listened to some whack job with a two-bit spirit backing him up?
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 15, 2016, 01:57:41 am
The war in heaven wasn't observed by mortals, though. And demons don't show up much in the Bible... I think they possessed some pigs, and drove a man into a raving fit? Which Jesus took care of in front of witnesses. But surely there was more to this elaborate production than *that*... Maybe not though.I dunno, between the prophets and apostles, there's something like a few thousand instances of demons being driven out. Not all are recorded in detail, obviously, but much like Jesus' miracles, many are just mentioned in passing; "and then he went to X place and drove out many many demons and healed like two dozen blind men".
Post by: Rolan7 on January 15, 2016, 02:21:31 am
Oh, yeah I forgot about those. So perhaps the existence of demons throughout history was to allow Jesus and the saints to drive them out, showing their power? I don't know if the apostles did, but I think saints are supposed to have that power.The war in heaven wasn't observed by mortals, though. And demons don't show up much in the Bible... I think they possessed some pigs, and drove a man into a raving fit? Which Jesus took care of in front of witnesses. But surely there was more to this elaborate production than *that*... Maybe not though.I dunno, between the prophets and apostles, there's something like a few thousand instances of demons being driven out. Not all are recorded in detail, obviously, but much like Jesus' miracles, many are just mentioned in passing; "and then he went to X place and drove out many many demons and healed like two dozen blind men".
(Unrelated rant deleted. Suffice to say I'm still afraid of Christianity. I think it's only as nice as it is, which isn't honestly much, because it's temporarily weakened.)
(I'd say it's better than Shariah law at least, but... Comparing the two religions at their heights...)
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 15, 2016, 02:27:25 am
Post by: Tiruin on January 15, 2016, 03:35:11 am
The same is true of any philosophy, Rolan. That's how the brain works. If your tribe is in power, that means it's your turn to get back at all those jerks who oppressed your ancestors. Or keep them from getting power so they can get back at your for something that totally wasn't your fault, you never even got to meet grand-dad. Can go for non-religious philosophies too, up to and including rationality. It's just not in power (though Science is, in large part, and most denial of that goes to show how deeply embedded it is that we consider it not in power because it isn't stronger...and science unfortunately uses something similar to this quite a bit. Less formalized, more focused internally, thankfully, but there's a lot of issues that self-perpetuate and result in a lot of unhappy people)>_>
"That's how the brain works." is very misleading to say, in the least.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 15, 2016, 09:04:04 am
All of the apostles drove out the demons in Jesus' name. In fact, as far as I remember, all of their miracles were done in Jesus' name. So the apostles made it clear that they themselves didn't have the power, but only God did.Oh, yeah I forgot about those. So perhaps the existence of demons throughout history was to allow Jesus and the saints to drive them out, showing their power? I don't know if the apostles did, but I think saints are supposed to have that power.The war in heaven wasn't observed by mortals, though. And demons don't show up much in the Bible... I think they possessed some pigs, and drove a man into a raving fit? Which Jesus took care of in front of witnesses. But surely there was more to this elaborate production than *that*... Maybe not though.I dunno, between the prophets and apostles, there's something like a few thousand instances of demons being driven out. Not all are recorded in detail, obviously, but much like Jesus' miracles, many are just mentioned in passing; "and then he went to X place and drove out many many demons and healed like two dozen blind men".
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 15, 2016, 07:22:11 pm
What? The human brain is a complex thing adapted first and foremost to social stuff, not rationalization. Rationality results in things like birth control and convoluted schemes and existential crises. That's not good for replication. :P
Or did I just get off topic in the ensuing rant?
Post by: TD1 on January 15, 2016, 07:27:43 pm
The power to drive out demons in the name of someone is still a mighty power. I mean, it may be directed from some other source, but it's still wielded by the Apostles. Were I to encounter the demon-possessed, I'd be pig food. I don't think "help me God" would work. Didn't for all the ones Jesus helped, anyway - needed the personal touch.All of the apostles drove out the demons in Jesus' name. In fact, as far as I remember, all of their miracles were done in Jesus' name. So the apostles made it clear that they themselves didn't have the power, but only God did.Oh, yeah I forgot about those. So perhaps the existence of demons throughout history was to allow Jesus and the saints to drive them out, showing their power? I don't know if the apostles did, but I think saints are supposed to have that power.The war in heaven wasn't observed by mortals, though. And demons don't show up much in the Bible... I think they possessed some pigs, and drove a man into a raving fit? Which Jesus took care of in front of witnesses. But surely there was more to this elaborate production than *that*... Maybe not though.I dunno, between the prophets and apostles, there's something like a few thousand instances of demons being driven out. Not all are recorded in detail, obviously, but much like Jesus' miracles, many are just mentioned in passing; "and then he went to X place and drove out many many demons and healed like two dozen blind men".
Post by: Grimlocke on January 15, 2016, 07:47:07 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 15, 2016, 07:50:25 pm
It takes much faith in order to do so. If any of us (me included) encountered any demon possessed people, I know I wouldn't have the faith to try to dive the demon out. I'd expect it to fail and probably be too terrified to try. (thankfully, I don't think I've encountered any demon-possessed people. Although my mother has a story whee she thinks she met one.) Anyways, Faith in God's power has given the apostles power to perform miracles through Christ including, walking on water, driving out demons, and healing the sick. I find it hard to believe that these days many people (if any) have anywhere near the amount of faith as the apostles did back in the day because they actually saw Jesus do all the miracles and stuff. But probably though shallow reading of the bible, they assume that they have the power to heal.The power to drive out demons in the name of someone is still a mighty power. I mean, it may be directed from some other source, but it's still wielded by the Apostles. Were I to encounter the demon-possessed, I'd be pig food. I don't think "help me God" would work. Didn't for all the ones Jesus helped, anyway - needed the personal touch.All of the apostles drove out the demons in Jesus' name. In fact, as far as I remember, all of their miracles were done in Jesus' name. So the apostles made it clear that they themselves didn't have the power, but only God did.Oh, yeah I forgot about those. So perhaps the existence of demons throughout history was to allow Jesus and the saints to drive them out, showing their power? I don't know if the apostles did, but I think saints are supposed to have that power.The war in heaven wasn't observed by mortals, though. And demons don't show up much in the Bible... I think they possessed some pigs, and drove a man into a raving fit? Which Jesus took care of in front of witnesses. But surely there was more to this elaborate production than *that*... Maybe not though.I dunno, between the prophets and apostles, there's something like a few thousand instances of demons being driven out. Not all are recorded in detail, obviously, but much like Jesus' miracles, many are just mentioned in passing; "and then he went to X place and drove out many many demons and healed like two dozen blind men".
Wow. I digress quite a lot.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 15, 2016, 08:39:18 pm
Post by: Bohandas on January 16, 2016, 12:55:25 am
Alternatively, he knew he couldn't overthrow God but, being of free will and wanting things to go in accordance with God's plan, which required an adversary to test His creations, rebelled, presenting such a high degree of subservience instead as pride to make the charade all the more convincing, perhaps eventually forgetting the original reason, and thereby fulfilling his role as both he and God intended.Where did the idea that angels had no free will but humans did come from anyway? Was it supposed to be part of the explanation on why God created humans when angels already existed? I don't remember it ever being stated in the Bible anywhere at least.Satan is not all knowing, so he did not know for certain that he couldn't overthrow God. He tied to get many angels on his side (there is a verse I think that says he got about 1/3 of all the angels) but God is all knowing, and all powerful so Satan didn't have a chance. Satan probably should have known that he couldn't ovethrow God, but his pride probably made him do foolish things.QuoteGod didn't create Satan with sin, but he gave him free will which Satan used foolishly.
Or is it possible that Satan was created to betray God to set things in motion? After all, wouldn't Satan have known it was impossible to overthrow God? What would the point have been?
I find it interesting that some people say that Judas effectively did the same thing and betrayed Jesus because he had to in order to move things along. It's not a completely crazy viewpoint.
To sacrifice one's soul for the sake of God is a far greater burden than merely the body. Judas Christ, in Hell forever for our sins.
Here's a notion: What if God is testing us for some utterly up fathomable purpose even higher than He is (even if it's just as simple as 'get on my level, punks'), but doesn't want us to succeed
I believe that's (basically) the premise of Gnosticism
Post by: Bohandas on January 16, 2016, 12:56:50 am
Read Toady's devlog to see why that's wrongWhen I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do soBut if you also designed the dorf's AI then you're going to have a fair idea of what they're likely to do
Yeah, but he's not also omniscient.
Post by: Fenrir on January 16, 2016, 01:30:57 am
Entertaining thought I had: god might not actually know anything at all, at least not how we use the term. Why would you need to build a mental model of reality if you have instantaneous and direct access to reality unbounded by time? There's no need to maintain state if you have no latency and you never lose access to anything, and there is no need to predict anything if you can always see the outcome.Read Toady's devlog to see why that's wrongWhen I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do soBut if you also designed the dorf's AI then you're going to have a fair idea of what they're likely to do
Yeah, but he's not also omniscient.
Post by: Bohandas on January 16, 2016, 02:12:47 am
Entertaining thought I had: god might not actually know anything at all, at least not how we use the term. Why would you need to build a mental model of reality if you have instantaneous and direct access to reality unbounded by time? There's no need to maintain state if you have no latency and you never lose access to anything, and there is no need to predict anything if you can always see the outcome.Read Toady's devlog to see why that's wrongWhen I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do soBut if you also designed the dorf's AI then you're going to have a fair idea of what they're likely to do
Yeah, but he's not also omniscient.
I've considered similar ideas as well. A truly omniscent being would have paradoxially have no need to think. It would never need to process information, only to access it.
This is the one tiny concession I'll grant to double-talking ID advocates who claim that god is actually "simple"/"non-complex". It's not much of a concession though as even the greatest thinking mind would be absolutely dwarfed in complexity simply by the data contained in an omnipotent mind; especially one that is also eternal (effective omniscience could be achieved with only the set of all knowledge that's actually going to ever come up, which is likely to be finite for a finite being, but an eternal being on the other hand may be reasonably be expected to encounter a transfinite number of different situations). Complete memorization of every digit of Graham's Number alone would account for more complexity than the entire solar sysyem and in fact quite likely even more complexity than the entire observable universe, let alone memorization of every digit of pi...
Post by: Fenrir on January 16, 2016, 02:32:43 am
Well, this conception of god has problems for ID advocates, since "design" implies some kind of thinking and planning ahead going on. Which doesn't mesh well with gods supposed timelessness, though. If god is timeless as I've heard a lot of theists assert, the idea of god gets nonsensical pretty quickly.Entertaining thought I had: god might not actually know anything at all, at least not how we use the term. Why would you need to build a mental model of reality if you have instantaneous and direct access to reality unbounded by time? There's no need to maintain state if you have no latency and you never lose access to anything, and there is no need to predict anything if you can always see the outcome.Read Toady's devlog to see why that's wrongWhen I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do soBut if you also designed the dorf's AI then you're going to have a fair idea of what they're likely to do
Yeah, but he's not also omniscient.
I've considered similar ideas as well. A truly omniscent being would have paradoxially have no need to think. It would never need to process information, only to access it.
This is the one tiny concession I'll grant to double-talking ID advocates who claim that god is actually "simple"/"non-complex". It's not much of a concession though as even the greatest thinking mind would be absolutely dwarfed in complexity simply by the data contained in an omnipotent mind; especially one that is also eternal (effective omniscience could be achieved with only the set of all knowledge that's actually going to ever come up, which is likely to be finite for a finite being, but an eternal being on the other hand may be reasonably be expected to encounter a transfinite number of different situations). Complete memorization of every digit of Graham's Number alone would account for more complexity than the entire solar sysyem and in fact quite likely even more complexity than the entire observable universe, let alone memorization of every digit of pi...
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 16, 2016, 03:28:00 am
Post by: Reelya on January 16, 2016, 05:00:56 am
I gotta say that with all the biblical mythology being discussed... The old polytheistic religions had way better stories.
It's comparable to a TV show where there's a large ensemble cast and you can have episodes focusing on different character's relationships vs a TV show where one superpowered protagonist solves all possible problems and always gets the girl in every episode.
Post by: Fenrir on January 16, 2016, 05:15:22 am
Design implies that because that's the way we think of design. Semantics arguments don't really work once you start taking in context. For a timeless being, 'design' is a metaphor at best. Much the same way evolution isn't actually a thing, it's a shorthand way of referring to the tautology that in an environment with limited resources, replicators that are better at replicating will replicate more effectively and come to dominate said environment. Or how nature doesn't 'want' to reach a lower energy state, it just happens that unstable positions tend towards stability by the simple fact that the more unstable something is, the shorter the period of time it spends that way. Given the ability to move either towards stability or towards instability, one will, over time, win out. Which is why half-lives work the way they do.Yeah, no, "design" implies that because that's what the goddamn word means. And "semantic argument" isn't some catchall objection you can use to dismiss anyone who expects people to use terms that actually have some relationship to what they're trying to say. If someone says something that doesn't make sense, they're not being metaphorical, they're wrong.
And it's obivous that proponents of intelligent design mean the term "design" in the way that everyone else does in most other contexts. "Intelligent" is in the name of the thing, so they clearly mean to indicate that there is some kind of cognitive work going on here. ID rhetoric is full of references to cleverness and planning. One of their favorite things to do is to compare the natural world to human-manufactured objects as "proof" of some kind of grand designer.
So, no, I'm not buying the "metaphor" dodge. Even if I accepted your point, all you'd be saying is that god is too mysterious and ID advocates are just using aribitrary words and don't really know what it is they're talking about, which isn't a terribly good defense.
Post by: Bohandas on January 16, 2016, 12:01:37 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 16, 2016, 12:13:19 pm
Which, to me, is missing the point. Intelligent design also means 'well-crafted', in reference to systems specifically. Argument based on 'timeless, thus it can't/doesn't need to plan, thus it can't design, thus your system is false' is missing a step in the logic chain. Something being made in a way such that it accomplishes the purposes you desired for it to is an example of intelligent design. Whether or not it's being thought of in the same way we think about things is beside the point. You specifically said it 'implies' that. You did not say it is defined as that. My point here is that implications are not arguments. They're implications. 'Intelligent' in this context means it was not random, nor was it defined by an interminable process. Choosing how to define a word and then telling someone that their shorthand name for a set of ideas and theories doesn't fit when using that definition is not actually accomplishing anything.
If someone says something that doesn't make sense, the first step is not to assume they're wrong. The first step is to assume you misunderstood them. Principle of Charity. If you ask for clarification and it still doesn't make sense, then maybe you can assume they're wrong. But 'well that sounds stupid, so the idea itself must also be stupid' is not the proper way to go about debating.
Another way to look at it would be that human rationality is aspiring towards the perfect Rationality of God, which would make it perfectly sensible to compare man-made objects to natural ones. We don't have perfect information, but we try to have good information. It doesn't prove anything, mind you, just an interesting thought.
SIDENOTE: Bohandas, don't you dare. Don't you dare cross those streams. This is already pressurized oil. We don't need to have napalm thrown on. You want to make that comparison, do it in a thread about social justice. Please.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 16, 2016, 12:57:59 pm
Has anyone else noticed that the similarity between adultery as defined by Matthew 5:28 and rape as defined by social justice warriors?Do you want this thread to get locked?
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 16, 2016, 07:18:16 pm
No, that's an interesting observation. The difference is that as adultery, the emphasis is on the action of the lustful person as being unfaithful; whereas as "rape" the emphasis is on the person being lusted after as a victim.Has anyone else noticed that the similarity between adultery as defined by Matthew 5:28 and rape as defined by social justice warriors?Do you want this thread to get locked?
Post by: Rolan7 on January 16, 2016, 07:42:37 pm
If I wasn't busy, I might go into how this is an example of the New Testament introducing thoughtcrime. With the justification that only the absolved can enter Heaven (and be cleansed of their natural impurities?) but also the threat of eternal suffering for those who don't sign up.
Judaism/the Old Testament doesn't mention Heaven as a reward or Hell at all that I know of. This new doctrine is evidence of evolution in action, in my opinion.
And Jesus may sound nice when he offers to save us from Hell, but keep in mind that he also *told* us of Hell, a new concept. And he's sorta literally the person sending us there:
Quote from: Matthew 3:12
His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
And also
Quote from: 2 Thessalonians
1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
If you're going to worship Jesus, understand that it's under threat of something worse than death. A threat even worse than the many slaughters God committed in the Old Testament.
A natural response would be to abandon the Trinity and worship Jesus as a savior *from* God. Those who believed this were slaughtered to the man, but that can't happen right now. Maybe soon, if we don't dissent, but not now.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 16, 2016, 10:01:41 pm
If you're going to worship Jesus, understand that it's under threat of something worse than death. A threat even worse than the many slaughters God committed in the Old Testament.I've basically been saying this the whole time but everyone keeps going on about God is love etc.
A natural response would be to abandon the Trinity and worship Jesus as a savior *from* God. Those who believed this were slaughtered to the man, but that can't happen right now. Maybe soon, if we don't dissent, but not now.Gnosticism is an idea that I've toyed with in the past, but I'm not really comfortable adopting it, given that the gospels make it very clear that Jesus is doing the Father's will, not his own.
Also I can't really see the Church taking over again middle-ages style; I'd be more worried about social justice insanity than that.
Post by: Bohandas on January 16, 2016, 10:17:23 pm
Huh. I don't know if that's the only difference, but it is an interesting one I hadn't considered.
If I wasn't busy, I might go into how this is an example of the New Testament introducing thoughtcrime. With the justification that only the absolved can enter Heaven (and be cleansed of their natural impurities?) but also the threat of eternal suffering for those who don't sign up.
Judaism/the Old Testament doesn't mention Heaven as a reward or Hell at all that I know of. This new doctrine is evidence of evolution in action, in my opinion.
And Jesus may sound nice when he offers to save us from Hell, but keep in mind that he also *told* us of Hell, a new concept. And he's sorta literally the person sending us there:Quote from: Matthew 3:12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
And alsoQuote from: 2 Thessalonians1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
If you're going to worship Jesus, understand that it's under threat of something worse than death. A threat even worse than the many slaughters God committed in the Old Testament.
A natural response would be to abandon the Trinity and worship Jesus as a savior *from* God. Those who believed this were slaughtered to the man, but that can't happen right now. Maybe soon, if we don't dissent, but not now.
Jehovah is an alien and still threatens this planet!
EDIT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0x9ymMQUg8#t=07m34s
Post by: Frumple on January 16, 2016, 10:19:19 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 16, 2016, 10:29:12 pm
Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."
Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 16, 2016, 10:38:07 pm
On the original note I wanted to make, Christianity is really interesting to me because it's like a puzzle with one extra piece. It almost always makes perfect sense except for one small thing. Usually that small thing is something crucial for it to be considered good, true, and unfathomably inevitable. If God is actually incompetent but at heart, trying, everything is basically explained. If God isn't actually good, just insecure, bored, and eternal, a lot is explained. If God is essentially mindless, or knows far more than we but not literally everything, quite a bit can be explained.
Also, I don't know if this happens to anyone else, but whenever I get engrossed in a well-made fictional setting with it's own religions or the like, since my family isn't religious, when I come back to the real world mentally I always find Christianity to be super weird. Fictional religions can be much more consistent, what with being created by a single person and all.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 16, 2016, 11:01:29 pm
Wait what you have to physically say it, it's not just about internal faith? What.I have actually never thought about that. I would have to take a closer look at the greek to see if it means that.
On the original note I wanted to make, Christianity is really interesting to me because it's like a puzzle with one extra piece. It almost always makes perfect sense except for one small thing. Usually that small thing is something crucial for it to be considered good, true, and unfathomably inevitable. If God is actually incompetent but at heart, trying, everything is basically explained. If God isn't actually good, just insecure, bored, and eternal, a lot is explained. If God is essentially mindless, or knows far more than we but not literally everything, quite a bit can be explained.
Also, I don't know if this happens to anyone else, but whenever I get engrossed in a well-made fictional setting with it's own religions or the like, since my family isn't religious, when I come back to the real world mentally I always find Christianity to be super weird. Fictional religions can be much more consistent, what with being created by a single person and all.
And yes, the supernatural world is not supposed to make sense to humans. For example, if you read any part of Revelation, it seems that John is trying to describe a rainbow to a blind person. A Supernatural Wold making perfect sense actually seems kind of contradictory to me.
Post by: Grimlocke on January 16, 2016, 11:21:47 pm
Which, to me, is missing the point. Intelligent design also means 'well-crafted', in reference to systems specifically. Argument based on 'timeless, thus it can't/doesn't need to plan, thus it can't design, thus your system is false' is missing a step in the logic chain. Something being made in a way such that it accomplishes the purposes you desired for it to is an example of intelligent design. Whether or not it's being thought of in the same way we think about things is beside the point. You specifically said it 'implies' that. You did not say it is defined as that. My point here is that implications are not arguments. They're implications. 'Intelligent' in this context means it was not random, nor was it defined by an interminable process. Choosing how to define a word and then telling someone that their shorthand name for a set of ideas and theories doesn't fit when using that definition is not actually accomplishing anything.
That is... just not what Intelligent Design is. Its claiming that a deity designed this universe, usually in a Christian context, and usually brought up as a fairly desperate counter to evolution.
Even though the base concepts of both theories don't even overlap ID often gets mixed in with other bunk about divine intervention being needed for things like eyes to develop.
Its seems to have been invented by the idiotic lot that tries to weasel god into every bit of education they can, by turning god into some kind of pseudo-science. I think its the same ones that made a 'creationism museum'. I really have a strong distaste for pseudo-science.
Anyhow, its bunk invented by bunk people for a bunk political purpose. Religious and metaphysical debates are good fun and all but they really need to stay out of science and politics.
Post by: Telgin on January 16, 2016, 11:26:19 pm
A funny thing I realized when trying to build a fictional religion of my own is that it's pretty hard to make it distinctly different from Christianity or the traditional pantheon concept. It seems like there should be so much you can do with religions, but people keep falling back into the standard trappings.
Huh... now I have to wonder if fictional religions are on topic here? That could be an interesting topic.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 16, 2016, 11:30:24 pm
I'd make a separate thread.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 16, 2016, 11:31:21 pm
One could argue that it makes fictional religions less believable to be so internally consistent. It's like a lot of world building in fiction: it's hard to introduce the wrinkles and quirks that any culture picks up over time. Christianity and most / all real world religions are the same. After literally thousands of years of being passed around, it's bound to be weird.But the New Testament hasn't changed almost at all since it's inception.
A funny thing I realized when trying to build a fictional religion of my own is that it's pretty hard to make it distinctly different from Christianity or the traditional pantheon concept. It seems like there should be so much you can do with religions, but people keep falling back into the standard trappings.
Huh... now I have to wonder if fictional religions are on topic here? That could be an interesting topic.
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 16, 2016, 11:31:59 pm
Post by: Telgin on January 16, 2016, 11:39:03 pm
One could argue that it makes fictional religions less believable to be so internally consistent. It's like a lot of world building in fiction: it's hard to introduce the wrinkles and quirks that any culture picks up over time. Christianity and most / all real world religions are the same. After literally thousands of years of being passed around, it's bound to be weird.But the New Testament hasn't changed almost at all since it's inception.
A funny thing I realized when trying to build a fictional religion of my own is that it's pretty hard to make it distinctly different from Christianity or the traditional pantheon concept. It seems like there should be so much you can do with religions, but people keep falling back into the standard trappings.
Huh... now I have to wonder if fictional religions are on topic here? That could be an interesting topic.
Doesn't stop people from interpreting things wildly differently. Just look at the difference between Protestants and Catholics, for example. Or the very many different Protestant groups. Traditions mutate within these groups over time even if the scripture doesn't change.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 16, 2016, 11:48:54 pm
Doesn't stop people from interpreting things wildly differently. Just look at the difference between Protestants and Catholics, for example. Or the very many different Protestant groups. Traditions mutate within these groups over time even if the scripture doesn't change.Yeah, there's something like 40 000 denominations of Christianity. Most of those have the same core points in order, though - we are sinners, God hates sin, Jesus was sacrificed that we may be forgiven. It's relatively minor things like baptism and homosex that denominations tend to split over.
...
Fictional religions are pretty cool. I think the idea of technology worship is something sci-fi settings should explore more.Oh, that would be cool. I think I remember something did that a little, actually, although it was more like "this guy's doing miracles lolno it's actually robots". Definitely an interesting topic though.
...
Hm.I don't really mind. If people want to yak about fictitious religions here, go for it. If someone wants to make another thread, go ahead. Just don't do both.
I'd make a separate thread.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 16, 2016, 11:55:00 pm
But most of the interpretations are not actually needed for salvation. So most of them don't really matter.One could argue that it makes fictional religions less believable to be so internally consistent. It's like a lot of world building in fiction: it's hard to introduce the wrinkles and quirks that any culture picks up over time. Christianity and most / all real world religions are the same. After literally thousands of years of being passed around, it's bound to be weird.But the New Testament hasn't changed almost at all since it's inception.
A funny thing I realized when trying to build a fictional religion of my own is that it's pretty hard to make it distinctly different from Christianity or the traditional pantheon concept. It seems like there should be so much you can do with religions, but people keep falling back into the standard trappings.
Huh... now I have to wonder if fictional religions are on topic here? That could be an interesting topic.
Doesn't stop people from interpreting things wildly differently. Just look at the difference between Protestants and Catholics, for example. Or the very many different Protestant groups. Traditions mutate within these groups over time even if the scripture doesn't change.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 17, 2016, 12:08:23 am
Wait what you have to physically say it, it's not just about internal faith? What.I have actually never thought about that. I would have to take a closer look at the greek to see if it means that.
On the original note I wanted to make, Christianity is really interesting to me because it's like a puzzle with one extra piece. It almost always makes perfect sense except for one small thing. Usually that small thing is something crucial for it to be considered good, true, and unfathomably inevitable. If God is actually incompetent but at heart, trying, everything is basically explained. If God isn't actually good, just insecure, bored, and eternal, a lot is explained. If God is essentially mindless, or knows far more than we but not literally everything, quite a bit can be explained.
Also, I don't know if this happens to anyone else, but whenever I get engrossed in a well-made fictional setting with it's own religions or the like, since my family isn't religious, when I come back to the real world mentally I always find Christianity to be super weird. Fictional religions can be much more consistent, what with being created by a single person and all.
And yes, the supernatural world is not supposed to make sense to humans. For example, if you read any part of Revelation, it seems that John is trying to describe a rainbow to a blind person. A Supernatural Wold making perfect sense actually seems kind of contradictory to me.
Oh, I don't mean the supernatural world, per se. Though the angels are insane, but the description of an angel doesn't actually mean anything. I mostly mean all the Jesus-y bits. Old Testament is much more like the 'usual' religions I'm thinking of.
Blood to Wine, Flesh to Bread, hardening pharoah hearts...it's relatively odd, from an external perspective. The quirks aren't really what I mean; all the surreal stories, those I expect from a good religion, whether it's fictional or not. I mean a lot of the underlying things. The basics are the parts that seem kinda weird. I dunno. The more you go back and look at it, the more the feeling disappears.
Post by: Bohandas on January 17, 2016, 12:09:58 am
Fictional religions are pretty cool. I think the idea of technology worship is something sci-fi settings should explore more.
For now here's a partial list of Sci-fi settings that already explore this:
Warhammer 40k (Cult Mechanicus)
Beneath the Planet of the Apes (The Church of Mendez)
Fallout 3 (The Children of Atom)
Paranoia (The Church of Christ Computer Programmer)
Greyhawk (The White Paladins)
Eberron (The Warforged Cults)
Mad Max (The Cult of V8)
Post by: WealthyRadish on January 17, 2016, 02:38:58 am
Blood to Wine, Flesh to Bread, hardening pharoah hearts...it's relatively odd, from an external perspective. The quirks aren't really what I mean; all the surreal stories, those I expect from a good religion, whether it's fictional or not. I mean a lot of the underlying things. The basics are the parts that seem kinda weird. I dunno. The more you go back and look at it, the more the feeling disappears.
For me personally, learning the early history of Christianity changed my outlook on it and other religions quite a bit, and I still do have moments where it feels surreal, despite being familiar. Just the idea that an apocalyptic Jewish cult (of all things) exploded from obscurity, and now here I am 2000 years later on the other side of the world with its influence still everywhere around me, that's enough to get me boggling at how strange life is.
But I guess that could be applied to pretty much any aspect of a person's cultural surroundings, so it isn't just the religion specifically. I could say the same thing about tortillas and cardigans, or the word "orange". Whether it's funny or disturbing I'm not sure.
Post by: wierd on January 17, 2016, 07:06:23 am
Entertaining thought I had: god might not actually know anything at all, at least not how we use the term. Why would you need to build a mental model of reality if you have instantaneous and direct access to reality unbounded by time? There's no need to maintain state if you have no latency and you never lose access to anything, and there is no need to predict anything if you can always see the outcome.Read Toady's devlog to see why that's wrongWhen I send my Dorfs to dig a tunnel and they go berserk and drown everyone that does not necessarily mean it was my intention for them to do so, though it was in their capacity to do soBut if you also designed the dorf's AI then you're going to have a fair idea of what they're likely to do
Yeah, but he's not also omniscient.
I've considered similar ideas as well. A truly omniscent being would have paradoxially have no need to think. It would never need to process information, only to access it.
This is the one tiny concession I'll grant to double-talking ID advocates who claim that god is actually "simple"/"non-complex". It's not much of a concession though as even the greatest thinking mind would be absolutely dwarfed in complexity simply by the data contained in an omnipotent mind; especially one that is also eternal (effective omniscience could be achieved with only the set of all knowledge that's actually going to ever come up, which is likely to be finite for a finite being, but an eternal being on the other hand may be reasonably be expected to encounter a transfinite number of different situations). Complete memorization of every digit of Graham's Number alone would account for more complexity than the entire solar sysyem and in fact quite likely even more complexity than the entire observable universe, let alone memorization of every digit of pi...
When you tie this with information theory, you come to the conclusion that such an entity cannot physically exist inside our universe, because its information density would be greater than the universe's ability to hold such information.
This is just one of the many signs that indicate to me that the christian god must be extradimensional, or at least exists outside of our universe in some kind of hyperspace. From that vantage, our universe (and all of its permutations over time) would appear static, since time would manifest as another spacial dimension. For this reason, and many others, I find the "There is no proof of this being existing (inside this universe), so this being does not exist!" to be a conceit. The implied fallacy being that the universe we inhabit is all that can possibly exist. I reject that notion, especially considering that multiverse theory is totally a thing, and has some limited support in empirical science. By its necessity to exist outside of our universe, we lack any means of testing for it. Due to that being the case, I cannot assert with certainty that it either does or does not exist, any more than I am able to tell you with certainty what the contents of your wallet are, given that I am many hundreds of miles away from you, and have no tools nor means with which to ascertain this information. I cannot even determine if your wallet exists or not. Does that mean I should take the presumption that your wallet is a fantasy? ;)
I personally favor the christian god being non-thinking/non-sentient, but having multiple types of manifestation. The most primal, and most correct being, in my opinion, "the holy spirit"-- it being non-sentient, but perfect and pure. It represents more honestly what the omniscient and omnipotent god actually "is". The second is "god the father", or the manifestation of some purpose or will of this divine force. This is the more executive face of this entity/force-- or more aptly, the diffuse power and knowledge of the holy spirit given a meaningful purpose and will. The last one is "god the son", or "jesus, the christ." et al-- This is the manifestation of compassion and justice. This is more to say, that these apparitions are the interpretations of people, attempting to understand the non-thinking, non-sentient, but all knowing and all powerful omniscient god, which is best described as the holy spirit type manifestation.
In the bible, this "holy spirit" it given as a new kind of instinct, to supplant the dangerous sin instinct that humans have by nature. The Christ figure states that belief in this force grants amazing abilities, eg, "If you have but the faith of a mustard seed, one can move mountains", etc. It is the same power that the Christ wielded, and the mocking/blaspheming of this power/force is the single unforgivable sin. In popular dogmatic teachings in christianity, this force is a kind of compulsion-- it instructs people and tells them to do things, but does so without using words. (If you believe the testimony of various people that can be found on the internet. For some people, it apparently does use words, but for most it is simply an urging to action.) In many places in the bible, this "indwelling of the holy spirit" is synonymous with "indwelling by god". This looks pretty strongly like it is the "true" manifestation of the christian god. This would at least partially explain why there is a prohibition in the bible against creating depictions of god-- a diffuse, abstract god does not have a form to depict, thus any depiction thereof would be incorrect, and possibly blasphemous.
It is likewise important to note that I do not see support for the popular description of "Hell" within the bible. The best I can find in old testament and supporting literature, is the prison of the angels described in Enoch, chapter 21.
Quote
1. And I proceeded to where things were chaotic. 2. And I saw there something horrible: I saw neither a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible. 3. And there I saw seven stars of the heaven bound together in it, like great mountains and burning with fire. 4. Then I said: 'For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?' 5. Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: 'Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? 6. These are of the number of the stars ⌈of heaven⌉, which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years, the time entailed by their sins, are consummated.' 7. And from thence I went to another place, which was still more horrible than the former, and I saw a horrible thing: a great fire there which burnt and blazed, and the place was cleft as far as the abyss, being full of great descending columns of fire: neither its extent or magnitude could I see, nor could I conjecture. 8. Then I said: 'How fearful is the place and how terrible to look upon!' 9. Then Uriel answered me, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said unto me: 'Enoch, why hast thou such fear and affright?' And I answered: 'Because of this fearful place, and because of the spectacle of the pain.' 10. And he said ⌈⌈unto me⌉⌉: 'This place is the prison of the angels, and here they will be imprisoned for ever.'
Note that this is a place of punishment for angels, not people. The "place for people" is described very differently in chapter 22.
Quote
1. And thence I went to another place, and he showed me in the west ⌈another⌉ great and high mountain [and] of hard rock. 2. And there were †four† hollow places in it, deep and very smooth: †three† of them were dark and one bright; and there was a fountain of water in its midst. And I said: '†How† smooth are these hollow places, and deep and dark to view.' 3. Then Raphael answered, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said unto me: 'These hollow places have been created for this very purpose, that the spirits of the souls of the dead should assemble therein, yea that all the souls of the children of men should assemble here. And these places have been made to receive them till the day of their judgement and till their appointed period ⌈till the period appointed⌉, till the great judgement (comes) upon them.' 5. I saw (the spirit of) a dead man making suit, and his voice went forth to heaven and made suit. 6. And I asked Raphael the angel who was with me, and I said unto him: 'This spirit which maketh suit, whose is it, whose voice goeth forth and maketh suit to heaven?' 7. And he answered me saying: 'This is the spirit which went forth from Abel, whom his brother Cain slew, and he makes his suit against him till his seed is destroyed from the face of the earth, and his seed is annihilated from amongst the seed of men.' 8. Then I asked regarding all the hollow places: 'Why is one separated from the other?' 9. And he answered me saying: 'These three have been made that the spirits of the dead might be separated. And this division has been made for the spirits of the righteous, in which there is the bright spring of water. 10. And this has been made for sinners when they die and are buried in the earth and judgement has not been executed upon them in their lifetime. 11. Here their spirits shall be set apart in this great pain, till the great day of judgement, scourgings, and torments of the accursed for ever, so that (there maybe) retribution for their spirits. There He shall bind them for ever. 12. And this division has been made for the spirits of those who make their suit, who make disclosures concerning their destruction, when they were slain in the days of the sinners. 13. And this has been made for the spirits of men who shall not be righteous but sinners, who are godless, and of the lawless they shall be companions: but their spirits shall not be punished in the day of judgement nor shall they be raised from thence. 14. Then I blessed the Lord of Glory and said: 'Blessed art Thou, Lord of righteousness, who rulest over the world.'
From this description, there is only one of these four "compartments" that is in any way resembling the popular hell--
Quote
10. And this has been made for sinners when they die and are buried in the earth and judgement has not been executed upon them in their lifetime. 11. Here their spirits shall be set apart in this great pain, till the great day of judgement, scourgings, and torments of the accursed for ever, so that (there maybe) retribution for their spirits. There He shall bind them for ever.
In context, this seems to refer specifically to people who knew they were sinning, knew about god and the proper law (this text predates the Christ by some 300 years.) , and chose willfully to sin anyway. From the initial description, which applied to all of them collectively, these places are "very smooth" and made of stone. Not made of burning fire, as the angel's prison is. (So, more like a dungeon than firey hell.) The final compartment is much more benign, and is for people who have never heard the law, or heard of god.
Quote
13. And this has been made for the spirits of men who shall not be righteous but sinners, who are godless, and of the lawless they shall be companions: but their spirits shall not be punished in the day of judgement nor shall they be raised from thence.
Granted, that is from an apocryphal source.
In the bible proper, we see in Revelation 20 a description of the final judgement, which does depict a lake of fire into which "hades" and "Death" are consigned, along with the accuser/satan, and those he deceived.
Quote
1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. 4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. 7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
I have highlighted in teal, that those who are martyred are the ones first resurrected, and that these people do not get judged in the "second death." Likewise, those who will be consigned to the lake of fire are not resurrected yet at this time. It is after this 1000 year period where christ reigns with his martyrs, that the deciever is one again released from temporary imprisonment, and allowed to run amok. After which, he causes the whole of the rest of humanity to besiege the kingdom of heaven, and for this they are consigned to the lake of fire with him-- highlighted in yellow.
Pretty much all other places in the bible where "hell" is translated, derives from either "hades" or "Sheol" in the original texts, and better align with the enoch description. Note, that "Death" and "Hades" are thrown into the lake. Those are methaphorical, and likely represent an end to the concepts of death, and the destruction of any residency for dead souls, since death no longer is a thing.
Given the HIGHLY metaphorical nature of Revelation, and the many other references in the bible to "death" and "being unmade", I would likely conclude that the author of this text intends to point out that punishment is being meted out, but that the outcome is more in line with being rendered into a null state of no longer existing, rather than torment, (You cant exactly torture death, now can you?) using the metaphor of a cleansing fire.
References to the imagery used in this text appear all over the bible, with the book of life making a reference as early as Exodus, and the concept of being blotted out from it appearing in exodus 32.
From the perspective of an outsider to this faith, the reference to the lake of fire appears to be derived from the prison for the angels first described in the apocryphal book cited. This concept became altered through changes in popular understanding of the concept, and through interaction with other cultures (EG, greeks and their conception of Hades and Tartarus) into the place of final disposition of unrepentant sinners, along with the satan and his fallen angels.
Amusingly, this ties right back into the "omniscient" god angle, where the omniscient god does not think in the way we properly consider "thinking" to happen in, but simply knows in a timeless state of being. Sin exists, therefor, sin exists timelessly. To god, the existence of sin, however temporary to our perception, is eternal. Committing a sin once, is fundamentally the same as committing it eternally, because the event is eternally etched into time. Likewise, a similar understanding could be derived from this act of disposal; It happens once, and those cast in cease to be afterwards-- but the act itself is just as eternal, and thus "forever and ever". Likewise, the bible describes sin as something that causes suffering, so those committing sins are suffering. Thus to god, suffering is happening, and it is eternal, as a consequence of sin existing.
A great deal makes much more sense when considering god as a timeless construct that simply "is", rather than as an anthropomorphized agency.
This interpretation of "Disposition" rather than "Herpa derp, lets torture all those people, actively, for all eternity!" makes even more sense when you take the very next chapter of revelation into account, which then states that both the heavens and the earth are finished/ended, and recreated anew all over again. If the lake of fire is a place where people are tortured "eternally", then where does it exist? It does not exist, or have a reason for existing, in this new creation. How can somebody be tortured forever in a place that no longer exists after the people get thrown into it? The only place it CAN exist, is inside the mind/knowledge of god, which is eternal-- which then explains why it is an eternal place of punishment.
I kinda get irritated when I keep reading people complain about how horrible god must be to torture people for eternity. The scope of comprehension of how a timeless being must perceive our universe is very lacking in such evaluations. Remember kids, in biblethumpia land, god invented time. Not the other way around. The way god experiences the universe is very different from the way you do. Revelation and pals is written from the timeless "god's view of creation" standpoint. Not your own "Time bound, temporal" one. You stub your toe? To god, you are stubbing your toe for all eternity. Reflect on that.
Post by: martinuzz on January 17, 2016, 07:54:12 am
Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."That's eerily similar to what IS is doing in occupied cities. Believe in Allah, and we will not rape and kill you and your household
Post by: TD1 on January 17, 2016, 12:10:43 pm
Also, out of curiosity, is God chilling in his extradimensional heaven with the odd visit to the equally extradimensional Brahman in Paranirvana? :P
As for God being a non-sentient force, the Trinity show some form of sentience.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 17, 2016, 12:49:34 pm
Lol Salvation army is LITERALLY ISIS OMGActs 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."That's eerily similar to what IS is doing in occupied cities. Believe in Allah, and we will not rape and kill you and your household
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 17, 2016, 02:19:22 pm
I get the feeling that you're posting this just to get a reaction... but I guess I'll answer.Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."That's eerily similar to what IS is doing in occupied cities. Believe in Allah, and we will not rape and kill you and your household
There is a difference between promising a perfect thing for believing in a thing, and threatening a terrible thing for NOT following a thing.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 17, 2016, 02:26:54 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 17, 2016, 02:29:23 pm
Except that Jesus/God is responsible for damnation, so it's that latter thing. It's a threat. "I'm sending you to hell. Unless you do this thing, in which case I'll save you from me."There is still the good thing though.
Post by: Arx on January 17, 2016, 02:29:29 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on January 17, 2016, 02:38:30 pm
I don't think the New Testament supports the idea, but the Old kinda does so yeah.
(I thought the Old Testament supported it fully, but Weird's post raised some doubts in my mind)
Post by: Bohandas on January 17, 2016, 02:45:57 pm
I do like annihilation doctrine, and yeah in that case it's just a carrot instead of a threat.
I don't think the New Testament supports the idea, but the Old kinda does so yeah.
(I thought the Old Testament supported it fully, but Weird's post raised some doubts in my mind)
Still a threat, just a different one. Unless we assume that humans didn't have souls until Jesus came along.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 17, 2016, 03:46:14 pm
Also that you just get annihilated instead of tortured, which I'm guessing is annihilation doctrine? Like I'm not sure what's being used as evidence to support 'god sends you to hell'. It's like that one play. I think. "This is Hell, nor am I out of it."
It can be fully logically self-consistent, as long as you assume the common interpretation is wrong about one or two things. It's just really hard to verify that from an outside source; if god is extradimensional, we have no more reason to believe we will go to Heaven for X than we that we would go to Hell for it. A book, however long and influential, proves precisely zero things if it's not independently verified.
Post by: Graknorke on January 17, 2016, 03:52:59 pm
'you can't go to heaven, there's only one other place, sorry bud'"I'm not condemning you to drowning, but you're not getting on this lifeboat."
The difference is negligible.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 17, 2016, 03:57:57 pm
It's assumptions all the way down.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 17, 2016, 04:03:40 pm
Except that Jesus/God is responsible for damnation, so it's that latter thing. It's a threat. "I'm sending you to hell. Unless you do this thing, in which case I'll save you from me."The context of that passage is whether it is possible for uncircumcised gentiles to go to heaven, because they're mostly all Jews following the laws of Moses, most but not all
The apostles are all saying that believing in Jesus Christ is what you need, not a Jewish mother or a cut foreskin, it's saying everyone has a shot at heaven not just a select group
But lol get rekt jesus for preaching equality between Jew and Gentile, that's eerily similar to ISIS, I can't even tell the difference
Post by: Graknorke on January 17, 2016, 04:12:47 pm
Does it mean the lifeboats got limited room?That would violate the promise of anyone who follows Jesus getting in. Capacity has to be infinite to allow for that, unless the number of spaces is exactly predetermines already in which case it's entirely arbitrary and more-or-less irrelevant what the criteria are.
he wants everyone to go heaven but being that near to sin would destroy himI don't think so, the attitude to sinners was pretty hateful. Burning cities, sending plagues, that kind of thing. That's not the kind of thing you do a group of people you pity.
it's Him letting you choose to stay in the water. And if He values choice enough, then it makes sense.It's making them stay in the water if they didn't prostrate themselves before him before the ship even sank. Of course someone in the middle of the ocean is going to want onto a boat. It's the equivalent of someone trying to get protection money out of you but without making a very good case for why you should before they go ahead and burn your shop down. Even if you accept that it's a fair system, you have to accept that the victim can't entirely be blamed for not picking up on how they were suppoed to play into it.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 17, 2016, 05:09:07 pm
Are we going Christian God of the Bible here?OT and NT are different facets, one's the Jewish war God of moral code and judgement (self and divine), the other of mercy and virtuous self-sacrifices
That would violate the promise of anyone who follows Jesus getting in. Capacity has to be infinite to allow for that, unless the number of spaces is exactly predetermines already in which case it's entirely arbitrary and more-or-less irrelevant what the criteria are.The promise is universal availability, not universal application, otherwise there'd be no effort spent to live a good life as a pleasant afterlife is automatically guaranteed
The principle is you gotta walk through the gates of heaven yourself irregardless of whether the gates are open; you follow in his Beardliness's footsteps, not have him walk for you
I don't think so, the attitude to sinners was pretty hateful. Burning cities, sending plagues, that kind of thing. That's not the kind of thing you do a group of people you pity.When God does that in the OT, it's not for people he pities, it's for awful people who live to sin #yolo
The whole point of the Noah's Ark spinoff is that by the end God leaves a promise to not destroy most of humanity again, and so tries to help mankind out by sending prophets instead of plagues, leading into the failed prophet sagas where humans keep killing them (lol) leading to Jesus (where they kill him) but that time everything is successful, all the way up to the last prophet in Islam (killed him too) though you get many many many spinoffs with alleged descendants, siblings, not-prophets and of course all three branches of Abrahamism all hold the option for further sequels with their own ends of this age to the new Godly one
It's making them stay in the water if they didn't prostrate themselves before him before the ship even sank. Of course someone in the middle of the ocean is going to want onto a boat. It's the equivalent of someone trying to get protection money out of you but without making a very good case for why you should before they go ahead and burn your shop down. Even if you accept that it's a fair system, you have to accept that the victim can't entirely be blamed for not picking up on how they were suppoed to play into it.It'd be like telling someone not to smoke by the engine and they do anyways and set themselves on fire, even after you told them not to do it because they'd start a fire and they did anyways
Post by: Vilanat on January 17, 2016, 05:21:47 pm
Post by: Graknorke on January 17, 2016, 05:36:17 pm
The promise is universal availability, not universal application, otherwise there'd be no effort spent to live a good life as a pleasant afterlife is automatically guaranteedDon't understand what you mean here, sorry.
The principle is you gotta walk through the gates of heaven yourself irregardless of whether the gates are open; you follow in his Beardliness's footsteps, not have him walk for you
It'd be like telling someone not to smoke by the engine and they do anyways and set themselves on fire, even after you told them not to do it because they'd start a fire and they did anywaysNot really. Fires are something you can experimentally test before the fact, and also make sense as a follow on from smoking. You can't really compare it to an arbitrary punishment that you can't possibly know about until it's too late to do anything about it.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 17, 2016, 05:58:28 pm
Who killed the last prophet of Islam?An angry tribeswoman whose people had just been conquered
Don't understand what you mean here, sorry.Heaven being universally available does not mean it's universally guaranteed
Not really. Fires are something you can experimentally test before the fact, and also make sense as a follow on from smoking.Not in this analogy you can, you can only experimentally test once, and you don't get to live to tell the results
You can't really compare it to an arbitrary punishment that you can't possibly know about until it's too late to do anything about it.You do know about it though, you've just been told
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 17, 2016, 06:00:45 pm
Are we going Christian God of the Bible here?Well, it could be the idea that there's some uncertain amount of space, but it is certainly limited, and the people who actually want to hang around the dude who owns the lifeboat are the ones who get to be in there. Not sure how many people actually will fit, maybe, but (especially if eternity is as a few seconds), then you prioritize the people who actually give a shit about you.Does it mean the lifeboats got limited room?That would violate the promise of anyone who follows Jesus getting in. Capacity has to be infinite to allow for that, unless the number of spaces is exactly predetermines already in which case it's entirely arbitrary and more-or-less irrelevant what the criteria are.
I didn't say anything about pity. I mean, it's probably there, but saying 'you usually don't do that to people you pity' doesn't actually mean anything here. If you want the maximum possible number of people to come to heaven/be with you, then you institute very visible punishments for those who don't. Sure, it might be unfair to them in particular, but in the long run it will save more souls. just as one possible interpretation.he wants everyone to go heaven but being that near to sin would destroy himI don't think so, the attitude to sinners was pretty hateful. Burning cities, sending plagues, that kind of thing. That's not the kind of thing you do a group of people you pity.
No, it really isn't. The act of loving God and accepting Jesus into your heart is the very same act as that of getting into the lifeboat. They are the same thing. And while I would agree that hey if there's enough lifeboats, put everyone one, but if someone's gonna tip the lifeboat over because they're flailing about 'thoughtcrime' and 'burning heretics at the stake' and 'but I don't wanna go to Church', I'm not gonna force them to be on the lifeboat.it's Him letting you choose to stay in the water. And if He values choice enough, then it makes sense.It's making them stay in the water if they didn't prostrate themselves before him before the ship even sank. Of course someone in the middle of the ocean is going to want onto a boat. It's the equivalent of someone trying to get protection money out of you but without making a very good case for why you should before they go ahead and burn your shop down. Even if you accept that it's a fair system, you have to accept that the victim can't entirely be blamed for not picking up on how they were suppoed to play into it.
And the whole point of the Bible and shit would be to get people to know how and what to do. If you tell someone 'this is the procedure for getting into the lifeboat, you should drill in this a couple of times a month' and they never do, whose fault is it when they drown?
I mean, in all honesty, we've taken this analogy much too far and it's kinda ridiculous and can be twisted to say whatever, but meh.
As for the 'arbitrary punishment' bit, a lot of the point of raising someone to be Christian is, as far as I can tell, in this context, teaching them why it isn't arbitrary, and the point of all those miracles and sermons and firebrand preaching is to tell and show everyone else 'hey look this shit is real guys come on please I don't want your souls to die in fire'.
The crucial difference here is that Christianity believes virtue and heaven are inextricably linked, and sin and hell/annihilation are inextricably linked. It's not an arbitrary decision by some dude, it's a fundamental fact about God/The Universe. Little kids don't make the connection between fire->hot->pain until it's been shown. God did that a couple thousand years ago with the plagues and the flooding and so on. Saying 'well you don't keep doing that' would, in this instance, be kinda equivalent to saying 'well, you only showed my granddad what happens when you cover someone's legs with greek fire-liquid and set it on fire, I never saw it happen'. To which Jesus would respond "I'm not setting your legs on fire Medamnit I already feel bad about doing it to Patrick forty years ago fucking hell dude'.
Post by: Graknorke on January 17, 2016, 06:11:57 pm
What I'm saying is that everyone in this thread could do it better, given the same omnipotence and omniscience.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 17, 2016, 07:07:34 pm
I doubt it, honestly. I know I'd fuck up. Or I wouldn't be me, if I could handle all that info, even.
Also, there's plenty of people who convert because they believe God's spoken to them. So that second part isn't quite true. I mean, if you had a vision or a dream like that, would you assume you were hallucinating, or that god was talking to you? Why bother making you think you have hallucinations when you won't even believe it?
And...there were a lot of plagues and 'proof's from Old Testament and New, if I remember right. I mean, the argument that God really needs to update his shit if he is real is a fair one, but that's not quite the same thing.
Post by: Graknorke on January 17, 2016, 07:20:30 pm
Also, there's plenty of people who convert because they believe God's spoken to them. So that second part isn't quite true. I mean, if you had a vision or a dream like that, would you assume you were hallucinating, or that god was talking to you? Why bother making you think you have hallucinations when you won't even believe it?A being with the experience of everyone and forever should be able to convince me, with my decade and most of another one. It's like how teachers take the responsibility for the learning of very young children, except massively more so. Or alternatively could just pull a Pharaoh and make people believe it.
And...there were a lot of plagues and 'proof's from Old Testament and New, if I remember right. I mean, the argument that God really needs to update his shit if he is real is a fair one, but that's not quite the same thing.I meant as in, things for historians that would write it down in proper historical texts rather than a religious one with an obvious agenda. It's not as though there weren't any around.
And also things that should be impossible but there's credible evidence of them having happened, rather than things that are just a bit odd. Like the global flood except if there was any reason to think it actually happened. Plagues and earthquakes aren't exactly supernatural, maybe they thought so at the time but we know better than that now.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 17, 2016, 07:26:40 pm
Also, there's plenty of people who convert because they believe God's spoken to them. So that second part isn't quite true. I mean, if you had a vision or a dream like that, would you assume you were hallucinating, or that god was talking to you? Why bother making you think you have hallucinations when you won't even believe it?False dichotomy. While anyone who realizes the implications of solipsism could, if sufficiently reticent, dismiss any divine experience as a hallucination no matter how significant, that could also apply to literally anything but their own qualia. Almost all people can still be convinced by experience, that experience just has to fit the magnitude of the claim and not demonstrate signs of falsehood. Dreams and visions are already the realm of hallucination, even people who believe in divine vision will admit this for other religions.
Even a dank euphoric atheist like me could be persuaded of at least the substantial power and existence of the Christian God with a satisfying display, but that display is not "I prayed for something plausible and then it happened" or "My terminal illness went away on its own". Try "resurrecting someone who's already started rotting or was cremated" or "rearrange some stars to spell out a Bible verse or a secret only I could know about".
Post by: TD1 on January 17, 2016, 07:27:41 pm
Of course, such a view is what atheists tend to favour, myself included, only without the God factor. It is a terrible thing, and I wish for myself to be wrong. Unfortunately, wishes aren't horses, I guess.
Post by: wierd on January 17, 2016, 07:31:43 pm
Wierd, you seem to have seen the Christian God and reasoned him into an extradimensional box where anything can be true. Given that all the dealings he's had have been very dimensional and within the scope of human reason, this seems unlikely. That is, if you believe in the general gist of the Bible - if not, then you cease to be speaking of the Christian God.
Also, out of curiosity, is God chilling in his extradimensional heaven with the odd visit to the equally extradimensional Brahman in Paranirvana? :P
As for God being a non-sentient force, the Trinity show some form of sentience.
It helps that similar arguments were raised in the NT, and christ basically says "Yo dog, the father's residence is in heaven, not on earth, and is of a spiritual nature, not a physical one."
Quote
Luke 17:20-21King James Version (KJV)
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
If it does not exist in physical reality (The universe), where else can it exist, except outside of it?
That assumes that it is a "real" place, and not merely imaginary. The quotation does not give much illumination on that subject. However, with other context in the bible, it is strongly implied to be "real", just not a physical place you can point to and say 'See, here it is!"
So, since the bible literally says that you cannot find heaven by searching the physical world, any argument against its existence not being in the physical world (and thus not real) do not follow. The bible outright says as much. Stop being tautological. :P If the christian god exists, he is most assuredly extradimensional.
Post by: Bohandas on January 17, 2016, 07:37:27 pm
Just a small aside, not said within the context of any ongoing conversation - I was contemplating that Annihilation Theory, and thinking that it - for me - is worse than hell. A more complete punishment. A profound shame, and a decisive obliteration of mind, matter and spirit. In the poem Reading Gaol, the hanged man is shamed by being buried with quick lime so nothing will remain of him, not even flesh.
Of course, such a view is what atheists tend to favour, myself included, only without the God factor. It is a terrible thing, and I wish for myself to be wrong. Unfortunately, wishes aren't horses, I guess.
Agreed.
Post by: wierd on January 17, 2016, 07:41:03 pm
In the fact that you are able to continue experiencing and thinking? I dont know about you, but I would find final cessation of cognition far superior to having the only things I experience be pain, suffering, and remorse, with a heavy sauce of hopelessness.
edit
Even if you go all Kurzwiel and plan on "living forever" as a transhuman consciousness that now runs on a non-living, mechanical platform, you still have the whole "heat death of the universe" thing to deal with. So, it does not satisfy being truly immortal the way religion describes and promises it. The only way you get that, is with a universe that does not match the parameters of the one we currently find ourselves in.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 17, 2016, 07:51:30 pm
He's shown that that's not his gig. Otherwise, original sin would never have occurred. Free will is an important thing, because otherwise you're not a person, you're a machine.Also, there's plenty of people who convert because they believe God's spoken to them. So that second part isn't quite true. I mean, if you had a vision or a dream like that, would you assume you were hallucinating, or that god was talking to you? Why bother making you think you have hallucinations when you won't even believe it?A being with the experience of everyone and forever should be able to convince me, with my decade and most of another one. It's like how teachers take the responsibility for the learning of very young children, except massively more so. Or alternatively could just pull a Pharaoh and make people believe it.
Quote from: Graknorke
2000+ years is a while, and from what I remember, there's a decent chunk of apologist argumentation that basically says that enough people claim the miracles happened in the historical texts that it is less unlikely for it to be true than that they were lying. And if you're going to say 'well but that's conceivable of happening anyway', then you're not actually arguing in good faith. Disputing accuracy of bible, sure, whatever. But 'even if they did happen, god didn't do it, they're too likely to have happened' is a flawed argument. Because the easy answer is 'they aren't always supernatural, no.'And...there were a lot of plagues and 'proof's from Old Testament and New, if I remember right. I mean, the argument that God really needs to update his shit if he is real is a fair one, but that's not quite the same thing.I meant as in, things for historians that would write it down in proper historical texts rather than a religious one with an obvious agenda. It's not as though there weren't any around.
And also things that should be impossible but there's credible evidence of them having happened, rather than things that are just a bit odd. Like the global flood except if there was any reason to think it actually happened. Plagues and earthquakes aren't exactly supernatural, maybe they thought so at the time but we know better than that now.
In what way is being tortured eternally better than being unmade?The Absurd Hero. I take comfort in my defiance of the inevitable. And that sustains me. :P Besides, where there is existence, there is hope.
In the fact that you are able to continue experiencing and thinking? I dont know about you, but I would find final cessation of cognition far superior to having the only things I experience be pain, suffering, and remorse, with a heavy sauce of hopelessness.
The ramifications of doing so could easily outweigh the benefits in converting one person. How many people will lose faith in their understanding of reality and try and find some other explanation? The plurality of the world is Christianity, so if they're likely to convert away...You want independently verifiable events, because ones that aren't might just be hallucination. But independently verifiable events by nature mean other people have to be involved, and maybe that would go badly. Maybe your atheism will convert more people, in the end, through butterfly effects, than if you weren't. God's responsibility to his creations is not towards you individually. It is towards humanity as a whole. I was pointing out how you were saying that only people who already believe in God hear from Him was not quite true, if you think they're all being honest/factual in their recounting of events (hallucinations can be convincing, man).Also, there's plenty of people who convert because they believe God's spoken to them. So that second part isn't quite true. I mean, if you had a vision or a dream like that, would you assume you were hallucinating, or that god was talking to you? Why bother making you think you have hallucinations when you won't even believe it?False dichotomy. While anyone who realizes the implications of solipsism could, if sufficiently reticent, dismiss any divine experience as a hallucination no matter how significant, that could also apply to literally anything but their own qualia. Almost all people can still be convinced by experience, that experience just has to fit the magnitude of the claim and not demonstrate signs of falsehood. Dreams and visions are already the realm of hallucination, even people who believe in divine vision will admit this for other religions.
Even a dank euphoric atheist like me could be persuaded of at least the substantial power and existence of the Christian God with a satisfying display, but that display is not "I prayed for something plausible and then it happened" or "My terminal illness went away on its own". Try "resurrecting someone who's already started rotting or was cremated" or "rearrange some stars to spell out a Bible verse or a secret only I could know about".
Post by: Graknorke on January 17, 2016, 08:03:31 pm
Free will is an important thing, because otherwise you're not a person, you're a machine.It's not a violation of free will to change someone's opinion. You're not actually making them do anything. And people are also machines, they're hardly mutually exclusive.
As for the good faith thing, it's basically impossible to talk about Biblical accuracy in good faith, given that a good portion of the participants are going to claim it's true regardless of how true it actually is so long as it's possible. And actually, even if it's impossible. It's just circles of the same points over and over and eventually everyone ends up having gone nowhere.
And do you have anything on well-reported miracles? I'd like to read about them.
Post by: wierd on January 17, 2016, 08:15:23 pm
(IIRC, this thread already went there. I was able to give two sources, one stronger than the other, confirming the existence of a figure meeting jesus's description. Both have potential sources of detraction.)
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 17, 2016, 08:22:09 pm
No, I don't, other than maybe the ones that 'happen' nowadays, which are usually proven false. I was pointing out that that line of argument is actually one that does get used and has some backing.Free will is an important thing, because otherwise you're not a person, you're a machine.It's not a violation of free will to change someone's opinion. You're not actually making them do anything. And people are also machines, they're hardly mutually exclusive.
As for the good faith thing, it's basically impossible to talk about Biblical accuracy in good faith, given that a good portion of the participants are going to claim it's true regardless of how true it actually is so long as it's possible. And actually, even if it's impossible. It's just circles of the same points over and over and eventually everyone ends up having gone nowhere.
And do you have anything on well-reported miracles? I'd like to read about them.
'Basically impossible because a lot of people argue in a specific way which isn't arguing in good faith'. If you assume the bible is false, no argument needs to be made. If you're saying you want them to prove God exists from a position of assuming the bible is false, it's kinda impossible. You can't prove the Biblical god exists if your basis is the Bible being false. But besides that, 'it's basically impossible to argue that with other people' does not lead to 'it's impossible to argue that here'.
I'm arguing here for the grounds that it's not an open/shut case of what religion/is any religion true. Not that it is true, just that it's not as easy as 'ope Bible got something wrong, time to toss it out'. We don't usually do that with science, and if the field of theology is relevant to the functional workings of the universe, there's no reason to believe that, either.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 17, 2016, 08:38:23 pm
I'll change the questions if people think they're unsuitable. I felt that was the most concise way of getting the point across, but YMMV.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 17, 2016, 08:42:29 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 17, 2016, 08:43:11 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 17, 2016, 08:43:58 pm
That would be "not religious", no?No, that's "Not sure I'm religious and" I'd think?
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 17, 2016, 08:45:41 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 17, 2016, 09:13:33 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 17, 2016, 09:34:29 pm
And most ancient writings are horribly unreliable. Cross-referencing sources that don't have motives to support each other is the typical way to tell what's probably true and probably isn't.
Also, "die for a lie" is a worthless argument both for the alternate motives I've outlined above, but also because it wouldn't be the go-to strategy to "stop lying" after they've already openly defied the order of the day. The way to get out of it, if they were knowing liars, would be to try to push through and convince the rest of your sincerity, power, or whatever you can use to get leverage. It's like saying OJ Simpson should have confessed to the murders he clearly committed to try and get out of going to prison. It's a gamble, but one many both huckster and non-huckster alike have long taken.
Post by: Arcvasti on January 17, 2016, 09:51:06 pm
And to assume that all 4 of the gospel authors lied is also laughable since they each died very painful deaths (except maybe Luke) and you would assume they would stop lying if they were threatened with death.
Imagine yourself in the place of the Apostles, after the Crucifixion. Your great saviour is dead, his followers will lose faith in the face of persecution or die out. You're hiding out, but you know it can't last. So what can you do to do what Jesus would have wanted you to? Lie. Say he rose from the dead and promised to return. Keep hope alive for the rest of the Christians. Keep up the act, even unto death, so that more may come to learn the Saviours' teachings and be saved.
Not saying the above's what happened, but things are always more complicated then two or three or even five or six possibilities could account for. Don't make the mistake of oversimplifying things to make something you want to be true seem more plausible.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 17, 2016, 09:54:14 pm
After he came back to life, I would be telling every body and their grandmother.And to assume that all 4 of the gospel authors lied is also laughable since they each died very painful deaths (except maybe Luke) and you would assume they would stop lying if they were threatened with death.
Imagine yourself in the place of the Apostles, after the Crucifixion. Your great saviour is dead, his followers will lose faith in the face of persecution or die out. You're hiding out, but you know it can't last. So what can you do to do what Jesus would have wanted you to? Lie. Say he rose from the dead and promised to return. Keep hope alive for the rest of the Christians. Keep up the act, even unto death, so that more may come to learn the Saviours' teachings and be saved.
Not saying the above's what happened, but things are always more complicated then two or three or even five or six possibilities could account for. Don't make the mistake of oversimplifying things to make something you want to be true seem more plausible.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 17, 2016, 10:53:52 pm
I would say the adjective of 'religious' means practicing a specific religion. If you're agnostic, you're usually not practicing.That would be "not religious", no?No, that's "Not sure I'm religious and" I'd think?
Post by: Arx on January 18, 2016, 01:03:02 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 18, 2016, 01:13:04 am
Post by: Bohandas on January 18, 2016, 01:28:36 am
For the life of Jesus and his miracles, you would have to assume that all 4 gospel writers were lying. However, people seem to take other much-less evidence texts as more reliable than the new testament. For example, the Trojan War. If you compare the reliability of the works that describe the battle of troy and the new testament, it is almost laughable to assume that the new testament is fabricated because you would have to how out practically every ancient writing as well. And to assume that all 4 of the gospel authors lied is also laughable since they each died very painful deaths (except maybe Luke) and you would assume they would stop lying if they were threatened with death.
That's a false analogy. Nobody believes in the fantastic elements of the trojan war; people who were magically invulnerable and magic flying sandals and bags containing the west wind and people turning into pigs and a beauty pagent in heaven and bullshit like that; they just believe that ancient Troy was besieged, and they've only started to believe that because of archaelogical that's turned up over the last century. Even the ancient greeks were skeptical of the illiad and odyssey; The historian Thucydides said that Homer had clearly inflated a lot of numbers and made stuff up for the sake of drama.
EDIT:
Relevant to the other aspects of the current discussion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
Post by: Vilanat on January 18, 2016, 01:37:58 am
Who killed the last prophet of Islam?QuoteAn angry tribeswoman whose people had just been conquered
no? he died in his bed from an illness/old age.
Post by: Bohandas on January 18, 2016, 01:51:45 am
Also, there's plenty of people who convert because they believe God's spoken to them. So that second part isn't quite true. I mean, if you had a vision or a dream like that, would you assume you were hallucinating, or that god was talking to you? Why bother making you think you have hallucinations when you won't even believe it?False dichotomy. While anyone who realizes the implications of solipsism could, if sufficiently reticent, dismiss any divine experience as a hallucination no matter how significant, that could also apply to literally anything but their own qualia. Almost all people can still be convinced by experience, that experience just has to fit the magnitude of the claim and not demonstrate signs of falsehood. Dreams and visions are already the realm of hallucination, even people who believe in divine vision will admit this for other religions.
Even a dank euphoric atheist like me could be persuaded of at least the substantial power and existence of the Christian God with a satisfying display, but that display is not "I prayed for something plausible and then it happened" or "My terminal illness went away on its own". Try "resurrecting someone who's already started rotting or was cremated"
Yes. As was supposedly promised in the vision at the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37:1-13
"...I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. He asked me, “Human, can these bones live?” I said, “Sovereign Lord, you alone know.” Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones"...So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army...then he said to me..."Then you will know my name is The LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them.""
http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/37.htm
Hmm. I'm not sure what to vote for, seeing as I go with us having what feels like free will (and acts like free will) but isn't because lol predetermination. Probably the second, I guess. But maybe the first, because it acts like free will?Yes. Will isn't necessarily free.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 18, 2016, 01:56:23 am
That's a false analogy.Ironically, that's also a false analogy. The gospels were written a few years after the fact, and the Iliad/Odyssey were written ??? centuries down the track by an unrelated third party who was compiling stories passed down over that time. There's a decent chance Homer himself knew what he was writing was corrupted and unreliable.
I'm not saying it's definitely perfect, but the NT in general has a darn sight more historicity than ancient Greek epics. It's an awful comparison.
If you want to compare it to the Old Testament, then you might have a better argument, at least with Genesis etc. Stuff like Chronicles, Daniel, Ezra, and a number of the prophecies were written down at or close to the time of occurrence, and match up (at least a little) with other sources from around the time.
Post by: Graknorke on January 18, 2016, 02:43:10 am
You can't prove the Biblical god exists if your basis is the Bible being false.Well the Bible isn't entirely true, from things we know as actual measurable facts. And given its authority is that it comes from an infallible narrator, I'd say it's a long way down from "reliable".
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 18, 2016, 04:12:21 am
Bible was written by, what over a dozen different people? As far as I know, that's not where it's authority comes from. I mean, to the people who say 'bible is infallible and must be interpreted literally', maybe, but a source being unreliable, and a source being wrong, or even just inaccurate, are separate events. A reliable source can be wrong, and an unreliable source can be right. It's just the probability. And if someone has other reasons to believe it, like, say, two thousands years of history with even now probably around half the planet believing Jesus of Nazareth was a person who existed, contentious status as Son of God and True Final Prophet No For Real This Time Guys not withstanding...You can't prove the Biblical god exists if your basis is the Bible being false.Well the Bible isn't entirely true, from things we know as actual measurable facts. And given its authority is that it comes from an infallible narrator, I'd say it's a long way down from "reliable".
And don't get me wrong. I'm not making the 'billions of people can't be wrong' argument. Well, not in that precise way, rather. Scientific consensus sometimes ends up being wrong. Noticeable theological consensus can be hard to come by, partially because the ones they do reach a consensus just kinda disseminates into culture and thought patterns in a similar way to science (the philosophical idea of morally corrupt versus morally honorable actions, or the idea of the mind being separate in some ways from the body; and yeah there are always fringe groups who challenge these but you get the point).
But nonetheless, there's a sort of pseudo-spiritual consensus that people look at when the Abrahamic religions were so massive. Jesus was a real person, as far as I know. Miracles or not, someone started the damned thing. And while tradition is fairly sufficient to explain it's survival past Constantine or so, it still had to get off the ground. And while it's certainly plausible Jesus was a really convincing dude with a couple of delusions, or the most successful con man in the history of the Earth, a lot of people find that to be an answer that fares worse under Occam's Razor than 'well maybe he was just telling the truth'.
So 'hey some things were lost in translation' or 'there were some errors down the years before the age of printing press' or 'the earliest existing copy of the bible is from 400 AD so who knows what got screwed up'(I may have the details wrong on that one) are all valid viewpoints. But they don't prove it false. At best you prove it to be unreliable, so people can't, well, rely on it for all their ideas. It's not an argument against theism, it's an argument against this very specific branch of theism as compared to all other branches plus non-theistic viewpoints.
Or, tl;dr and maybe just more understandable way of putting it...
Don't make symmetrical arguments unless you have proof and they don't. The field of science is in a tad bit of trouble recently, which makes it difficult to use, as there have been peer reviewed studies that 'proved' psychic powers exist, and peer reviewed studies that 'disproved' their existence. Not invalid, mind you, I'm just pointing out that expecting it to automatically support you overwhelmingly above them is....unlikely, unless it's the simple stuff like dinosaurs and age of the earth and whatnot.
"It could have happened just as coincidence, without God, so it doesn't count" is on the same level as "it could have been God, without chemotherapy, so it doesn't count". I believe one of the two is more accurate, but nonetheless symmetrical arguments are fairly useless without backup. Argue from a position of weakness instead; in this way it becomes a position of strength. Assume it's true, point out things this should lead to, allow them to correct misinterpretations....dialogue. Converse. Don't rhetoricize. And while I don't believe anyone here does it, I'll say it anyway because a. I'm a hypocrite, b. This should definitiely keep getting longer, and c. I hear what amounts to it all the time and I'm sick of it.
"They use it too" is not an excuse for poor debate behavior. Ever.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 18, 2016, 04:18:16 am
Bible was written by, what over a dozen different people?Hundreds, IIRC.
Post by: Teneb on January 18, 2016, 05:15:55 am
However, people seem to take other much-less evidence texts as more reliable than the new testament. For example, the Trojan War. If you compare the reliability of the works that describe the battle of troy and the new testament, it is almost laughable to assume that the new testament is fabricated because you would have to how out practically every ancient writing as well.The texts describing the Trojan War are pretty much historical fiction. It is incredibly unlikely that any of the characters in the stories either existed or were like they were described. The only thing we can know for sure is that there was a Troy (several, actually, each built on top of the others' ruins) and that there was a war (probably with the greeks) that destroyed it. In short, those texts are anything but reliable sources for anything other than studies for how greeks recounted stories.
I know a lot of people posted it, but hey.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2016, 06:15:40 am
Yeah, with his blood vessels constricted after he ate poisoned lambno? he died in his bed from an illness/old age.Who killed the last prophet of Islam?An angry tribeswoman whose people had just been conquered
The most natural of deaths
Post by: wierd on January 18, 2016, 08:18:55 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2016, 08:25:46 am
Post by: Graknorke on January 18, 2016, 11:06:05 am
a source being unreliable, and a source being wrong, or even just inaccurate, are separate events. A reliable source can be wrong, and an unreliable source can be right.Well if something is in any way wrong it stops being the perfect divine truth. It's a bit of a unique case since not many texts actually claim to be that.
Post by: lemon10 on January 18, 2016, 03:05:56 pm
Well the lady who poisoned him told him it was poisoned and his m8 who also ate the lamb died almost immediately after eating it too
Quote from: Wikipedia article on Muhammad
Muhammad[n 1] (Arabic: محمد; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE),[1] is the central figure of Islam and widely regarded as its founder.[2][3] He is known to Muslims as the "Holy Prophet", almost all of whom[n 2] consider him to be the last prophet sent by God to mankind.Methinks that you are thinking of a different prophet, as this one does seem to have died of natural causes.
A few months after the farewell pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill and suffered for several days with fever, head pain, and weakness.[194] He died on Monday, 8 June 632, in Medina, at the age of 62 or 63, in the house of his wife Aisha.[196] With his head resting on Aisha's lap, he asked her to dispose of his last worldly goods (seven coins), then spoke his final words:
Post by: Rolan7 on January 18, 2016, 03:14:42 pm
... A few decades, maybe? Like 40 at the earliest for Matthew and LukeThat's a false analogy.Ironically, that's also a false analogy. The gospels were written a few years after the fact, and the Iliad/Odyssey were written ??? centuries down the track by an unrelated third party who was compiling stories passed down over that time. There's a decent chance Homer himself knew what he was writing was corrupted and unreliable.
I'm not saying it's definitely perfect, but the NT in general has a darn sight more historicity than ancient Greek epics. It's an awful comparison.
If you want to compare it to the Old Testament, then you might have a better argument, at least with Genesis etc. Stuff like Chronicles, Daniel, Ezra, and a number of the prophecies were written down at or close to the time of occurrence, and match up (at least a little) with other sources from around the time.
http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroads/resources/birthofjesus/intro/the_dating_of_thegospels.html
I'm no expert but I've "always heard" this, which I know isn't an argument
And I don't know much about Greek mythology either but I assume the Illiad and Oddysey were compiled from stories which were known and celebrated by the general populace, instead of what a tiny group of furtive worshipers decided to write down about their Messiah in their secret local meetings. Obviously the Illiad's supernatural elements were bogus, but it'd be kinda amazing if the Trojan War was completely made up.
Meanwhile there are strong cases that "Jesus" was an amalgation of multiple people of the time (And I don't mean the pre-existing savior gods his story is suspiciously similar to, I mean actual people).
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2016, 03:23:37 pm
Quoting wikipedia ever? Taking it at face value ever? You dastardly cancer upon information D:<Well the lady who poisoned him told him it was poisoned and his m8 who also ate the lamb died almost immediately after eating it tooQuote from: Wikipedia article on MuhammadMuhammad[n 1] (Arabic: محمد; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE),[1] is the central figure of Islam and widely regarded as its founder.[2][3] He is known to Muslims as the "Holy Prophet", almost all of whom[n 2] consider him to be the last prophet sent by God to mankind.Methinks that you are thinking of a different prophet, as this one does seem to have died of natural causes.
A few months after the farewell pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill and suffered for several days with fever, head pain, and weakness.[194] He died on Monday, 8 June 632, in Medina, at the age of 62 or 63, in the house of his wife Aisha.[196] With his head resting on Aisha's lap, he asked her to dispose of his last worldly goods (seven coins), then spoke his final words:
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith, Volume 3, 786 (http://www.alim.org/library/hadith/SHB/786/3)
A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle.
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith, Volume 5, 713 (http://www.alim.org/library/hadith/SHB/713/5)
'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf said to 'Umar, "We have sons similar to him." 'Umar replied, "(I respect him) because of his status that you know." 'Umar then asked Ibn 'Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse: "When comes the help of Allah and the Conquest of Mecca . . ." (110.1)
Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except what you understand."
Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."
N A T U R A L C A U S E S
Post by: lemon10 on January 18, 2016, 03:42:21 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 18, 2016, 03:57:23 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2016, 04:11:03 pm
After doing some research, he died three years after the supposed poisoning.Do more research m8
The proponents of him dying from the poison say that it took three years to kill him (and that god was protecting him until he completed his mission), but it seems far more likely that he simply died of unrelated causes three years later.""No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle."
U N R E L A T E D C A U S E S
So yeah, he didn't die immediately after the poisoning like you said he did.No I said his m8 died immediately afterwards, don't get it twisted.
....When the apostle of Allah conquered Khaibar and he had peace of mind, Zaynab Bint al-Harith the brother of Marhab, who was the spouse of Sallam Ibn Mishkam, inquired, "Which part of the goat is liked by Muhammad?" They said, "The foreleg." Then she slaughtered one from her goats and roasted it (the meat). Then she wanted a poison which could not fail. .... The apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth. Bishr took another bone and put it into his mouth. When the apostle of Allah ate one morsel of it Bishr ate his and other people also ate from it. Then the apostle of Allah said, "Hold back your hands! because this foreleg; ...informed me that it is poisoned. Thereupon Bishr said, "By Him who has made you great! I discovered it from the morsel I took. Nothing prevented me from emitting it out, but the idea that I did not like to make your food unrelishing. When you had eaten what was in your mouth I did not like to save my life after yours, and I also thought you would not have eaten it if there was something wrong.
Bishr did not rise form his seat but his color changed to that of "taylsan" (a green cloth)..........The apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab and said to her, "What induced you to do what you have done?" She replied, "You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle and my husband, so I said to myself, "If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said, "If you are a king we will get rid of you.""......
The apostle of Allah lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say, "I did not cease to find the effect of the (poisoned) morsel, I took at Khaibar and I suffered several times (from its effect) but now I feel the hour has come of the cutting of my jugular vein."
Sa'id Ibn Muhammad al-Thaqafl informed us on the authority of Muhammad Ibn 'Amr, he on the authority of Abu Salamah; he said:
The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, did not eat anything given in sadaqah (charity) but he ate out of things given as presents. A Jewess presented to him a fried goat. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and his Companions ate out of it. It said: There is poison in me. Thereupon he said to his Companions: Hold back your hands; verily it has informed me that it has poison. He (Abu Salamah) said: They held back their hands. He (Abu Salamah) said: Bishr Ibn al-Bara died. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, sent for her Jewess and said: What induced thee, to do what thou hadst done? [P. 114) She said: I wanted to know if thou art a Prophet because in that case it would not harm thee; and if thou wert a king, I would have relieved the people of thee. He (Abu Salamah) said: He passed an order, and she was killed.
Ibn Sa'd (http://www.soebratie.nl/religie/hadith/IbnSad.html)
His m8 fucking turned green and died and he himself was continually afflicted for 3 years with the effects of the poison
I think the conusion is due not having fully understood that the Holy Prophet Sallallahu Alaihe Wa Sallam was a complete human being and as a human being he was subject to same anatomy rules as any other human being is. He was not a super human being.
"The promise of Allah that He will protect His Messenger stood true and it primarily applied to the plans of any disbeliever to assasinate the Holy Prophet Sallallahu Alaihe Wa Sallam. Allah did not allow anyone to assasinate the Holy Prophet.
Having the affect of poison in his body until his death is not against the promise of Allah to protect him. He left from this world at the predetermined time. If he had dies immediately due to the affect of poison then it would have broken the promise of Allah.
And Allah knows best.
Mufti Ikram ul Haq" (http://askamufti.com/question-details.aspx?qstID=6839)
It stuns me how people could honestly know this little about the largest religion on the planet or even make up retarded shit on wikipedia like that
I'm convinced, Westerners need to be taught about Islam for maximum cultural enrichment to abolish their decadent ignorance with the most halal information
Post by: TD1 on January 18, 2016, 04:22:16 pm
Post by: Bohandas on January 18, 2016, 04:22:45 pm
After doing some research, he died three years after the supposed poisoning.Do more research m8The proponents of him dying from the poison say that it took three years to kill him (and that god was protecting him until he completed his mission), but it seems far more likely that he simply died of unrelated causes three years later.""No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle."
U N R E L A T E D C A U S E SSo yeah, he didn't die immediately after the poisoning like you said he did.No I said his m8 died immediately afterwards, don't get it twisted.
....When the apostle of Allah conquered Khaibar and he had peace of mind, Zaynab Bint al-Harith the brother of Marhab, who was the spouse of Sallam Ibn Mishkam, inquired, "Which part of the goat is liked by Muhammad?" They said, "The foreleg." Then she slaughtered one from her goats and roasted it (the meat). Then she wanted a poison which could not fail. .... The apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth. Bishr took another bone and put it into his mouth. When the apostle of Allah ate one morsel of it Bishr ate his and other people also ate from it. Then the apostle of Allah said, "Hold back your hands! because this foreleg; ...informed me that it is poisoned. Thereupon Bishr said, "By Him who has made you great! I discovered it from the morsel I took. Nothing prevented me from emitting it out, but the idea that I did not like to make your food unrelishing. When you had eaten what was in your mouth I did not like to save my life after yours, and I also thought you would not have eaten it if there was something wrong.
Bishr did not rise form his seat but his color changed to that of "taylsan" (a green cloth)..........The apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab and said to her, "What induced you to do what you have done?" She replied, "You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle and my husband, so I said to myself, "If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said, "If you are a king we will get rid of you.""......
The apostle of Allah lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say, "I did not cease to find the effect of the (poisoned) morsel, I took at Khaibar and I suffered several times (from its effect) but now I feel the hour has come of the cutting of my jugular vein."
Sa'id Ibn Muhammad al-Thaqafl informed us on the authority of Muhammad Ibn 'Amr, he on the authority of Abu Salamah; he said:
The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, did not eat anything given in sadaqah (charity) but he ate out of things given as presents. A Jewess presented to him a fried goat. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and his Companions ate out of it. It said: There is poison in me. Thereupon he said to his Companions: Hold back your hands; verily it has informed me that it has poison. He (Abu Salamah) said: They held back their hands. He (Abu Salamah) said: Bishr Ibn al-Bara died. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, sent for her Jewess and said: What induced thee, to do what thou hadst done? [P. 114) She said: I wanted to know if thou art a Prophet because in that case it would not harm thee; and if thou wert a king, I would have relieved the people of thee. He (Abu Salamah) said: He passed an order, and she was killed.
Ibn Sa'd (http://www.soebratie.nl/religie/hadith/IbnSad.html)
His m8 fucking turned green and died and he himself was continually afflicted for 3 years with the effects of the poison
I think the conusion is due not having fully understood that the Holy Prophet Sallallahu Alaihe Wa Sallam was a complete human being and as a human being he was subject to same anatomy rules as any other human being is. He was not a super human being.
No, I think it's that they understand that he is, and that poison doesn't work like that. here are also poisons that cause permanent damage to one's health, but they can't suddenly cause more damage years after having left your system. Yes, there are poisons that stay in your system, mercury comes to mind, but to my knowledge they generally don't just suddenly up and kill you three years later after years of the symptoms remaining stable and no additional poison being ingested; the issue with mercury is that generally one is exposed to it repetedly and it builds up in increasing quantities.
The story only makes sense if he had already suffered fatal damage and completed the last three years as some sort of undead creature or revenant until the blessing of the lord left him.
Post by: TD1 on January 18, 2016, 04:39:18 pm
Post by: Bohandas on January 18, 2016, 04:41:50 pm
Or if it was fictional, or if they were mistaken about it being poison.
That was my implication
Post by: TD1 on January 18, 2016, 05:08:17 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 18, 2016, 05:32:33 pm
My apologies. In this thread, allegiance can change in the blink of the eye. :PThat makes me uncomfortable.
This should not be about "allegiance"s. This should be about Truth. It should not be about sides or tribes or affiliations. This is a discussion thread, not an argument or a verbal war or even technically a debate.
We should not be attempting to score points, or look the smartest, or whatever, which we're probably all doing subconsciously at minimum. We should be trying to learn, and to share information.
Post by: Vilanat on January 18, 2016, 05:33:59 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on January 18, 2016, 05:41:40 pm
My apologies. In this thread, allegiance can change in the blink of the eye. :PI really like this, actually. I wish I was better at it. I think, honestly, my favorite of my own posts here have been where I was discussing the Bible "in-universe", so to say. Like discussing Norse mythology - With respect, fun, and irresponsible theorycrafting. When I express my *fear* of Abrahamic religions, I just get depressed and more scared.
@Rolepgeek
Of course we do *have* allegiances, but I agree that we should be able to discuss things without necessarily involving said allegiances.
I don't really expect anyone to switch sides, but I have learned an awful lot. And I think I've pointed out things that others missed, too.
I do have to disagree though, my main goal is to look smartest at all times :P
Well, not so much recently.
Ha, the "blame the Jew" game again. Can't say i'm too surprised.Wait what, is this about the poison goat? I skimmed those posts but I don't think the Jew thing was emphasized here...
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 18, 2016, 05:52:06 pm
My apologies. In this thread, allegiance can change in the blink of the eye. :PAnd I still can't work out which side I'm supposed to be on.
...
Ha, the "blame the Jew" game again. Can't say i'm too surprised.Wait, what? I'm confused.
Post by: TD1 on January 18, 2016, 05:56:47 pm
Well, yes. But we have allegiances to differing forms of "truth." My one, for example, is truth. But it's my take on it - others have allegiances to different takes, often in the form of organised religion.My apologies. In this thread, allegiance can change in the blink of the eye. :PThat makes me uncomfortable.
This should not be about "allegiance"s. This should be about Truth. It should not be about sides or tribes or affiliations. This is a discussion thread, not an argument or a verbal war or even technically a debate.
We should not be attempting to score points, or look the smartest, or whatever, which we're probably all doing subconsciously at minimum. We should be trying to learn, and to share information.
My apologies. In this thread, allegiance can change in the blink of the eye. :PAnd I still can't work out which side I'm supposed to be on.
I know, I still wonder whether you're going to turn out to be my cavalry, or the enemy's. ;)
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2016, 06:12:42 pm
No, I think it's that they understand that he is, and that poison doesn't work like that. here are also poisons that cause permanent damage to one's health, but they can't suddenly cause more damage years after having left your system. Yes, there are poisons that stay in your system, mercury comes to mind, but to my knowledge they generally don't just suddenly up and kill you three years later after years of the symptoms remaining stable and no additional poison being ingested; the issue with mercury is that generally one is exposed to it repetedly and it builds up in increasing quantities.Is no one even reading the quotes
The story only makes sense if he had already suffered fatal damage and completed the last three years as some sort of undead creature or revenant until the blessing of the lord left him.
Why do I bother
fml
Quote
An attempt on the life of Mohammed was made at Khaibar by a Jewish woman named Zainab, who, in revenge for the death of her male relatives in battle, put poison in a dish prepared by her for the prophet. One of Mohammed's followers who par-took of the food died almost immediately afterward; but the prophet, who had eaten more sparingly, escaped. He, however, complained of the effects of the poison to the end of his life.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10918-mohammed
Bishar and Muhammed both ate the poisoned lamb. Bishar died almost instantaneously, turning green, whilst Muhammed who ate lesser amounts of the lamb and poison survived - though he complained of its symptoms until his death. Ibn Sa'd recalls that the people thought it was pleurisy, an illness affecting the lungs that can cause a constant dull ache, shortness of breath and premature death. Bishar turning green would support their speculation that it was a failure of the lungs. Muhammed complained that he felt as if his aorta/jugular vein was severed, an expression used to indicate extreme pain (not literal severing of either).
Off of a very brief search that I'm sure summons the NSA, something like arsenic which was commonly known from Rome to China could in higher concentrations cause rapid death in higher concentrations, green skin discoloration, and in survivors of lower concentrations lead to permanent nerve damage, renal failure, liver failure, chronic respiratory illnesses and a whole host of other symptoms which would kill you later and lead to a premature death.
And that's the most basic bitch of poisons, the Arabian peninsula bordered the Romans and Persians both with their own rich poisoning traditions and the Arabs clearly had access to their own poisons too, as with the assassination of Ali. It is nonsense to see only the possibility of either fatal wounding, perfect health or divine intervention; causing enough damage to the lungs (or the circulatory system and really anything else, no modern medicine to undo what has been done) to ensure death.
You need to get that chip off your shoulder Vilanat, I mentioned her first as a tribeswoman just to step around calling her the Jewish woman or Jewess, and there are almost no other instances where I give a shit about "cultural sensitivity."Ha, the "blame the Jew" game again. Can't say i'm too surprised.Wait what, is this about the poison goat? I skimmed those posts but I don't think the Jew thing was emphasized here...
If you think I'm going to change the quotes though just to step around protecting your feelings, I stop there. The Jewish Encyclopedia backs me on this; truth trumps muh feels.
Post by: Bohandas on January 18, 2016, 06:56:36 pm
You need to get that chip off your shoulder Vilanat, I mentioned her first as a tribeswoman just to step around calling her the Jewish woman or Jewess, and there are almost no other instances where I give a shit about "cultural sensitivity."Ha, the "blame the Jew" game again. Can't say i'm too surprised.Wait what, is this about the poison goat? I skimmed those posts but I don't think the Jew thing was emphasized here...
If you think I'm going to change the quotes though just to step around protecting your feelings, I stop there. The Jewish Encyclopedia backs me on this; truth trumps muh feels.
I think he means arabic literature blaming the jews again. Which it probably is. Why else would they even mention it?
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2016, 07:10:41 pm
I think he means arabic literature blaming the jews again. Which it probably is. Why else would they even mention it?Because it's true and the historians were trying to add as much accurate and relevant informations to their histiography as possible, this line of thinking is both offensive and nonsensical. Ha! There's something you don't see everyday, me taking the moral highground on defending Arab Muslims with indignant cultural sensitivity, in this moment I am enlightened by my TOLERAN and PROGRESIV ;D;
"Oh yes, why would they even mention who ordered Jesus's crucifixion, it's because they were SEKRIT SELF HATING JEWS?!!!"
"Why do they even mention Umar's assassin being Persian? FOKIN RACISTS AMIRITE?"
And because I only ever get to say things like this once per year, reevaluate your prejudices and check your privilege LOL
If in future this impacts my edgy cred, my alibi is that this is all about ETHICS and reporting trufacts, we not going full Swede polis here
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 18, 2016, 07:25:11 pm
Though I'm sorta confused as to why there's so much contention over this. Why does it matter who/what killed the Last True Prophet No For Real This Time Guys?
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2016, 07:41:25 pm
Don't worry, LW, you used enough ALLCAPS to safeguard your credge.I have no idea, it all stemmed from a focus on this part of my post in particular (bolded):
Though I'm sorta confused as to why there's so much contention over this. Why does it matter who/what killed the Last True Prophet No For Real This Time Guys?
When God does that in the OT, it's not for people he pities, it's for awful people who live to sin #yoloI didn't expect this part of my post to be the one everyone wanted to talk about lol, though I suppose this issue would've ended earlier had someone not gone on wikipedia and edited in some very bizarre narrative sourced from a European introduction to the Quran written in 1895 o_O
The whole point of the Noah's Ark spinoff is that by the end God leaves a promise to not destroy most of humanity again, and so tries to help mankind out by sending prophets instead of plagues, leading into the failed prophet sagas where humans keep killing them (lol) leading to Jesus (where they kill him) but that time everything is successful, all the way up to the last prophet in Islam (killed him too) though you get many many many spinoffs with alleged descendants, siblings, not-prophets and of course all three branches of Abrahamism all hold the option for further sequels with their own ends of this age to the new Godly one
Also if you want a prophet who died of old age, Moses the grizzly guts was supposedly 120 when he dropped dead climbing a mountain to see the promised land - dying in sight, but out of reach of it. God had a funny sense of humour like that
Also on the topic of Arabian access to poison, I also forgot to mention that when Umar was assassinated the blade he was assassinated was also coated in poison, though the dagger wounds sufficed - even poor slaves could buy poisons from which there'd be no survival
*EDIT
Seriously who the hell thought it was a bright idea to ignore all the Hadiths or Arab scholars in favour of this weak sauce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#cite_note-Intro2Quran279-202)
*EDITx2
Looked into who wrote the Introduction to the Quran II (1895) (https://archive.org/details/jstor-3135160): Gustav Weil, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Weil) German Orientalist (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14823-weil-gustav):
"Being destined for the rabbinate, he was taught Hebrew, as well as German and French; and he received instruction in Latin from the minister of his native town. At the age of twelve he went to Metz, where his grandfather was rabbi, to study the Talmud. For this, however, he developed very little taste, and he abandoned his original intention of entering upon a theological career.
(...)While pursuing these studies Weil published his "Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in den Koran" (Bielefeld and Leipsic, 1844 and 1878) as a supplement to Ullman's translation of the Koran, and the translation of one of the original sources of the biography of Mohammed, "Leben Mohammed's nach Muhammed ibn Isḥaḳ, Bearbeitet von Abd el-Malik ibn Hischâm" (Stuttgart, 2 vols., 1864). Three additional essays remain to be mentioned: one on Mohammed's epilepsy ("Journal Asiatique," July, 1842); the second an investigation of a "Supposed Lie of Mohammed" (ib. May, 1849); and the third a discussion of the question whether Mohammed could read and write ("Proceedings of the Congress of Orientalists at Florence," i. 357). To these must be added "Biblische Legenden der Mohammedaner" (Frankfort, 1845), in which Weil proves the influence of the rabbinic legends upon the religion of Islam."
LMAO, peeps here accusing the Arabs of distorting history and here there's some shifty bugger using a century's old German Jewish Orientalist's take on the Quran as targeted for Western academia during the height of new Imperialism that happens to leave out the part where Zainab was Jewish
Pure coincidence lel
Post by: Rolan7 on January 18, 2016, 08:02:55 pm
Also if you want a prophet who died of old age, Moses the grizzly guts was supposedly 120 when he dropped dead climbing a mountain to see the promised land - dying in sight, but out of reach of it. God had a funny sense of humour like thatYou know, it's kinda funny... God told Moses that he wouldn't reach the promised land. Or specifically, that he wouldn't bring the community to it. (Numbers 20:12). I wonder how many of the Isrealites knew about that prophecy (presumably enough to write it down after his death). Seems like the obvious choice would be to expel him - he did kinda take credit for a miracle *while* disobeying God:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Moses-promised-land.html
Another possibility would have been stepping down so someone else could lead, which would possibly allow him to enter the promised land after all. But I guess everyone was content to follow the leader who couldn't possibly succeed :P
I mean, he did summon water out of a stone and do some crazy shit in Egypt. Maybe they were confused that his powers came from God (they were so eager to worship gold cows, a wizard seems like a step up).
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2016, 09:08:07 pm
My favourite one has to be the endless battle between those editing pbuh after every mention of his name and removing pbuh after every time it's edited back on
As far as I can tell using the wayback machine to roughly pinpoint when Gustav Weil appeared as a cited source for Muhammed's death, it's around 2006 somewhere
Some hilarious differences I've found:
Criticism of Muhammad has existed since the 7th century. He has been attacked by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism, as well as for his multiple marriages, possession of slaves and his military expeditions across the Middle East. - 2015
According to the nineteenth-century colonial administrator William Muir, Muhammad in Mecca was a man of good faith, but after the Hijra, he says, "There [in Medina] temporal power, aggrandisement, and self-gratification mingled rapidly with the grand object of the Prophet's life, and they were sought and attained by just the same instrumentality." Muir accuses Muhammad of manufacturing messages from heaven.[80]Other criticism is over Muhammad's marriages, especially with Aisha whom, according to hadith, was six when Muhammad did the marriage contract with her father and started living together when she became nine.[81][82][83][84] - 2006
2006 didn't pull any punches, by 2015 all the editors became pussies
Within Islam, he is considered the last and most important prophet of God (Arabic Allah).[7] Muslims do not regard him as the founder of a new religion but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham and other prophets whose messages had become misinterpreted or corrupted over time.[8][9][10][11][12] - 2006
The revelations (each known as Ayah, lit. "Sign [of God]"), which Muhammad reported receiving until his death, form the verses of the Quran, regarded by Muslims as the "Word of God" and around which the religion is based. Besides the Quran, Muhammad's teachings and practices (sunnah), found in the Hadith and sira literature, are also upheld by Muslims and used as sources of Islamic law (see Sharia). While conceptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom were largely negative, appraisals in modern history have been far more favorable.[14][20] Other appraisals of Muhammad throughout history, such as those found in medieval China, have also been positive.[21][22][23][24][25] - 2015
I knew Wikipedia was a battleground of biases but I didn't realize it was this retarded, whole swathes of information just disappear depending on who makes the edits, and such information does not reappear, or else a lie appears and takes its place with vigor for years unto today
Plus the usernames are hilarious, lots of Bergs, Sciences, and Truths + something else
And I've felt a deep companionship, a thorough connection with one I shall never meet - God forgive, Yahweh be merciful, Allah bless and Brahma accept Yahel Guhan into your domains.
Quote
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of July 2008.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yahel_Guhan
To anyone who reads this, please note that my reasoning does not apply to everyone who edits wikipedia, though it applies to enough of the editors to make a difference.
For three years I have wasted hours time on wikipedia editing and trying to resolve some of its problems, and what do I get for it? Absolutely nothing but hassle and stress, while watching all my hard work get reverted by some political activist who disagrees with me. Well I’m sick and tired of it. I’m done trying to fight political activists who have nothing better to do in their sorry lives than promote their most radical political views (usually by means of censorship and making crap up). I’m done reverting vandals who add racial slurs to articles, and people who just make stuff up which never gets reverted, and racists who insist on having their perspective promoted, usually through fighting and persistence. Now, I will admit I am not unbiased, but I have realized that in order to get anything done here, I have found myself taking a stand far more radical than my actual beliefs just to balance out some of the radical activists. Well I’m sick and tired of it. Wikipedia users and administrators do next to nothing to resolve the problems with this wiki, and some are even part of the problem. Hardly anybody gets blocked once they become well established, or a so-called “respected editor.” It is virtually impossible to de-sysop a corrupt or bad admin, and even tougher to get rid of an editor. Well I have learned one thing from this above all else. An encyclopedia that anybody can edit does not come out with good results. Anybody can edit anonymously means just that. Anybody, no matter how radical their views are, can come to wikipedia to do whatever they want. After editing, and seeing what a cesspool wikipedia is, it amazes me how people ever trusted some of the crap is posted here on wikipedia. I’m done trying to fix it. The wiki is not fixable, as many of the editors are part of the problem. The sooner the so-called wikipedia community realizes that, the better the wiki will be in the long run.
You brave keyboard gatekeeper, you tried to achieve the futile, and your efforts were forgotten until this day, where some random anon did tear at the heroic sacrifices you made on behalf of humanity... In vain.
I shed two tears, one from each eye. An effort was made, a valiant effort. Yahel Guhan, rest easy retired, you've fought as a keyboard soldier and done your time in hell, shitpost in peace.
Also lol looking up Yahel Guhan he was a pro-choice, pro death-penalty, Jewish atheist in favour of world government butting heads with the likes of Truthseekers, self-described adherents of "Muslim Nation", or the interesting battle to delete, edit or support the page on Naveed Afzal Haq
I'm getting too sidetracked and I need to sleep anyways; though I sleep knowing I was vindicated. It is interesting to note that Yahel (who notes this themself) their views grew more extreme in response to continually battling against opposing extreme views, where Yahel went from being as biased as a soft idealist liberal to by the end being a world government death-penalty abortion supporting nihilist abandoning their passion as a futile endeavor plagued with psyops
Wikipedia actually crushed Yahel's hope in humanity
How the fuck can anyone dare to trust that piece of shit, let alone cite it before my eyeballs, is beyond me - beyond Yahel
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 18, 2016, 09:27:54 pm
At least, I think that's more or less it. I could be wrong. But I mean, the same criticisms could apply to the internet at large, really.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2016, 09:33:06 pm
Non-controversial subjects, usually. The differences in the things you showed weren't that big. Take it with a grain of salt, cite it for basic quotes and the like; it's not great for stuff that's been politicized but on other stuff it's probably decently reliable. Anonymous editors just means every bias gets represented, instead of only some. The hope is that, like democracy, it ends up averaging out to unbiased.The average between a truth and a lie is a lie, the average between a lie and a lie is also still a lie
I can't show you a difference between the wikipedia pages on the death of Muhammed because before the 1895 source shows up the same narrative is used, just unsourced and with less words
At least, I think that's more or less it. I could be wrong. But I mean, the same criticisms could apply to the internet at large, really.The stuff I've shown were small
Sit down and trawl
T R A W L
DO IT
WIKIPEDIA WILL CRUSH YOUR HOPE TOO
CRUSH YOU A L L
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 18, 2016, 09:54:44 pm
That out of the way. If you trawl the internet, you will find much the same thing, is my point. We still consider the internet acceptable to use. Citations are necessary for a reason. Look at the citations.
Also, the average between a truth and a lie depends largely on the nature of the subject in question. But that's beside the point. We aren't averaging truth and lies. We're averaging one perspective which is warped and another perspective which is warped. Two warped perspectives, if warped in opposite directions, can in fact average out to something fairly close to the truth.
Wikipedia is as reliable as the internet in general is. It's not great, but there's pieces that are worth it, and dismissing anything that uses it without followup is a mistake, just as using it without followup is a mistake.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 18, 2016, 10:07:20 pm
E: Hang on, this is getting kinda meta.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 18, 2016, 10:10:08 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on January 18, 2016, 10:10:21 pm
E: Hang on, this is getting kinda meta.As long as it doesn't get physical
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 18, 2016, 10:12:25 pm
How meta is asking how meta this has gotten, then?Not meta enough
Post by: TheDarkStar on January 18, 2016, 10:15:19 pm
How meta is asking how meta this has gotten, then?Not meta enough
I'm so meta, even this acronym.
Post by: Descan on January 18, 2016, 10:16:04 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on January 19, 2016, 02:37:53 am
Post by: Adragis on January 19, 2016, 02:45:04 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 19, 2016, 05:47:21 am
Putting things in capitals actually makes it carry less weight, if you're trying to convince me, in much the same way that my ability to actually care about someone's opinion is downgraded when they use more than two exclamation points. Two might be an accidental thing, though if it's consistent I also find it suspicious.I don't really care about winning arguments or convincing people m8, if it carries less weight it's deliberate because I'd rather have fun than get ir8 M A 8 T E
That out of the way. If you trawl the internet, you will find much the same thing, is my point.You will also find the opposite, you're justifying a lack of standard by looking for a lack of standard
We still consider the internet acceptable to use.To varying degrees, contrast if I sourced an encyclopedia vs an imgur macro, contrast if I sourced a medical journal vs "onlince doctor"
It's just dishonesty of the highest degree to justify lies with lies
Citations are necessary for a reason. Look at the citations.That would be the point of my posts
Also, the average between a truth and a lie depends largely on the nature of the subject in question.Nope, an average of a truth and a lie is a lie, there is no relativity on making falsehoods.
But that's beside the point. We aren't averaging truth and lies. We're averaging one perspective which is warped and another perspective which is warped. Two warped perspectives, if warped in opposite directions, can in fact average out to something fairly close to the truth.Two perspectives both wrong average out to a perspective that is wrong, there is no room for compromise on what is true, least of all with two warped perspectives. If one people contests that a town was wiped out by a flood and the other contests that is was wiped out by an earthquake, and they compromise and say it was destroyed by a mudslide that was caused by both minor flooding and a small earthquake - when the town was in fact abandoned for economic reasons, you will have arrived from one lie to another and another
Wikipedia is as reliable as the internet in general is. It's not great, but there's pieces that are worth it, and dismissing anything that uses it without followup is a mistake, just as using it without followup is a mistake.Yahweh Guru m8, there is a long list of bullshit and "Wikipedia is as reliable as the internet in general is" is on there
Wikipedia has never been a reliable source though? I mean, it's great as a general reference, but no-one, ever, has considered acceptable to cite it as a source.This whole things started off with wikipedia used as a source
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 19, 2016, 06:05:04 am
Post by: Vilanat on January 19, 2016, 06:38:20 am
You need to get that chip off your shoulder Vilanat, I mentioned her first as a tribeswoman just to step around calling her the Jewish woman or Jewess, and there are almost no other instances where I give a shit about "cultural sensitivity."
If you think I'm going to change the quotes though just to step around protecting your feelings, I stop there. The Jewish Encyclopedia backs me on this; truth trumps muh feels.
Unless you are the Islamic scholar who pinned Muhammad death on a Jew, i have no quarrel with you.
The only reason i extracted that part of your original post is because i heavily suspected that if there was a claim about Muhammad death not being natural, it would surely be pinned on a Jew, and hey, what a surprise, my suspicion was correct.
As for the validity of the claim ("truth trumps", heh :D) , well, i guess for people who believe in flying horses and talking ants, believing Muhammad was poisoned to death by a Jew 3 years prior to his actual death using a poison not known to science even after 1500 years is not that unreasonable.
Post by: Bohandas on January 19, 2016, 09:06:16 am
Okay. I added a second addendum to Rule 5: Wikipedia is not a reputable source.
But we can still quote holy texts ?!?
Post by: Bohandas on January 19, 2016, 09:08:54 am
Putting things in capitals actually makes it carry less weight, if you're trying to convince me, in much the same way that my ability to actually care about someone's opinion is downgraded when they use more than two exclamation points. Two might be an accidental thing, though if it's consistent I also find it suspicious.I don't really care about winning arguments or convincing people m8, if it carries less weight it's deliberate because I'd rather have fun than get ir8 M A 8 T E
Why do you keep typing like that? Is that some new cultural reference I've missed or are you having a stroke?
Post by: TD1 on January 19, 2016, 10:32:01 am
In other news, a debate on the reliability of Wikipedia is not really within the interests of this thread.
Partly to distract people, partly because I'm curious: How do women believers you know (or are) respond to the story of women being made from man, and for man's delight?
Post by: Frumple on January 19, 2016, 10:51:42 am
Others pointedly ignore it, just like they do the teaching bit, and other parts that are of such nature. They tend to be more... normal, I guess? Usual range of happiness et al, no really notable consistent behavior patterns insofar as the subject goes.
Many just don't really pay attention to it -- it's not a pointed refusal to acknowledge so much as it just doesn't really come up. For those, it's often internalized to a degree, though, especially if they're still much in the way of churchgoing and whatnot. More deference/submission/etc. towards men than towards women, and so on.
Insofar as my experience with things go, anyway. Will say it's really fucking weird to have ladies twice a guy's age and thrice their experience/etc., like, stepping aside or waiting for 'em to talk first or various shit like that. Screws with my own sensibilities pretty hard. Feels damned unnatural to have the person(s) that should be kinda' heading things or whatev' not, just 'cause there's a dick in the room.
Post by: TD1 on January 19, 2016, 11:03:53 am
I was wondering if that was common, because it seems fairly unsettling to me, and it's also under the radar. They don't behave like it, but they still perpetuate the myth to others.
Post by: Telgin on January 19, 2016, 11:29:39 am
Post by: Arx on January 19, 2016, 12:07:20 pm
Partly to distract people, partly because I'm curious: How do women believers you know (or are) respond to the story of women being made from man, and for man's delight?
And so God created Man in His own image; in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them.
So yeah.
Post by: TD1 on January 19, 2016, 12:10:29 pm
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
So yeah.
:P
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 19, 2016, 12:11:08 pm
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.helper, not a sex slave
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
So yeah.
:P
so yeah.
Post by: TD1 on January 19, 2016, 12:12:13 pm
To be his helper and facilitator.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 19, 2016, 12:15:56 pm
I never said sex slave. I said subservient, by which I meant woman was made to serve man.Oh. sorry. Helper doesn't always man one is superior. A helper can be equal to the helpee.
To be his helper and facilitator.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 19, 2016, 12:17:58 pm
Unless you are the Islamic scholar who pinned Muhammad death on a Jew, i have no quarrel with you.I won't deny I am not within the realm of possibility to be as a fact an ancient Islamic scholar operating out of a time traveling kebab van going by the name of Dr. Hussein
Because that is what I am not
The only reason i extracted that part of your original post is because i heavily suspected that if there was a claim about Muhammad death not being natural, it would surely be pinned on a Jew, and hey, what a surprise, my suspicion was correct.Shit wasn't natural, any less than you could say a death by neurotoxin is natural because suffocation is a natural process
As for the validity of the claim ("truth trumps", heh :D) , well, i guess for people who believe in flying horses and talking ants, believing Muhammad was poisoned to death by a Jew 3 years prior to his actual death using a poison not known to science even after 1500 years is not that unreasonable.He ate from the same poison that killed his companion who ate it at higher doses. His friend ate more of the poisoned lamb - he dies almost immediately. Muhammed ate less of the lamb, the symptoms afflict him until and leading to premature death. This is hardly rocket science.
"Using a poison not known to science" - """Science""" does not know what poison killed Umar, Ali, Artaxerxes III and IV, Hui, Muhammed and so on, we do not know what poisons the likes of Locusta used even in spite of 2000 years of science and an interest in some of the most powerful people to have ever walked the Earth. Off the top of my head the only famous poison deaths of the ancient world we know about are Socrates and Cleopatra, who both committed suicide and had no need to disguise the poison from themselves. This is not exactly a statement of validity, especially considering the most effective poison is one undetectable and one easily available.
The alternative narrative is believing in the word of an anonymous wikipedia editor sourcing their information from an interpretation of the Quran dating from the late 19th century in Germany from a failed prospective Rabbi, ignoring all of the Hadiths from historiographers or the accounts from the Companions of Muhammed. Why lol?
I'll have to call Dr. Hussein to figure out how the ancient scholars had the ability to predict the modern geopolitics and identity politics of the modern world 1,300 years in advance
Why do you keep typing like that? Is that some new cultural reference I've missed or are you having a stroke?W E A R E B U I L D I N G A R E L I G I O N
W E A R E B U I L D I N G A B R A N D
W E A R E T H E O N L Y O N E S T O T U R N T O
W H E N Y O U R C A S T L E S T U R N T O S A N D
helper, not a sex slaveMother of God
so yeah.
Also notable is that all of J's m8s left him cos they didn't want to get Roman'd whilst his female converts stayed at the foot of the Rood during the Passion
And if we're getting all semantic, helper does not indicate any power or lack thereof, a supplicant to a helper has the helper in a position of power, a doctor is holding all the info and skill, or on the other end a general assistant to a specialist has a command chain e.t.c.
Post by: Bohandas on January 19, 2016, 12:40:17 pm
Post by: wierd on January 19, 2016, 04:30:28 pm
"J's m8s" == Jesus's Mates (aka, his friends, the apostles.)
etc
If that is incomprehensible, stay away from leet speakers.
Post by: Bohandas on January 19, 2016, 04:56:50 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 19, 2016, 04:57:52 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 19, 2016, 06:27:44 pm
It seems vaguely schizophrenic.Yeah that's just what LW does. I don't really mind because he's still contributing to the discussion, even if it is disguised as a shitpost.
...
Anyway, re: women as subservient etc.
In the Reformed church (which I believe to be the most solidly Bible-based - other churches will have different teachings but at the expense of Biblical accuracy) we do follow the men created first, women second stuff, but a few things should be emphasised.
First, men are not "superior" to women in any way. Different, yes, but that's basic biology and not really of much concern.
In a family, men are considered to be the "head of the household", but this is in the Roman style of things - the emphasis is on the man's responsibility to provide and care for his family. If the wife is also working this is kind of a moot point though, so vov.
The only actually sexist thing is inside the church itself. Women are barred from leadership positions - serving as minister, elder, or deacon. Mostly because there's a lot of epistles stating that this should be the case.
Outside of the church, men and women effectively equal (because the distinction is usually irrelevant) and treating women as second-class citizens because of it is in direct contradiction to the whole love and kindness shtick.
Post by: Graknorke on January 19, 2016, 06:30:40 pm
It's complicatedWhy is it complicated? As far as I know married couples can do basically whatever sexually and it's okay.
Post by: Descan on January 19, 2016, 07:10:37 pm
Post by: Graknorke on January 19, 2016, 07:23:56 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 19, 2016, 07:26:46 pm
Why is it complicated? As far as I know married couples can do basically whatever sexually and it's okay.There are things explicitly forbidden, there are things very frowned upon and things that are forbidden that by extension make other things forbidden as well as things forbidden that are not given concrete definition
Anal sex = Haram
Oral sex (in any case where it results in the ingestion of bodily fluids of any kind) = Haram
Had a re-look, and it's one of those things that's in the Hadiths but not in the Quran itself. AKA you can kind of brush it off if you're so inclined.What
That's like saying Christians can brush off what Jesus says if they're so inclined
Post by: Graknorke on January 19, 2016, 07:28:17 pm
Post by: Telgin on January 19, 2016, 07:47:07 pm
One might argue that the more specific rule is more important, but I think it's generally healthier to read anything that wasn't said directly by Jesus with a grain of proverbial salt and not take bans like that seriously.
If there's anything I learned from a Catholic friend who trained to be a priest, it's that you really have to read most of the books of the New Testament with their target audience in mind. Most of them were written to specific churches in specific places that already had cultures and expectations that had to be worked with.
I don't buy into the Bible as divine inspiration anyway, but I think even if you do it's a healthy mindset. In this case, that was just the writings of someone who didn't like the idea of women teaching in church and not something God said or directed.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 19, 2016, 08:02:48 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 19, 2016, 08:06:50 pm
If you can use an excuse to justify not publicly executing people, you can use it to have special bum fun.What excuse?
This is more like saying Muslims can brush off the Quran if they're so inclined
Post by: wierd on January 19, 2016, 08:09:46 pm
The true equal treatment of women, in respect to the biblical rhetoric and doctrines, is a case of "She not respect my authority, by talking to me like my equal! That bad! Jew man STONE!"
Post by: Graknorke on January 19, 2016, 08:13:15 pm
That the Hadiths aren't as necessary to follow as the Quran. It's how the Muslims I know who care about that kind of thing rationalise that they're not getting together to lynch gays and adulterers and so on.If you can use an excuse to justify not publicly executing people, you can use it to have special bum fun.What excuse?
This is more like saying Muslims can brush off the Quran if they're so inclined
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 19, 2016, 08:19:01 pm
...
1 Timothy 2:12 is the only place I know of that directly says that women shouldn't teach in churchTimothy, Corinthians, and a few others that I can't recall off-hand. There's probably an article in the Westminster Confession on it as well.
Post by: Bohandas on January 19, 2016, 08:34:53 pm
Had a re-look, and it's one of those things that's in the Hadiths but not in the Quran itself. AKA you can kind of brush it off if you're so inclined.What
That's like saying Christians can brush off what Jesus says if they're so inclined
IIRC The hadiths are not held to be divinely inspired
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 19, 2016, 09:49:21 pm
That the Hadiths aren't as necessary to follow as the Quran. It's how the Muslims I know who care about that kind of thing rationalise that they're not getting together to lynch gays and adulterers and so on.
IIRC The hadiths are not held to be divinely inspiredwat who is telling you people these things
IIRC, don't Sunni Muslims hold to both Quran and Hadiths, but Shia Muslims hold only to the Quran? Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that but I think that's roughly the case.No, both Sunni and Shia hold onto both Quran and Hadiths and... Well, I think there's some confusion on what the Hadith are. They are a collection of the things Muhammed said when he was alive in response to things and all that, so it's like a compendium of "what would Jesus do" with answers helpfully attached. The Sunni hold the hadith to be legit (with some hadiths more legit than others) and have six major hadith, whilst the Shia have four different ones (and by virtue of their skepticism of Sunni sources, also view their own with more skepticism. The hadith are fundamental to the religion of Islam and form much of the basis of Sharia Law, I'm a bit thrown aback by this lack of cultural enrichment, how have you lived your lives with so few encounters with Islam is beyond me, we must rev up Muslim immigration to the USA gorillion fold at this rate O_O
For the Sunni following the Hadith as part of the Sunnah is especially important - the whole notion of being a Sunni is being a person of tradition, of living your life based on what Muhammed did/said/forbid and in turn based off of the religious canon, which in turn has primacy.
For the Shia they have different Hadith and they also believe that Muhammed's divine guidance was passed down to Ali and his successors, the twelve Imams. The Shiites also believe in their ayatollahs (high ranking priests well versed in Islamic / theological studies) being in a way qualified by God to interpret and reinterpret the Canon similar to say, the Papacy of the Roman Catholics reinterpreting the Christian Canon to respond to new problems that arise over long periods of time, whilst Sunni are much more traditional and keeping to the primacy of the Canon; follow the example of the Hadith and Quran as is said, even more than a Christian fundamentalist would follow the examples in the Bible by the text
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 19, 2016, 10:01:00 pm
With a bit of shitposting, strawman parody (I don't think anyone has claimed Sharia law to be cultural enrichment on this thread, at any rate), a fair amount of condescension, and guilt-by-association thrown in. (That last one's okay though basically everybody does it and it's fairly inevitable)
Post by: Rolan7 on January 19, 2016, 10:14:41 pm
To ignore that is to do a disservice to the Muslims who are pushing for progressive values and cooperation. And extremely condescending. And you're guilty by association.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 19, 2016, 11:02:18 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Bohandas on January 20, 2016, 01:00:04 am
Had a re-look, and it's one of those things that's in the Hadiths but not in the Quran itself. AKA you can kind of brush it off if you're so inclined.What
That's like saying Christians can brush off what Jesus says if they're so inclined
EDIT:
see below
Post by: Bohandas on January 20, 2016, 01:11:22 am
IIRC, don't Sunni Muslims hold to both Quran and Hadiths, but Shia Muslims hold only to the Quran? Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that but I think that's roughly the case.No, both Sunni and Shia hold onto both Quran and Hadiths and... Well, I think there's some confusion on what the Hadith are. They are a collection of the things Muhammed said when he was alive in response to things and all that, so it's like a compendium of "what would Jesus do" with answers helpfully attached. The Sunni hold the hadith to be legit (with some hadiths more legit than others) and have six major hadith, whilst the Shia have four different ones (and by virtue of their skepticism of Sunni sources, also view their own with more skepticism. The hadith are fundamental to the religion of Islam and form much of the basis of Sharia Law,
Papal Encyclicals are fundamental to Catholic Christianity and form the basis of canon law but they're not themselves canon in the sense of being part of the faith's official holy book. The Talmud is central to the Jewish faith and form the basis of Rabbinic law, but it's not part of the Tanakh.
Plus, from your description, the Hadiths sound much closer to the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, or possibly the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, than any of he Gospels.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 20, 2016, 01:19:35 am
Post by: Bohandas on January 20, 2016, 01:39:52 am
tbf Wisdom of Solomon is apocryphal in protestant churches so it's not really a good comparison
According to my research the Shi'a consider the main Sunni hadiths to be apocryphal and vice versa. So the comparison stands.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 20, 2016, 02:21:16 am
Post by: Bohandas on January 20, 2016, 02:33:55 am
Post by: Graknorke on January 20, 2016, 03:05:09 am
wat who is telling you people these thingsI think we're operating on different ideas of "can" here. You're meaning theologically sound while I'm meaning your family (probably) won't arrange for you to be kidnapped/murdered.
Post by: Micro102 on January 20, 2016, 03:39:04 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 20, 2016, 05:17:59 am
My choice is never infringed upon.You're getting a bit hung up on semantics there, I think. Making choices isn't the same as free will. Free will is defined as "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion" - that is, free will is not deterministic. If your choices can be calculated ahead of time then you are not exhibiting free will.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 20, 2016, 10:43:07 am
Alternatively, if you knew everything about someone's personality, you could 'calculafe' their decisions too. Knowing the position and state of every atom in their body at the decision point achieves the same thing but is far more difficult. Being able to predict someone's behavior does not mean they have no free will.
And in case, it's easier and healthier to act as if I do have free will, so I do.
Post by: Telgin on January 20, 2016, 10:59:58 am
Quantum mechanic's effect on my thought processes are inherently unpredictable, therefore I have free will.
Are you sure? Are you sure it's not just random, as quantum mechanics is? Predictability isn't really necessarily related to free will. After all, decisions can be made from randomness. Imagine using dice and a table to decide outcomes of questions.
Whether you believe our actions are controlled by classical or quantum mechanical physics, at no point does a magical decider from outside of randomness or determinism factor in.
For free will to exist (due to quantum mechanics at least), you, that is, the part of you that makes decisions, would ultimately have to be physics. Your consciousness or whatever would have to influence probability distributions of quantum mechanics to cause different neuronal pathways to fire. While it's probably not strictly possible to prove that isn't the case, it's hard to imagine that it is.
Quote
Alternatively, if you knew everything about someone's personality, you could 'calculafe' their decisions too. Knowing the position and state of every atom in their body at the decision point achieves the same thing but is far more difficult. Being able to predict someone's behavior does not mean they have no free will.
Depends on what you mean by free will, but you can imagine from a philosophical point of view at least that if your future is entirely certain then free will either doesn't exist or is meaningless if it does.
To put it another way, we do make decisions based on history and current observations. It's just that our decisions are always strictly dependent on those things, which are outside of our control, and thus our decisions are strictly outside of our control. If we make decisions based on something other than what we have and are experiencing, what is it?
Quote
And in case, it's easier and healthier to act as if I do have free will, so I do.
While I don't believe in free will, I do believe this is the healthy mindset. For all intents and purposes, whether we have free will or not is irrelevant outside of philosophical discussion.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 20, 2016, 11:05:34 am
Speaking of QZ effect...I only very recently learned about and find it incredibly disturbing. If anyone can explain to me how/why it works, I would very much appreciate it, if it's about the manner the measurements are taken that screws with the particle or what because as of right now it's the strongest evidence in my mind for the world being something other than it appears.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 20, 2016, 11:34:57 am
Papal Encyclicals are fundamental to Catholic Christianity and form the basis of canon law but they're not themselves canon in the sense of being part of the faith's official holy book. The Talmud is central to the Jewish faith and form the basis of Rabbinic law, but it's not part of the Tanakh.Papal Encyclicals are given by the Papacy, not Jesus.
Plus, from your description, the Hadiths sound much closer to the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, or possibly the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, than any of he Gospels.
The Talmud is a good comparison, since it founds the basis of Rabbinic law, was passed down from Moses, but the Mishnah is canon and "(...) thus with the completion of the Talmud, as is stated in the canon incorporated in the Talmud itself (B. M. 86a). The Mishnah, the basal work of halakic tradition, thenceforth shared its authority with the Talmud. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14213-talmud)"
The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon is given secondary canon status, the Book of the Acts of the Apostles is about the spread of Christianity and Jesus's Apostles and whose equivalent are the accounts of the Rashidun, and the Gospels are in fact the most similar to the Hadith;
- The Gospels detail the early life of Jesus, the Hadith detail the life as a whole of Muhammed
- Four of the Gospels are canon, the Sunni hadith are canon and synonymous with the Sunnah, the Shia hadith are canon (with the caveat that they consider some narrations within the hadith as made by fallible people, allowing for scholarly exegesis)
Post by: Telgin on January 20, 2016, 12:00:11 pm
Quantum Zeno effect, Telgin. :P plus I don't necessarily believe that I have to magically influence it in order to have free will. Though the concept is fairly meaningless
Going to be honest... I'm not sure I see how the quantum Zeno effect affects anything here. I am operating on 5 hours of sleep, so maybe I'm just missing something.
In order for us to have free will, our decisions have to come from something other than determinism and random behavior. What other possibilities even exist, aside from something immeasurable and divine / magical? So far as I can tell, the quantum Zeno effect is just influencing randomness, but it's still random results. The measurements that cause the influence themselves must be either deterministic or random, right? I don't see how you can avoid determinism or randomness as long as you stick with physics.
Quote
Speaking of QZ effect...I only very recently learned about and find it incredibly disturbing. If anyone can explain to me how/why it works, I would very much appreciate it, if it's about the manner the measurements are taken that screws with the particle or what because as of right now it's the strongest evidence in my mind for the world being something other than it appears.
I'm hardly a quantum physicist, but by my understanding at least it works by limiting the "options" the observed particle has. By interacting with an observer, it has to assume an absolute state during that interaction, during which it can't decay. If you continue to observe it, it has fewer and fewer opportunities to decay because it has to stay in an absolute state for longer.
Why this works is probably almost a philosophical question in and of itself at this point, since it's getting to the point of dealing with fundamental rules of the universe that might as well have been chosen arbitrarily.
Post by: Graknorke on January 20, 2016, 12:07:05 pm
Quantum mechanic's effect on my thought processes are inherently unpredictable, therefore I have free will.Can randomness really be called a meaningful choice? If you say that free will comes from randomness, literally everything has free will and it's still not anything worth cherishing.
Post by: Bohandas on January 20, 2016, 12:28:18 pm
Quantum Zeno effect, Telgin. :P plus I don't necessarily believe that I have to magically influence it in order to have free will. Though the concept is fairly meaningless
Going to be honest... I'm not sure I see how the quantum Zeno effect affects anything here. I am operating on 5 hours of sleep, so maybe I'm just missing something.
In order for us to have free will, our decisions have to come from something other than determinism and random behavior. What other possibilities even exist, aside from something immeasurable and divine / magical?
Even something divine or magical would still have to u=operate under some kind of rules, even if they were ineffable to us.
Post by: nullBolt on January 20, 2016, 05:07:30 pm
Quote
When Muslim organizations invite Shaykhs who speak openly about the values of Islam, the Islamophobic western media starts murdering the character of that organization and the invited speaker. The question these Islamophobic journalists need to reflect upon is; are these so called ''radical'' views that they criticize endorsed only by these few individuals being invited around the globe, or does the common Muslims believe in them. If the common Muslims believe in these values that means that more or less all Muslims are radical and that Islam is a radical religion. Since this is not the case, as Islam is a peaceful religion and so are the masses of common Muslims, these Shaykhs cannot be radical. Rather it is Islamophobia from the ignorant western media who is more concerned about making money by alienating Islam by presenting Muslims in this way. Islam Net, an organization in Norway, invited 9 speakers to Peace Conference Scandinavia 2013. These speakers would most likely be labelled as ''extremists'' if the media were to write about the conference. But how come this conference was the largest Islamic Scandinavian International event that has taken place in Norway with about 4000 people attending? Were the majority of those who attended in opposition to what the speakers were preaching? If so, how come they paid to enter? Let's forget about that for a moment, let's imagine that we don't really knew what all these people thought about for example segregation of men and women, or stoning to death of those who commit adultery. The Chairman of Islam Net, Fahad Ullah Qureshi asked the audience, and the answer was clear. The attendees were common Sunni Muslims. They did not consider themselves as radicals or extremists. They believed that segregation was the right thing to do, both men and women agreed upon this. They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime. They even believed that these practises should be implemented around the world. Now what does that tell us? Either all Muslims and Islam is radical, or the media is Islamophobic and racist in their presentation of Islam. Islam is not radical, nor is Muslims in general radical. That means that the media is the reason for the hatred against Muslims, which is spreading among the non-Muslims in western countries.
Been being harassed in the EU thread about talking about this stuff. :p
Post by: Rolan7 on January 20, 2016, 05:15:14 pm
Quote
The attendees were common Sunni Muslims. They did not consider themselves as radicals or extremists. They believed that segregation was the right thing to do, both men and women agreed upon this. They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime. They even believed that these practises should be implemented around the world.Damn, that sucks. But I wish it was more surprising, honest.
Quote
Now what does that tell us? Either all Muslims and Islam is radical, or the media is Islamophobic and racist in their presentation of Islam.Wait, huh?
Quote
Islam is not radical, nor is Muslims in general radical.uh
Quote
That means that the media is the reason for the hatred against Muslims, which is spreading among the non-Muslims in western countries.
Is this supposed to be logic? I do not follow whatsoever...
Post by: nullBolt on January 20, 2016, 05:18:06 pm
Is this supposed to be logic? I do not follow whatsoever...
Neither do I. I quoted it off the description in the video. I just found it interesting.
Post by: Graknorke on January 20, 2016, 05:18:24 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 20, 2016, 06:26:06 pm
Post by: Bohandas on January 20, 2016, 07:32:11 pm
Quantum Zeno effect
You know, I'd heard about that effect before but totally forgot it was a thing until you mentioned it.
I wonder if it could be used to keep the fissile material in a nuclear bomb viable for longer. And if so dies the gobernment already use that. And if yes to 1 and no to 2, why not?
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 20, 2016, 08:35:17 pm
'Everything has free will' does not lead to 'free will is not worth cherishing'.Quantum mechanic's effect on my thought processes are inherently unpredictable, therefore I have free will.Can randomness really be called a meaningful choice? If you say that free will comes from randomness, literally everything has free will and it's still not anything worth cherishing.
I disagree.Quantum Zeno effect, Telgin. :P plus I don't necessarily believe that I have to magically influence it in order to have free will. Though the concept is fairly meaningless
Going to be honest... I'm not sure I see how the quantum Zeno effect affects anything here. I am operating on 5 hours of sleep, so maybe I'm just missing something.
In order for us to have free will, our decisions have to come from something other than determinism and random behavior. What other possibilities even exist, aside from something immeasurable and divine / magical? So far as I can tell, the quantum Zeno effect is just influencing randomness, but it's still random results. The measurements that cause the influence themselves must be either deterministic or random, right? I don't see how you can avoid determinism or randomness as long as you stick with physics.
Post by: Telgin on January 20, 2016, 09:26:26 pm
Probably for the best anyway, since I've grown a bit sour about talking about free will anyway. Last time I had a serious conversation with someone about it, I sent them into spiraling depression...
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 20, 2016, 09:34:55 pm
Probably for the best anyway, since I've grown a bit sour about talking about free will anyway. Last time I had a serious conversation with someone about it, I sent them into spiraling depression...That's awesome, determinists make me depressed too
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 20, 2016, 10:29:11 pm
Well... okay. I'm curious what else you think can bring about free will, but I guess you'd have volunteered it if you wanted to keep this conversation going. Or we just have incompatible understandings of what free will is.I just don't think that determinism+randomness means there's no such thing as free will.
Probably for the best anyway, since I've grown a bit sour about talking about free will anyway. Last time I had a serious conversation with someone about it, I sent them into spiraling depression...
Post by: Bohandas on January 21, 2016, 01:55:37 am
Well... okay. I'm curious what else you think can bring about free will, but I guess you'd have volunteered it if you wanted to keep this conversation going. Or we just have incompatible understandings of what free will is.
That's the big problem, it's a very poorly defined term.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 21, 2016, 02:11:23 am
I mean, I'm open to the idea of universes constantly splitting on the quantum scale... But that doesn't give me any more agency than I already have, just changes the sensory input and my brain chemistry. Pick a line on the quantum tree and the question's the same: If it was always going to happen this way, did I have a choice?
Well yeah, I thought about the thing and made the choice, like I was always going to. Is that "free will"? I don't understand the question.
Post by: Bohandas on January 21, 2016, 02:31:29 am
Well yeah, I thought about the thing and made the choice, like I was always going to. Is that "free will"? I don't understand the question.
That's just "will"
Post by: Arx on January 21, 2016, 02:41:54 am
I mean, I voted for 'no free will', but that's only in a highly theoretical sense. It's all rather complicated, really.
Post by: Grimlocke on January 21, 2016, 06:00:54 am
That wasn't so hard. These things are all so much easier if you don't get mired in made up metaphysical rhubarb. I think the part where most went wrong is where they assumed they were some sort of magical being inhabiting a human body, then realized the brain makes all the decisions and feel their existence as a 'soul' is threatened.
Which makes it all the more surprising to see the atheist make up the majority of the 'no free will' group.
I especially like the cat-leap of logic that suggested there can be no free will without a divine force directing all we do.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 21, 2016, 06:17:21 am
Will is a function of the brain. Does it get to decide a thing? Huzzah, you have free will!No, that's just choices. Free will is by definition non-deterministic. If our choices are ultimately the product of external stimuli, then it's not free will.
Admittedly this is just a semantics argument, but w/e, it's the definition I had in mind when I made the poll.
Post by: nullBolt on January 21, 2016, 06:18:19 am
Post by: Antioch on January 21, 2016, 06:30:33 am
Will is a function of the brain. Does it get to decide a thing? Huzzah, you have free will!No, that's just choices. Free will is by definition non-deterministic. If our choices are ultimately the product of external stimuli, then it's not free will.
Admittedly this is just a semantics argument, but w/e, it's the definition I had in mind when I made the poll.
I believe our choices are ultimately deterministic.
However a lot of people make some really odd conclusions when you state there is no "free" will.
Post by: nullBolt on January 21, 2016, 06:34:51 am
Post by: Grimlocke on January 21, 2016, 07:30:58 am
Different people will make radically different decisions under the same circumstances, external stimuli are just one of many ingredients that go into human (or other animal) decision making.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, the brain is where the free will is at. Arguing that it's not because there is no external force making decisions for it... doesn't make much sense to me. Wouldn't that kind of force impede the whole 'free' part of will?
Arguing that free will is unwilling because if you rewind time the exact same choice gets made, to me just means that clearly the person does have a will since they didn't just do something random.
This does illustrate
Post by: TD1 on January 21, 2016, 07:43:13 am
No matter how you look at it, there is undoubtedly no free will. We are biological automatons with all our functionality pre-programmed. I don't make a choice so much as my past makes the choice for me.And the first time you made a choice?
Post by: nullBolt on January 21, 2016, 07:46:09 am
Brains take external stimuli, process them, apply their memories, emotions, bias (lots of those), sometimes logic like causality and prediction, and produce their 'will', as in something they will want to do under said circumstances.
Different people will make radically different decisions under the same circumstances, external stimuli are just one of many ingredients that go into human (or other animal) decision making.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, the brain is where the free will is at. Arguing that it's not because there is no external force making decisions for it... doesn't make much sense to me. Wouldn't that kind of force impede the whole 'free' part of will?
Arguing that free will is unwilling because if you rewind time the exact same choice gets made, to me just means that clearly the person does have a will since they didn't just do something random.
This does illustrate
That's literally against the concept of free will.
No matter how you look at it, there is undoubtedly no free will. We are biological automatons with all our functionality pre-programmed. I don't make a choice so much as my past makes the choice for me.And the first time you made a choice?
Biological functions up to that point what compelled me to do it.
Post by: Grimlocke on January 21, 2016, 08:11:36 am
Brains take external stimuli, process them, apply their memories, emotions, bias (lots of those), sometimes logic like causality and prediction, and produce their 'will', as in something they will want to do under said circumstances.
Different people will make radically different decisions under the same circumstances, external stimuli are just one of many ingredients that go into human (or other animal) decision making.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, the brain is where the free will is at. Arguing that it's not because there is no external force making decisions for it... doesn't make much sense to me. Wouldn't that kind of force impede the whole 'free' part of will?
Arguing that free will is unwilling because if you rewind time the exact same choice gets made, to me just means that clearly the person does have a will since they didn't just do something random.
This does illustrate
That's literally against the concept of free will.No matter how you look at it, there is undoubtedly no free will. We are biological automatons with all our functionality pre-programmed. I don't make a choice so much as my past makes the choice for me.And the first time you made a choice?
Biological functions up to that point what compelled me to do it.
I think what your not quite realizing is that that squishy lump of grey matter is your entire person. Without it, nothing you are exists. Just because its neurological processes (as opposed to what else exactly?), doesn't mean it cannot do free thinking, free decision making and indeed, has free will.
Of course if you set up your concept of free will specifically so that it can only be some magical outside force then yeah of course, magic doesn't exist. I'm not sure what your really trying to prove by redefining the question to fit your answer though.
Post by: Antioch on January 21, 2016, 08:38:19 am
My brain is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. Apart from some weird quantum mechanics and other phenomena like the uncertainty principle matter behaves deterministic.
Why would accepting this degrade us?
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 21, 2016, 08:48:10 am
Not having free will does not degrade my person. That is again a wrong conclusion if you accept there is no free will.Cos you're just a drone to be programmed lol, no choice 4u
My brain is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. Apart from some weird quantum mechanics and other phenomena like the uncertainty principle matter behaves deterministic.
Why would accepting this degrade us?
Post by: nullBolt on January 21, 2016, 09:07:31 am
I think what your not quite realizing is that that squishy lump of grey matter is your entire person. Without it, nothing you are exists. Just because its neurological processes (as opposed to what else exactly?), doesn't mean it cannot do free thinking, free decision making and indeed, has free will.
Of course if you set up your concept of free will specifically so that it can only be some magical outside force then yeah of course, magic doesn't exist. I'm not sure what your really trying to prove by redefining the question to fit your answer though.
Of course it does. If I replay my life a thousand times and each time the result is the same, that is not freedom of choice. I have no choice since my path is determined solely by outside stimuli.
If you can know me wholly as a person and then be able to predict every choice I make, then that is not freedom of choice as my path is already determined.
Post by: Antioch on January 21, 2016, 09:12:20 am
Not having free will does not degrade my person. That is again a wrong conclusion if you accept there is no free will.Cos you're just a drone to be programmed lol, no choice 4u
My brain is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. Apart from some weird quantum mechanics and other phenomena like the uncertainty principle matter behaves deterministic.
Why would accepting this degrade us?
Once again the wrong conclusion that accepting our thoughts obey the laws of physics somehow makes us drones. That our actions are deterministic does not make them meaningless. Our subjective reality is very much real and is as meaningful as you make it to be.
But yes someone CAN stick some electrodes in your head and make you feel/do whatever the fuck he wants.
Post by: Egan_BW on January 21, 2016, 09:17:40 am
So you would prefer, instead of being deterministic, that your actions were determined by RNG? Or is there a third option?I think what your not quite realizing is that that squishy lump of grey matter is your entire person. Without it, nothing you are exists. Just because its neurological processes (as opposed to what else exactly?), doesn't mean it cannot do free thinking, free decision making and indeed, has free will.
Of course if you set up your concept of free will specifically so that it can only be some magical outside force then yeah of course, magic doesn't exist. I'm not sure what your really trying to prove by redefining the question to fit your answer though.
Of course it does. If I replay my life a thousand times and each time the result is the same, that is not freedom of choice. I have no choice since my path is determined solely by outside stimuli.
If you can know me wholly as a person and then be able to predict every choice I make, then that is not freedom of choice as my path is already determined.
Post by: TD1 on January 21, 2016, 09:24:50 am
That's not the way the world tends to work. Think of a choice that is ultimately meaningless. You stand in the middle of a bare room, and there are two exits, both identical. It's 50/50 which one you choose - you could, really, choose either. If you replayed your life a thousand times, I have no doubt that you'd pick both exits at one time or another.
Post by: nullBolt on January 21, 2016, 09:28:36 am
So you would prefer, instead of being deterministic, that your actions were determined by RNG? Or is there a third option?
It's either or, really. But the reality of it is that we are fundamentally just very complex robots. Our rules are laid out for us.
Nullbolt, your argument seems to see any decision you make as clear cut. If such and such happens, then such and such is definitely going to happen.
That's not the way the world tends to work. Think of a choice that is ultimately meaningless. You stand in the middle of a bare room, and there are two exits, both identical. It's 50/50 which one you choose - you could, really, choose either. If you replayed your life a thousand times, I have no doubt that you'd pick both exits at one time or another.
Are you sure about that? Maybe I'd always pick the right entrance simply because it resonates with me in some way. Maybe I'd pick it because I'm right handed, who knows?
But if you erased my memory every time I'm sure I'd pick the same one every time.
Post by: TD1 on January 21, 2016, 09:32:31 am
In nature, if there's a 50/50 chance, then both may happen. What makes you think you're different? What ability does being clothed in flesh and being sentient give you to transcend the material?
Post by: Egan_BW on January 21, 2016, 09:36:19 am
Post by: Antioch on January 21, 2016, 09:40:54 am
And the brick balanced on the top of a pole always falls the same way, no matter how many times it's replaced on its perch in the same place?
In nature, if there's a 50/50 chance, then both may happen. What makes you think you're different? What ability does being clothed in flesh and being sentient give you to transcend the material?
Do you think matter suddenly obeys different laws when something is repeated?
Either the experiment set up is the same or it is different there is no "almost the same".
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 21, 2016, 09:44:07 am
Once again the wrong conclusion that accepting our thoughts obey the laws of physics somehow makes us drones. That our actions are deterministic does not make them meaningless. Our subjective reality is very much real and is as meaningful as you make it to be.No, the wrong conclusion is that accepting our thoughts obey the laws of physics somehow deprives us of free will.
But yes someone CAN stick some electrodes in your head and make you feel/do whatever the fuck he wants.
If you willingly throw away your free will, you are nothing more than a drone to be programmed ^_^
And don't even start on subjective reality being real, go huff some paint and the hallucinations you perceive may be as real to you as you think they are, you'll still look completely bonkers to everyone else.
Post by: Antioch on January 21, 2016, 09:48:12 am
Once again the wrong conclusion that accepting our thoughts obey the laws of physics somehow makes us drones. That our actions are deterministic does not make them meaningless. Our subjective reality is very much real and is as meaningful as you make it to be.No, the wrong conclusion is that accepting our thoughts obey the laws of physics somehow deprives us of free will.
But yes someone CAN stick some electrodes in your head and make you feel/do whatever the fuck he wants.
If you willingly throw away your free will, you are nothing more than a drone to be programmed ^_^
And don't even start on subjective reality being real, go huff some paint and the hallucinations you perceive may be as real to you as you think they are, you'll still look completely bonkers to everyone else.
Well then it just becomes an issue of how you define "free"
Mostly it is accepted that deterministic thought is not considered "free" in this context.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 21, 2016, 09:50:21 am
Well then it just becomes an issue of how you define "free"Mostly by determinist drones LOL, they were programmed to
Mostly it is accepted that deterministic thought is not considered "free" in this context.
Post by: Egan_BW on January 21, 2016, 09:52:32 am
Post by: TD1 on January 21, 2016, 09:59:06 am
If all factors are the same, the brick will.always fall the same way. However, in practice, factors are almost never the exact same.
And the brick balanced on the top of a pole always falls the same way, no matter how many times it's replaced on its perch in the same place?
In nature, if there's a 50/50 chance, then both may happen. What makes you think you're different? What ability does being clothed in flesh and being sentient give you to transcend the material?
Do you think matter suddenly obeys different laws when something is repeated?
Either the experiment set up is the same or it is different there is no "almost the same".
If the factors were such that it was 50/50, then yes it may fall another way despite being placed in the same place. If something is placed in the exact same place under the same circumstances (for example a cone being placed on its point) then it can fall any which way, not necessarily the same way, or to the same place, every time. It stands to reason, I believe, though I've never researched it very deeply, hah.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 21, 2016, 10:00:05 am
Post by: Rolan7 on January 21, 2016, 10:04:08 am
What alternative is there?
If the stimuli are the same, you make the same choices... But that doesn't mean your choices are restricted. Being predictable doesn't mean you aren't free. Only if you were going to make a choice, and then someone *altered your brain/thoughts*, would your free will be violated. So, I'd argue that free will can be violated if someone dopes you. Or if a wizard mind-controls you, or a god.I think what your not quite realizing is that that squishy lump of grey matter is your entire person. Without it, nothing you are exists. Just because its neurological processes (as opposed to what else exactly?), doesn't mean it cannot do free thinking, free decision making and indeed, has free will.
Of course if you set up your concept of free will specifically so that it can only be some magical outside force then yeah of course, magic doesn't exist. I'm not sure what your really trying to prove by redefining the question to fit your answer though.
Of course it does. If I replay my life a thousand times and each time the result is the same, that is not freedom of choice. I have no choice since my path is determined solely by outside stimuli.
If you can know me wholly as a person and then be able to predict every choice I make, then that is not freedom of choice as my path is already determined.
But being predicted is irrelevant. Say there's a vote coming up, and someone knows you very well. Enough to predict which way you'll vote. That doesn't remove your agency, you're still free to vote in a different way... You just won't.
Someone mentioned "replaying a situation". That's some Star-Trek level silliness, where they just kinda "feel" that they're in a time loop. If a situation is exactly the same, you'll freely choose the same thing. If there's any difference, you may freely choose something else.
If deterministic thought is not free, what is?Seriously!
Post by: nullBolt on January 21, 2016, 10:04:40 am
Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.
Humanity is natural selection embodied. We select tools, try to use those tools and rework them to make them better. We can do a thousand years worth of evolution in a single day, if not less.
Post by: Antioch on January 21, 2016, 10:07:17 am
If deterministic thought is not free, what is?
Good question. But this is more an issue about what is the definition of "free" than of any characteristic of our thought processes.
So I will conclude:
1. Our thoughts are entirely determined by the laws of physics acting upon the matter/energy that make up our brains.
2. Physics are always the same.
3. Call that free or not, whatever suits you.
Post by: Telgin on January 21, 2016, 10:07:41 am
Quote
If the factors were such that it was 50/50, then yes it may fall another way despite being placed in the same place. If something is placed in the exact same place under the same circumstances (for example a cone being placed on its point) then it can fall any which way, not necessarily the same way, or to the same place, every time. It stands to reason, I believe, though I've never researched it very deeply, hah.
This is really only true for the lowest levels of quantum mechanical systems, and even then we don't know for sure if repeating a moment wouldn't result in the same thing happening since we can't exactly do it in practice.
For macroscopic things at least (say, bigger than an atom), there's really no such thing as a 50/50 chance. We only make approximations like that because we can't fully model the system.
Quote
Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.
Humans are smart, which is definitely why we were able to advance so quickly, but couldn't a machine be programmed to do the same, in theory?
Post by: Rolan7 on January 21, 2016, 10:08:18 am
Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.The stone age was, in evolutionary terms, yesterday. There hasn't been time for hardly any macroevolution since then, which is why the "races" of humanity are completely the same species.
A human baby from the stone age raised in modern society would be practically indistinguishable from any other human. They might look funny, race-wise, but they had the brain and dexterity. They could be a programmer, or a CEO.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 21, 2016, 10:09:53 am
That's not how natural selection works at all. Natural selection is the theory that each slight change in a genetic code will give the creature a slightly higher or lower chance of survival. Over thousands of years, the gene that has a slightly higher chance of survival will live longer to pass on it's gene eventually giving the whole species this new gene. Make sure you know what you're talking about before you post.Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.
Humanity is natural selection embodied. We select tools, try to use those tools and rework them to make them better. We can do a thousand years worth of evolution in a single day, if not less.
Post by: Egan_BW on January 21, 2016, 10:12:04 am
I would agree with that. It's not that I believe that we don't have free will, it's just that I don't think free will makes sense as a concept.If deterministic thought is not free, what is?
Good question. But this is more an issue about what is the definition of "free" than of any characteristic of our thought processes.
So I will conclude:
1. Our thoughts are entirely determined by the laws of physics acting upon the matter/energy that make up our brains.
2. Physics are always the same.
3. Call that free or not, whatever suits you.
Post by: Frumple on January 21, 2016, 10:13:27 am
Post by: nullBolt on January 21, 2016, 10:13:51 am
That's not how natural selection works at all. Natural selection is the theory that each slight change in a genetic code will give the creature a slightly higher or lower chance of survival. Over thousands of years, the gene that has a slightly higher chance of survival will live longer to pass on it's gene eventually giving the whole species this new gene. Make sure you know what you're talking about before you post.Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.
Humanity is natural selection embodied. We select tools, try to use those tools and rework them to make them better. We can do a thousand years worth of evolution in a single day, if not less.
That's literally how natural selection works, man. We embody it. We can practice natural selection as we go along.
I think it's you that doesn't understand what I'm saying here. ;)
... yeah, humans haven't really changed much, physically (including the brainmeat), since the stone age. We're still largely the same critter. The rapid technological/methodological development had... very little to do with the human physical form, and most everything to do with our already-there abilities letting us transfer information intergenerationally effectively enough we rather rapidly (in a evolutionary sense, anyway) built the tools that built the tools, as the formulation goes. Natural selection had already selected for the change being discussed, it was just the sort of thing that had delayed effect, building upon itself over time. No natural selection required, that bit was already pretty much done, so far as getting what we do now done.
My point is that humans practice natural selection when we build tools and devices.
We, ourselves, select for evolutionary advantages that other species have to breed and die for over millenia.
Post by: TempAcc on January 21, 2016, 10:17:37 am
Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.
Humanity is natural selection embodied. We select tools, try to use those tools and rework them to make them better. We can do a thousand years worth of evolution in a single day, if not less.
This is the reason as to why scientists have said a chimp's hand is actualy more evolved overall then a human hand, except chimps are still animals with rudimental society and no real technology. What we see in evolution is basically animals facing dificulties and then evolving because, through natural selection, their bodies start developing the tools they need to face these problems. Humans have got to the point that there's almost no need to evolve most of our bodies anymore, simply because we have supplanted our physical difficulties with technology.
A man's hand doesn't need to change and evolve to become better at climbing trees because we have developed tools that enable us to do that and many other things better than any animal. One can say that there's no need for radical physical evolution anymore because it has simply stopped being advantageous to do so. There's still some evidence of it still happening (we're progressively becoming taller and our limbs are getting longer, and we're also generaly losing body hair), but its not even close to what seems to happen with animals.
In short, animals adapt to environments, while we adapt environments to our needs.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 21, 2016, 10:18:55 am
My point is that humans practice natural selection when we build tools and devices.Origamiscienceguy is technically right, that isn't "natural selection". Definition-wise. It's selection though, and inspired by natural selection. We also have "genetic algorithms" which are explicitly based on natural selection.
We, ourselves, select for evolutionary advantages that other species have to breed and die for over millenia.
Post by: Egan_BW on January 21, 2016, 10:21:18 am
Post by: Frumple on January 21, 2016, 10:22:59 am
That's literally how natural selection works, man. We embody it. We can practice natural selection as we go along.We don't, though, when it comes to technology and whatnot. It's a very different sort of iterative development than what we tend to do with tools. Natural stuff is much more incremental, less directed, etc. They're both, broadly speaking, iterative development, sure, but to call human technological development anything like natural selection is... not particularly accurate. We're not doing some kind of accelerated form of it, we're doing something rather different as a whole.
My point is that humans practice natural selection when we build tools and devices.
We, ourselves, select for evolutionary advantages that other species have to breed and die for over millenia.
Last I checked, we've actually only recently started doing anything that looks like natural selection, via computer driven autonomous design programs, and similar systems. S'made a few neat things, even.
Post by: TempAcc on January 21, 2016, 10:24:20 am
Post by: Rolan7 on January 21, 2016, 10:26:23 am
That's always a tricky position to take, since there have always been people arguing that, and so far they've been shown wrong by continued exponential growth.In terms of the history of humanity, we are currently in an unprecedented state of rapid technological growth. Right up from the agricultural revolution to now in the blink of an eye, with no signs of stopping. Which is a little terrifying.Though I'd be willing to argue that, at least right now, we sit on a technological precipice. Most of our recent technological developments have been lateral.
But actually yes, we may be running into some actual physical limitations. Not to mention growing too fast and collapsing.
Post by: TempAcc on January 21, 2016, 10:28:43 am
This would also literally flip economies upside down, since this would technically make materials with more complex atomic structures more expensive then materials with simpler atomic structures. Suddenly diamond becomes cheaper then plastic :v
Post by: nullBolt on January 21, 2016, 10:31:07 am
Like you'd have to implement mass automation in the West (because you'd need actual graduates to manage it) but no one is interested in something that wouldn't lower unemployment figures.
Post by: i2amroy on January 21, 2016, 10:34:04 am
... yeah, humans haven't really changed much, physically (including the brainmeat), since the stone age. We're still largely the same critter. The rapid technological/methodological development had... very little to do with the human physical form, and most everything to do with our already-there abilities letting us transfer information intergenerationally effectively enough we rather rapidly (in a evolutionary sense, anyway) built the tools that built the tools, as the formulation goes. Natural selection had already selected for the change being discussed, it was just the sort of thing that had delayed effect, building upon itself over time. No natural selection required, that bit was already pretty much done, so far as getting what we do now done.is exactly correct. Technically the ability to create all forms of technology ranging up to the computer that I'm typing this on and all forms of tool improvement that we will do for the foreseeable future were already selected for when we were biologically given the ability to cognitively examine our tools and modify them for a given purpose. Every bit of technological development since that point long long ago when we started on the path has just us been playing out the advantages caused by a single biological change.
The stone age was, in evolutionary terms, yesterday. There hasn't been time for hardly any macroevolution since then, which is why the "races" of humanity are completely the same species.Technically there are three distinct "races" (anglo, african, and east asian, IIRC) that have differentiated enough that they get somewhat different responses to certain medicines and treatments and have some genetic trait differences (for example a gene which greatly prohibits the processing of alcohol is rather common among the east asian "race"). We're still the same "species" because we haven't differentiated even a 1000th of the amount that would be required to prevent us from breeding together (which is what biologically defines a species), a thing which is then even further held back by the fact that in the modern world we're getting very good at mixing those boundaries compared to how we were before.
Post by: TD1 on January 21, 2016, 10:36:03 am
I don't know if I made sense or not, but ah well. I'm currently still in the pondering stage - I could always change my opinion again.
Post by: scrdest on January 21, 2016, 10:36:58 am
The whole determinism vs. indeterminism debate is completely unrelated to the idea of free will, because even if it isn't deterministic but running on all them quantums, that wouldn't make it free will, it would make it just as restricted as determinism would, except the state your reach would be random, but the conclusion you reach would be reached by mechanistic processes nonetheless.
Post by: Harry Baldman on January 21, 2016, 10:51:13 am
So from my point of view, determinism is correct. But it doesn't actually matter, since determinism posits a theoretical, impossible state of absolute knowledge (which if, say, the LORD were to actually possess, would also render any action of His entirely pointless). So free will exists by default. I guess the problem begins when somebody notices that an essentially unfillable gap (aside from this bit, greatest hits include things outside the universe and times which actual history has not properly documented) is quite possibly the very best place to inject some God into. Infuriating, I suppose, but still irrelevant, no?
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 21, 2016, 03:40:52 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 21, 2016, 04:47:30 pm
The stone age was, in evolutionary terms, yesterday. There hasn't been time for hardly any macroevolution since then, which is why the "races" of humanity are completely the same species.Also because we killed all the other species
Sapiens: 1
Floriensis: Nil
Post by: martinuzz on January 21, 2016, 05:03:09 pm
Neanderthals survived though, by interbreeding with prehistoric eurasian populations of homo sapiens. A recent studies has shown that the most distinct genetic difference between Eurasians and Africans is, that Eurasians have (quite a bit of) neanderthal genes incorporated into their genome, while Africans do not. If you regard neanderthals as more primitive than homo sapiens, you could say, that white and yellow folks are a bit more primitive than african black people hahaha.The stone age was, in evolutionary terms, yesterday. There hasn't been time for hardly any macroevolution since then, which is why the "races" of humanity are completely the same species.Also because we killed all the other species
Sapiens: 1
Floriensis: Nil
Biologically though, this implies that neanderthals were no different species than homo sapiens. In biology, two specimens are only regarded being of different species if they cannot produce fertile offspring. The prescence of neanderthal DNA in so many of us proves that mating of a homo sapiens with a neanderthal must have produced fertile offspring, or the genes would not have been incorporated into general population.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 21, 2016, 05:04:26 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 21, 2016, 05:34:46 pm
Post by: TempAcc on January 21, 2016, 05:47:01 pm
Post by: martinuzz on January 21, 2016, 05:48:34 pm
So neandrethals were as similar to homo sapiens as black guys are to white guys?Taxonomically, yes. Or well, almost. Black and white people are of the same subspecies, neanderthal's aren't.
Technically they should rename homo neaderthalensis into homo sapiens neanderthalensis now. (Our current subspecies is homo sapiens sapiens btw)
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 21, 2016, 05:52:05 pm
Well, they did have a rather different physical structure, but weren't that different, since apparently interbreeding was possible. In fact, a lot of what we know of neanderthals is going through a steady revision. The only thing we know for sort of certain about them is that they weren't as good as sapiens at making tools and were prob considerably stronger overall. They did eventualy die off, though, with their hybrid children taking their place.Explains why East Asians and Europoors got that deadlift gold
North Korea using that primal D
Post by: TempAcc on January 21, 2016, 05:57:39 pm
North Korea using that primal D( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Post by: WealthyRadish on January 21, 2016, 07:43:25 pm
So neandrethals were as similar to homo sapiens as black guys are to white guys?
The differences were much greater. Neanderthals had considerably larger brains than our branch, and a more robust skeletal structure with many key differences that go way beyond modern racial differences. Interbreeding probably wouldn't have been very pleasant, particularly the birth part, though that it was apparently possible does mean that we were close enough to be in the same species. Racial differences are so recent and superficial that it's nowhere close to that sort of a "sub-species" level. If mules weren't sterile, then it'd be closer to use the donkeys/horses example than black/white.
Humans also underwent a bottleneck down to what may have been a single population, which horribly reduced our genetic variation. There can be more genetic diversity between groups of chimps on opposite sides of a jungle than there is between Africans and Polynesians (for example).
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 21, 2016, 08:13:18 pm
For example, there are bird populations where group A can breed with group B and group B can breed with group C but groups A and C can't interbreed. If your definition of species depends on reproductive compatibility, then A/C are the same species as group B but not the same species as each other.
Whether neanderthals are the same species as us mainly depends on whether we say they are. The evolutionary history will be fuzzy either way.
Post by: wierd on January 22, 2016, 03:40:18 am
1) there is some pretty compelling data to show that only a single directional crossing produced fertile offspring, and yet more to show that such hybrids likely had a wealth of health problems.
Namely, there is no ancestral MtDNA from neanderthal females in modern human lineages. So, either neanderthal women were so butt ugly that no human males, ever, wanted them (a bold claim!), or there was some kind of circumstance to cause this from happening or for the lineages produced to survive. Even more interesting, is that neanderthal male sex chromosome is likewise not conseved in modern populations. So now you have the mystery of why all the offspring that survived to procreate were female, and born from early modern human women.
In addition, the presence of neanderthal genes has been linked with an increased predisposition to developing various autoimmune disorders.
Together, this suggests quite strongly that neanderthals and early modern humans where right on the edge of being infertile with each other.
2) There are numerous species that are able to produce viable offspring together. See for instance, the greater and lesser prairie chicken. They are able to be cross bred, and the chicks are not sterile. However, the plumage and birdsong of the hybrids does not attract mates from either pool. They are dead ends.
sorry, but meh. Bad argument is bad argument.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129542-600-neanderthal-human-sex-bred-light-skins-and-infertility/
Post by: Bohandas on January 26, 2016, 07:30:40 pm
In what way is being tortured eternally better than being unmade?
If life in the bible days was capable of seeming bearable then it's not totally unimaginable that life in a lake of burning sulfur could eventually seem bearable too
QuoteAn attempt on the life of Mohammed was made at Khaibar by a Jewish woman named Zainab, who, in revenge for the death of her male relatives in battle, put poison in a dish prepared by her for the prophet. One of Mohammed's followers who par-took of the food died almost immediately afterward; but the prophet, who had eaten more sparingly, escaped. He, however, complained of the effects of the poison to the end of his life.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10918-mohammed
Bishar and Muhammed both ate the poisoned lamb. Bishar died almost instantaneously, turning green, whilst Muhammed who ate lesser amounts of the lamb and poison survived - though he complained of its symptoms until his death. Ibn Sa'd recalls that the people thought it was pleurisy, an illness affecting the lungs that can cause a constant dull ache, shortness of breath and premature death. Bishar turning green would support their speculation that it was a failure of the lungs. Muhammed complained that he felt as if his aorta/jugular vein was severed, an expression used to indicate extreme pain (not literal severing of either).
Off of a very brief search that I'm sure summons the NSA, something like arsenic which was commonly known from Rome to China could in higher concentrations cause rapid death in higher concentrations, green skin discoloration, and in survivors of lower concentrations lead to permanent nerve damage, renal failure, liver failure, chronic respiratory illnesses and a whole host of other symptoms which would kill you later and lead to a premature death.
And that's the most basic bitch of poisons, the Arabian peninsula bordered the Romans and Persians both with their own rich poisoning traditions and the Arabs clearly had access to their own poisons too, as with the assassination of Ali. It is nonsense to see only the possibility of either fatal wounding, perfect health or divine intervention; causing enough damage to the lungs (or the circulatory system and really anything else, no modern medicine to undo what has been done) to ensure death.
By analogy, this just seems to me to be equivalent to if somebody, for example, hacked his leg off at the knee and the Lord stopped him from bleeding out, and then later, after three years of hobbling around on crutches either A.) the stump suddenly started bleeding and he bled out or B.) he fell down the stairs and they wrote it down as complications from losing a leg which would be true in this hypothetical but also kind of a cop out.
Post by: TD1 on January 26, 2016, 07:59:38 pm
Although, I have problems with fitting the loving father into the personality of the God who condemns me - an alright fellow (I think) no worse than your average Christian - to eternal torture. Even modern day governments tend to be less barbaric. The rebel may not believe in your cause, but that doesn't mean Cameron's going to tear out your guts as revenge.
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2016, 08:22:11 pm
Honestly, though, most religious afterlives are just kinda' shitty. Boring, more of the same, torturous, personality mangling, or some combination thereof, and that's true for both the heavens and the hells. You can tell the people that thought them up were from the time periods they were.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 26, 2016, 08:23:07 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 26, 2016, 08:28:47 pm
Depends on the life, honestly. I'm quite looking forward to an eternity of non-existence after only a few decades on this hellhole of a planet stuck in this fucked up sack of flesh, and I rather imagine when I shuffle off in a few more decades I'll be ready for more than one indefinite state of non-being. A nice infinitely long nap has sounded real damn good for a long damn time.I don't see how heaven fits into your criteria.
Honestly, though, most religious afterlives are just kinda' shitty. Boring, more of the same, torturous, personality mangling, or some combination thereof, and that's true for both the heavens and the hells. You can tell the people that thought them up were from the time periods they were.
Post by: TD1 on January 26, 2016, 08:30:48 pm
You think a you without sin is actually you?
Edit: I just thought of Pullman's Dark Materials. The "Dust" is the sin, and yet without it we are nothing.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 26, 2016, 08:34:06 pm
You think a life of enforced happiness wouldn't be personality changing?We talking opium or just Americano
You think a you without sin is actually you?By definition me without fingers is still me
Edit: I just thought of Pullman's Dark Materials. The "Dust" is the sin, and yet without it we are nothing.We're still something
Post by: TD1 on January 26, 2016, 08:39:00 pm
---
We're talking opium.
---
You without fingers is still you. You with part of your personality removed is not "still you."
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2016, 08:53:30 pm
I don't see how heaven fits into your criteria.The existence without sin is personality mangling, the unending worship is either boring and/or personality mangling, the bit where you occasionally go and watch things in hell get tortured is hopefully either personality mangling or torturous in itself, implied part where you're okay that family and loved ones, or even just people period, are probably being tortured is again either hopefully torturous, more of the same (no improvement over mortal life), and/or the results of personality mangling. Few other bits, I do believe, though I can't recall particular details on the rest.
Best I've ever seen someone claim it can offer is either more of the same with less (or at least different) suffering or your soul/self basically ripped to shreds and then reassembled into something entirely different, and that's... at best, not really much more appealing than an opium pump or targeted lobotomy. No thanks, y'know?
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 26, 2016, 08:54:53 pm
I was using hyperbole. We are something - it's just that something is a lesser form of self.Like a slightly retarded version of yourself?
We're talking opium.Sheeeit
You without fingers is still you. You with part of your personality removed is not "still you."Yeah it is, you've just changed
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 26, 2016, 08:59:26 pm
Well, we really have no idea what happens in the afterlife. What I remember is that:I don't see how heaven fits into your criteria.The existence without sin is personality mangling, the unending worship is either boring and/or personality mangling, the bit where you occasionally go and watch things in hell get tortured is hopefully either personality mangling or torturous in itself, implied part where you're okay that family and loved ones, or even just people period, are probably being tortured is again either hopefully torturous, more of the same (no improvement over mortal life), and/or the results of personality mangling. Few other bits, I do believe, though I can't recall particular details on the rest.
Best I've ever seen someone claim it can offer is either more of the same with less (or at least different) suffering or your soul/self basically ripped to shreds and then reassembled into something entirely different, and that's... at best, not really much more appealing than an opium pump or targeted lobotomy. No thanks, y'know?
-We get a new, perfect body (no cancer, injuries, but still us)
-We still have free will (there is still sinful things to do, but we won't. Either because of a lack of temptation, or we will be much wiser.)
-Eventually, we will live on a new, perfect earth. (Probably the same wildlife, but all the animals would be vegetarians or something.)
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 27, 2016, 12:51:11 am
Also
PLANTS HAVE FEELINGS TOO YOU MURDERER THEY REACT TO STIMULI AND GROW BETTER TO MUSIC HOW DARE YOU
Also, I have to wonder whether Trans people would get have their body or their brain chemistry changed to fit the other. Because there is some evidence that it has to do with hormone imbalances during gestation. When and how much testosterone you receive in the womb. Brain has a map of the body, see, and dysphasia is basically when the map of the body and the actual body don't match up, so the parts that are there that "shouldn't" be feel alien, while the parts that aren't there feel missing. It's like ghost limbs for people who've lost a limb, but sorta in the other direction. To some extent this applies to masculine/feminine and gender identification. As someone's gender is a fairly large chunk of their identity, if not necessarily their personality (though personality being the same either way would be...odd, to most people, I have to wonder which one would get 'fixed'.
I will say this is defense of it though.
@Frumple: Someone who is an asshole has an intervention and learns to stop being an asshole. This is also personality mangling, but I would also argue that it is not a bad thing. You are currently making a Noncentral Fallacy, and while I am not trying to attack you, I feel I must point it out. Martin Luther King Jr. was a criminal. He was just the good kind of criminal. What are the aspects of personality mangling that make it bad? Would those apply to the life without sin imagining of heaven? I can easily imagine it in a lesser form, with more of a 'you have more self-control, willpower, and wisdom, so everyone is able to refrain from sin and resist temptation with ease' with the obvious caveat that if you're the type of person who would sin on their own (truly sin, not bullshit 'fall in love with wrong people stuff' here, let's not argue in bad faith here), you're kinda not getting into heaven in the first place.
I mean, I'm fairly generous, but I can see why God would keep those sorts out. The rest of the bits of the bible are just to try to make sure people can do their best to understand how to become close to God, because that is an end-goal in and of itself for Him. And if you go with the whole annihilation idea, which is the most merciful He can be, if you squint and look at it sideways, then it fits neatly. Plenty of ways for it to be self-consistent. Taking the 2000 year old book written by hundreds of different people at vastly varying times with bits and pieces added or taken out as it suited the fancy of the first blokes to keep copying it down, and that's all before the translation, literally and exactly in all aspects forever, is not one of those ways.
In all honesty, though, I'm shooting for immortality in this life, not the next. Nanomachines, son.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 27, 2016, 01:02:53 am
I really liked Mark Twain's take on that idea. On reaching heaven, apparently most people immediately assumed young, fit and healthy forms. Often with a harp and robe because "that's how it's supposed to work, right?". Then they'd sit around playing music for God with the other beautiful newbies until eventually they got bored and wandered off. I think most people gravitated to older forms eventually, the more appropriate to sit around and discuss existence.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 27, 2016, 01:08:18 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on January 27, 2016, 01:14:25 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 27, 2016, 01:23:23 am
And we will be praising God with whatever we do.Yeah, but that doesn't really mean anything when it comes to what we're doing. Best guess is that'd be like this life, with jobs and games and books and bad cooking.
The differences would be that everyone is nice to each other and goes to church on Sunday. And we don't suffer from illness and so on.
Also, disclaimer - pretty much everything re: Heaven is speculative. We can infer from some things (like Eden, stuff Jesus said, and occasionally the epistles) the basic idea, but for the most part it's just making it up as we go along. It's best to bear that in mind.
...
Personally I prefer Pratchett's take on the afterlife, that is, whatever you want, but this is based on a book so... um... never mind.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 27, 2016, 01:30:41 am
Post by: Rolan7 on January 27, 2016, 01:55:07 am
Maybe my favorite afterlife was from that one absurdly popular webcomic that's on hiatus. It might technically be better than Mark Twain's heaven:
When you die, you wander a dreamworld made of everyone's memories. You can meet people you knew, or other versions of them (and yourself). The specific events you see, and people you interact with, even the time you spend (days, years, eons) are basically what's needed to conclude your "story". And once it's done, you die for real.
I like it because it has the potential to be super unpleasant, if there's shit you still need to confront. That feels more fair than most afterlifes. And it can involve studying all of history for thousands of years, if that's what you need. Most of all, it has an eventual ending at the appropriate time. Instead of throwing away everything you lived for and merging with or eternally praising a greater will, you get a satisfying conclusion.
Also dodges the potential sanity issues of immortality. So does reincarnation, which I'm also fond of.
Then there's that time-travelling reincarnation where everyone is just one soul... That, I'm not crazy about... Time travel is dumb :P
Post by: Bohandas on January 27, 2016, 01:58:07 am
I'm really not seeing the whole 'will have free will, but won't sin' thing. Unless God removes the parts of our minds/personalities that makes us desirous of another's possessions, even if they be abstract ones like wife or husband, we will have temptation, if there is social interaction. And while I can see the whole 'wiser so we don't sin' thing, in the sense of us knowing it's a bad idea for a variety of reasons, and never acting on it and setting the thought aside and blah, if I remember right, having that desire in the first place, is sin.
Well you'll be like a rat in an experiment constantly and mindlessly pressing a button to stimulate the pleasure center of it's brain, perpetually content in this activity and no longer having any desire to do anything else
Post by: Arx on January 27, 2016, 02:03:49 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 27, 2016, 02:07:01 am
...how?I'm really not seeing the whole 'will have free will, but won't sin' thing. Unless God removes the parts of our minds/personalities that makes us desirous of another's possessions, even if they be abstract ones like wife or husband, we will have temptation, if there is social interaction. And while I can see the whole 'wiser so we don't sin' thing, in the sense of us knowing it's a bad idea for a variety of reasons, and never acting on it and setting the thought aside and blah, if I remember right, having that desire in the first place, is sin.
Well you'll be like a rat in an experiment constantly and mindlessly pressing a button to stimulate the pleasure center of it's brain, perpetually content in this activity and no longer having any desire to do anything else
If I'm pretty content with my life as it is, happy and contented, does this mean that I'm like that right now? If you're basically saying it's wire-heading, I would have to disagree with you, as wire-heading entails not interacting with other people, or at least not doing so in any meaningful way other than to try and get back to wire-heading.
If your objection is just that it's sorta similar, then I find your argument inherently flawed. If you think that the list of possible things to do that don't involve sin are so finite as to necessitate some sort of mindless pleasure-seeking activity, which is quite a bit of what sin is considered bad for (gluttony, lust, greed, envy...), then I'd also have to disagree.
Post by: Bohandas on January 27, 2016, 02:17:09 am
...how?I'm really not seeing the whole 'will have free will, but won't sin' thing. Unless God removes the parts of our minds/personalities that makes us desirous of another's possessions, even if they be abstract ones like wife or husband, we will have temptation, if there is social interaction. And while I can see the whole 'wiser so we don't sin' thing, in the sense of us knowing it's a bad idea for a variety of reasons, and never acting on it and setting the thought aside and blah, if I remember right, having that desire in the first place, is sin.
Well you'll be like a rat in an experiment constantly and mindlessly pressing a button to stimulate the pleasure center of it's brain, perpetually content in this activity and no longer having any desire to do anything else
If I'm pretty content with my life as it is, happy and contented, does this mean that I'm like that right now? If you're basically saying it's wire-heading, I would have to disagree with you, as wire-heading entails not interacting with other people, or at least not doing so in any meaningful way other than to try and get back to wire-heading.
If your objection is just that it's sorta similar, then I find your argument inherently flawed. If you think that the list of possible things to do that don't involve sin are so finite as to necessitate some sort of mindless pleasure-seeking activity, which is quite a bit of what sin is considered bad for (gluttony, lust, greed, envy...), then I'd also have to disagree.
Well we wouldn't actually be seeking it. It would be more like if the button was taped down, so we'd just mindlessly sit there in "contemplation of the almighty"
Post by: TD1 on January 27, 2016, 09:23:52 am
Actually, that sounds like Price's Dream World Theory.And we will be praising God with whatever we do.Yeah, but that doesn't really mean anything when it comes to what we're doing. Best guess is that'd be like this life, with jobs and games and books and bad cooking.
The differences would be that everyone is nice to each other and goes to church on Sunday. And we don't suffer from illness and so on.
Also, disclaimer - pretty much everything re: Heaven is speculative. We can infer from some things (like Eden, stuff Jesus said, and occasionally the epistles) the basic idea, but for the most part it's just making it up as we go along. It's best to bear that in mind.
...
Personally I prefer Pratchett's take on the afterlife, that is, whatever you want, but this is based on a book so... um... never mind.
Post by: scrdest on January 27, 2016, 12:14:44 pm
And they somehow make it interesting, but in the end it seems like wishful thinking.Yeah, that's my major problem with it. It's too... well, convenient. Pratchett's attitude towards death in general always reminded me of Eliezer Yudkowski's quip that if people were beaten in the head with a baseball bat every day for a couple centuries, people would start tripping over themselves to come up with explanations how being beaten over the head with a baseball bat is beneficial and essential to proper functioning of society.
Post by: Graknorke on January 27, 2016, 12:20:38 pm
if people were beaten in the head with a baseball bat every day for a couple centuries, people would start tripping over themselves to come up with explanations how being beaten over the head with a baseball bat is beneficial and essential to proper functioning of society.Hoo boy, we circumcision thread now? I'm not American so the cultural thing is pretty much entirely lost on me, but they're always interesting to watch.
Post by: TempAcc on January 27, 2016, 01:25:10 pm
IE we're not here to be truly happy, or rather, what we know as happiness in this world pales in comparison to other levels of existence, "happiness is not of this world" / "my kingdom is not of this world".
Worlds under this view aren't static, though, they also become better as the inhabitants become "better", IE less materialistic, selfish, etc.
I like it because there's no silly hell or place of eternal suffering, altough you can totally fuck up and incarnate in a lower level world in relation to you, which can be quite hellish (imagine being Mozart in the stone age), but even then, its temporary untill you expiate for whatever you did. There's no heaven, either, but there are higher levels of existence in which greater levels of happiness can be achieved. There's also no real end point, just an infinite march forward, and the speed of your development depends almost entirely on you, and it also means the people you like and love are never lost forever to you.
Post by: i2amroy on January 27, 2016, 02:42:06 pm
-dreamworld-Does that really count as a "full" afterlife though? I mean it still doesn't tell you anything about what happens after your "real" death in the afterworld, which seems to me like what a fair portion of the concept of an afterlife is supposed to do. I mean if someone was explaining that to me as an afterlife I know that my first question would be "well what happens after you die again?" :P
Post by: Rolan7 on January 27, 2016, 02:44:39 pm
Post by: Bohandas on January 27, 2016, 04:18:55 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on January 27, 2016, 06:41:07 pm
...Just like the best jokes! :D
Post by: Graknorke on January 27, 2016, 06:49:54 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 27, 2016, 06:54:16 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on January 27, 2016, 06:54:41 pm
Long drawn-out jokes with convoluted setups and comically underwhelming punchlines are the best.... The aristocrats!
Post by: Grim Portent on January 27, 2016, 07:32:29 pm
When you die you get reborn in the Other World, when you die there you are reborn in this world. Back and forth, back and forth like the cycle of the seasons. Winter leads into Spring which ultimately leads back around to Winter.
Never bothered to look into the details of the concept or what the Other World was supposed to be like, but I find the idea kind of appealing.
Post by: Bohandas on January 27, 2016, 08:40:10 pm
Winter leads into Spring which ultimately leads back around to Winter.
...they wait patient and potent for here they shall reign again :p
Post by: Descan on January 27, 2016, 09:22:35 pm
No, that's a death thing, "Death is a good thing! No really!" not a circumcision thing. Though I can see how you would connect them together like that.if people were beaten in the head with a baseball bat every day for a couple centuries, people would start tripping over themselves to come up with explanations how being beaten over the head with a baseball bat is beneficial and essential to proper functioning of society.Hoo boy, we circumcision thread now? I'm not American so the cultural thing is pretty much entirely lost on me, but they're always interesting to watch.
Then there's that time-travelling reincarnation where everyone is just one soul... That, I'm not crazy about... Time travel is dumb :PAw but that's my favourite one. ;-;
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 27, 2016, 09:58:16 pm
Immortality requires responsibility. Doesn't mean I don't want it, just means that everyone suddenly becoming immortal without society changing to accomodate such a change might have some rather serious ramifications.
My favorite afterlife is probably the Celtic one, or at least one variation of it, there are probably several different versions depending on what time period and tribe you look at.One of the God games on this forum ended up looking like that. I'm not sure if it was on purpose or not, I just know people liked the idea of two worlds and souls on one ended up going to the other.
When you die you get reborn in the Other World, when you die there you are reborn in this world. Back and forth, back and forth like the cycle of the seasons. Winter leads into Spring which ultimately leads back around to Winter.
Never bothered to look into the details of the concept or what the Other World was supposed to be like, but I find the idea kind of appealing.
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on January 27, 2016, 10:26:34 pm
Never bothered to look into the details of the concept or what the Other World was supposed to be like, but I find the idea kind of appealing.
I don't think that the Celts knew what the Other World was supposed to be like either. From what I remember, it's just a place where weird, mystical shit likes to live and is just a breath away from the 'real world'. So you get heroes and monsters crossing over from world to world fairly regularly. If you meet something that's striped red and white and has a fondness for the number three, then they're probably from the Other World.
Post by: Bohandas on January 27, 2016, 11:09:00 pm
Then there's that time-travelling reincarnation where everyone is just one soul... That, I'm not crazy about... Time travel is dumb :P
How about time travel reincarnation where people are sent back to ancient times as punishment for being monstrously evil?
Post by: Egan_BW on January 27, 2016, 11:12:55 pm
Then there's that time-travelling reincarnation where everyone is just one soul... That, I'm not crazy about... Time travel is dumb :PSigh. that's just the kind of thing I'd say, Pathos.
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 27, 2016, 11:13:13 pm
How about time travel reincarnation where people are sent back to ancient times as punishment for being monstrously evil?Sounds the the plot to Terminator
Post by: Rolan7 on January 27, 2016, 11:17:23 pm
I just don't see that as a likely possibility.
Oh well.
Trump still might win.
Post by: redwallzyl on January 28, 2016, 08:27:59 am
I mean, I desperately want to be a Roman citizen in a future life.space Rome?
I just don't see that as a likely possibility.
Oh well.
Trump still might win.
Post by: Teneb on January 28, 2016, 08:28:36 am
I mean, I desperately want to be a Roman citizen in a future life.Lets found new new Rome, then.
I just don't see that as a likely possibility.
Oh well.
Trump still might win.
Of course, we all know that we go join the great Pathos in the sky after death.
Post by: TempAcc on January 28, 2016, 08:30:22 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Teneb on January 28, 2016, 08:37:00 am
Post by: TD1 on January 28, 2016, 10:56:38 am
Also, New Rome is already taken - See Istanbul.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 28, 2016, 11:07:23 am
sorry
Post by: TD1 on January 28, 2016, 11:08:22 am
Whatever goes :P
Post by: Teneb on January 28, 2016, 11:09:28 am
This more than slightly off topic.That's why it's Neo Rome, ye pleb.
Also, New Rome is already taken - See Istanbul.
Post by: TD1 on January 28, 2016, 11:14:36 am
It was called Neo Rome at the time.
Post by: Teneb on January 28, 2016, 11:31:46 am
Nova Roma to the Romans, Neo Rome to the Greeks.Damn you for wasting my time by causing me to search for alternatives. I didn't want to do this, but it seems we'll have to go towards the silly side of things.
It was called Neo Rome at the time.
Post by: andrea on January 28, 2016, 11:56:34 am
Post by: Egan_BW on January 28, 2016, 11:59:57 am
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on January 28, 2016, 12:06:00 pm
nobody suggested "third rome"?
That's Moscow. Or St. Petersburg? One of the two. It's definitely in Russia is what I'm trying to say here.
Super Rome or Space Rome.
I can get behind this.
Post by: Teneb on January 28, 2016, 12:06:14 pm
nobody suggested "third rome"?That's Moscow.
Ninja'd
Post by: TD1 on January 28, 2016, 12:09:30 pm
Post by: andrea on January 28, 2016, 12:14:13 pm
that is the joke.nobody suggested "third rome"?That's Moscow.
Post by: Teneb on January 28, 2016, 12:15:59 pm
Also, I feel I must point out that the Consul was elected. You could claim to be a Princeps, however.Do you see any other citizens of glorious Space Rome?
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on January 28, 2016, 12:17:34 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 28, 2016, 12:19:42 pm
Let us not forget war.
Post by: Micro102 on January 28, 2016, 12:24:01 pm
My choice is never infringed upon.You're getting a bit hung up on semantics there, I think. Making choices isn't the same as free will. Free will is defined as "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion" - that is, free will is not deterministic. If your choices can be calculated ahead of time then you are not exhibiting free will.
Isn't this semantics in itself? Stacking up definitions you find on the internet probably isn't going to help when discussing philosophy.
I do act at my own discretion, it's just my discretion is predetermined. If you reference necessity and fate, I will have to ask for context. If I have a choice, what forces me to make a choice? If I could tell what my "calculated" choice is, and wanted to change it, I could. However barring the ability to calculate the universe outside of said universe (otherwise that would also be calculable), what would freewill be other than the ability to make choices truly randomly, without any reason, including your own desires/actions?
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on January 28, 2016, 12:24:52 pm
And war.
Let us not forget war.
That goes under the heading of bloodsports, but I guess I forgot to mention that was well. My mistake.
Post by: Bohandas on January 28, 2016, 01:00:23 pm
Those are two distinct definitions of "free will", don't couch them as one. The ability to act at one's discretion can be accomplished while still under the constraint of fate. That's in fact perhaps the crux of the issue.My choice is never infringed upon.You're getting a bit hung up on semantics there, I think. Making choices isn't the same as free will. Free will is defined as "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion"
Post by: Teneb on January 28, 2016, 01:00:59 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on January 28, 2016, 10:55:52 pm
Those are two distinct definitions of "free will", don't couch them as one.I literally just yanked that out of a dictionary and didn't really think about it
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 28, 2016, 11:02:28 pm
You just told someone that they're getting hung up on semantics
And then use a definition pulled directly out of a dictionary without really putting thought into it
Orange Wizard, I am disappoint.
All I can really say at this point is that if you're going to define away the solution (eg. only magical outside source can give us free will somehow), then...I mean, really now, people. When someone says everything will turn out the same, I bring up quantum randomness having sequentially larger effects, particularly due to mutations of the genome (though I didn't get into precisely that detail), they say that doesn't count because we don't control it. Free will is the space between determinism and randomness. Plus, we are our brains and nervous systems and other assortments of cellular tissue. As long as that is free to act as it will, and thus we are free to act as we will, without a magical outside source forcing us to behave a certain way, we have free will. Otherwise, even with magical outside force giving us free will, you may as well say we don't have it because other people can affect us and force us to do things, and we still have to breathe and eat and blah blah blah.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 28, 2016, 11:05:45 pm
I'm not sure, but here we are.
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 28, 2016, 11:09:42 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 28, 2016, 11:14:51 pm
Can I choose not to care about this argument over a poorly defined concept?Yeah, agreed...
I'm not sure, but here we are.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 28, 2016, 11:21:07 pm
But like a lot of philosophy questions, it seems to inevitably become a semantic argument because the concept has no universal meaning. And a lot of personal interpretations.
Post by: TD1 on January 29, 2016, 06:56:48 am
I'm beginning to see it may be slightly more nuanced than that. :P
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 29, 2016, 07:04:40 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 29, 2016, 07:45:47 am
...Incidentally, I met a Coptic yesterday. Really nice guy.Closest I've ever gotten to meeting a Coptic was a funeral
Post by: Ghills on February 01, 2016, 05:04:35 pm
Relevant quotes:
"Your Heavenly Father has given you agency, the ability to choose right from wrong and to act for yourself. You have been given the Holy Ghost to help you know good from evil. While you are here on earth, you are being proven to see if you will use your agency to show your love for God by keeping His commandments."
“Our agency, given us through the plan of our Father, is the great alternative to Satan’s plan of force. With this sublime gift, we can grow, improve, progress, and seek perfection. Without agency, none of us could grow and develop by learning from our mistakes and errors and those of others.”
“Because the eternal principle of agency gives us the freedom to choose and think for ourselves, we should become increasingly able to solve problems. We may make the occasional mistake, but as long as we are following gospel principles and guidelines, we can learn from those mistakes and become more understanding of others and more effective in serving them.”
https://www.lds.org/topics/agency/what-the-church-teaches?lang=eng
Frustratingly, if God intervened on the basis of 'this decision will have horrible consequences', the whole point of this life would be wasted. He will help people bear their burdens and be healed through the Atonement, but He can't thwart the entire reason He set this earth up. Well, He could, but then He would be changeable and cease to be God. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/9.19?lang=eng
Other relevant LDS doctrines: We believe we have a duty to relieve suffering, not increase it. Our baptismal covenants are to bear others' burdens, mourn with those that mourn, comfort those who stand in need of comfort, etc. It's our job to help those who need help, not to judge them - God is the judge and we shouldn't usurp that.
Post by: Bohandas on February 04, 2016, 11:11:40 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It seems I owe Loud Whispers an apology. According to the documentary "American Experience: The Poisoner's Handbook" poisoning, radium poisoning specifically, can indeed kill a person several years after the poison is ingested (although it also notes that this is effectively unheard of in poisons and makes clear that it the particular poison mentioned by the documentary in this context, radium, effectively always takes a long time to kill)
So apparently I jumped the gun saying there's no way this could happen; sorry.
(I still think it's unlikely though)
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 04, 2016, 11:14:37 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 04, 2016, 11:37:32 pm
That'd be radiation poisoning, then?
Only partially.
If I understand their explanation correctly the type of radium poisoning they were talking about is not radiation poisoning from the initial exposure to the radiation given off by radium, but rather the result of ingested radium; which tenaciously stays in the body and and 1) Continually irradiating it from within and 2) Being incorporated into bone and other tissues in place of calcium and then decaying into other elements that are no longer chemically similar to calcium, thus disrupting the function of whatever it's been incorporated into.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2016, 12:00:50 am
Post by: Putnam on February 05, 2016, 04:06:04 am
On-topic, free will: seems obviously false to me. There's nothing that could create free will that I know of within our current models of physics, and our current models of physics are hilariously accurate on the level of brains and neurons that make them up.
Spoiler: Reply to thing in happy thread (click to show/hide)
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2016, 04:21:07 am
i care greatly what they actually believe in because there's shit like every major abrahamic holy book saying explicitly to kill people who don't believe in what you do, which is a Very Bad ThingSpoiler: This should really go in the religion thread but eh (click to show/hide)
...
Short answer: YesQuoteDeuteronomy 13:6-11and now the all-benevolent, infallible god can change his mind? how curious.
Suppose someone secretly entices you—even your brother, your son or daughter, your beloved wife, or your closest friend—and says, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known. They might suggest that you worship the gods of peoples who live nearby or who come from the ends of the earth. But do not give in or listen. Have no pity, and do not spare or protect them. You must put them to death! Strike the first blow yourself, and then all the people must join in. Stone the guilty ones to death because they have tried to draw you away from the Lord your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of slavery. Then all Israel will hear about it and be afraid, and no one will act so wickedly again.
Long answer: The basic principle on how one should behave has stayed the same. What's changing is the covenant God is operating within. In the Old Testament, we have the Covenant of Works, which is God saying "do what I say or I'll smite you, also racial purity and blood sacrifice". Often expressed by attempted genocide of neighbouring people, mountains of foreskins, and similarly brutal things.
The (slightly) newer Covenant of Faith (i.e. what Christ established) changes the basis of how God works from a very Earth-centric view to a Heaven-centric view. God no longer requires the brutal OT stuff from his followers. Basically, it's a different religion.
Don't ask me why it's that way, though. I might actually try to answer >.>
Post by: Putnam on February 05, 2016, 04:30:46 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 05, 2016, 05:42:40 am
It is quite easy to reconcile the horrible morals within your religion with your own independent morals when your religion understands human nature already, and the world without demonstrates itself to be nothing less cliché than stupidly evil
As for science =/= religion, nah, just fundamentalists
On-topic, free will: seems obviously false to me. There's nothing that could create free will that I know of within our current models of physics, and our current models of physics are hilariously accurate on the level of brains and neurons that make them up.Our current laws of physics are both incomplete and almost certainly wrong somewhere, maybe everywhere lol
Heck, the assumption that energy cannot be made or destroyed must be wrong or else the big bang should just not have happened and nothing should exist
2spook8me
Benevolent doesn't mean without judgement, since you know, divine judge and allSpoiler: Reply to thing in happy thread (click to show/hide)
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2016, 06:01:05 am
Post by: Harry Baldman on February 05, 2016, 06:17:45 am
For instance, the world is going to shit. But you don't need to worry. Soon we'll invent AI, and upload our everlasting minds and souls onto silicon substrates, and live forever in the unchanging internet wonderland that we have come to know and love. All the cool people will be there and you can look like whatever you want, and work on world-saving important problems without all those mortal flaws holding you back. In the digital world there will be no procrastination, no sense of wasted life, and your shining intellect that nobody else appreciated in high school will be raised to ever-higher heights as processing power increases logarithmically. The future is beyond our wildest imaginings, faithful disciple. But it will happen, and it will happen within our lifetimes! So write your essays, continue coding and hone your skills holistically, so that there will be a place for you in the glorious future where computer scientists finally get to rule the world forever. Have faith in Science. If Science is done faithfully and adhering to our infallible guidelines of rationality, all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well.
It is an appealing course of action, as one can see, because most answers to questions you believe to be important are, in fact, beyond your ability to determine (no matter how smugly one may state otherwise, see preceding paragraphs and probably the current one, too). And since it is strictly irrelevant which non-answer you ultimately pick, you might as well pick the one that lets you go places, meet interesting people and sing your heart out in praise for a great and sentient creator, and one that has a very nice historic document to go with it.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2016, 12:48:55 pm
I mean, there are reasons to think the singularity is *possible*, but that's pretty much the same as any other religion. And the ideas are too soft to be disproven.
(Discounting literal interpretation of holy books, which is generally outright disprovable through contradiction or failed prophecies)
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2016, 12:49:30 pm
Benevolent doesn't mean without judgement, since you know, divine judge and allSpoiler: Reply to thing in happy thread (click to show/hide)
Gonna have to call you out on that one. That's a straw man argument. He was talking about whether god qualifies as omnibenevolent and you subtly changed it to whether god qualifies as benevolent at all while still trying to construe it as the same question.
Personally I don't think a being could harm, or call for the harm, of any being for any reason (except if it was the only possible way to prevent an even greater evil; an exception which is categorically inapplicable to beings that are also omnipotent) and still qualify as omnibenevolent.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2016, 12:53:49 pm
Benevolent doesn't mean without judgement, since you know, divine judge and allSpoiler: Reply to thing in happy thread (click to show/hide)
Gonna have to call you out on that one. That's a straw man argument. He was talking about whether god qualifies as omnibenevolent and you subtly changed it to whether god qualifies as benevolent at all while still trying to construe it as the same question.
Personally I don't think a being could harm, or call for the harm, of any being for any reason (except if it was the only possible way to prevent an even greater evil; an exception which is categorically inapplicable to beings that are also omnipotent) and still qualify as omnibenevolent.
I read it as "Divine judges do good by punishing evil". Which I think is a bad moral code - In my personal opinion, punishment is only good as far as it rehabilitates someone. Eternal punishment is the worst example of course, but also it's not right to cut off someone's hand for stealing, if they can be taught not to steal some other way. Punishment for its own sake is wrong.
But that's just, like, my opinion. In Christian morality, sin does require punishment independent of actually fixing anything.
Post by: Putnam on February 05, 2016, 02:22:03 pm
Huh, when you bring that up I realize that I'm not sure where I got the idea that he's said to be omnibenevolent at all. Maybe (and this isn't a dumb "agree to disagree" maybe, this is an "I estimate a greater than 40% chance" maybe) I'm wrong about that particular part of the belief system.Benevolent doesn't mean without judgement, since you know, divine judge and allSpoiler: Reply to thing in happy thread (click to show/hide)
Gonna have to call you out on that one. That's a straw man argument. He was talking about whether god qualifies as omnibenevolent and you subtly changed it to whether god qualifies as benevolent at all while still trying to construe it as the same question.
Personally I don't think a being could harm, or call for the harm, of any being for any reason (except if it was the only possible way to prevent an even greater evil; an exception which is categorically inapplicable to beings that are also omnipotent) and still qualify as omnibenevolent.
And yeah, anything that would dole out the infinitely disproportionate punishment that christians tend to believe in (i don't think there's actually any real biblical evidence of eternal punishment?) is infinitely evil.
And yeah, punishment is entirely worthless unless it changes behavior. If it doesn't, then it's just cruelty. An infinitely-long punishment brooks no change.
Being religious is a very appealing prospect in the general sense because you reject the pursuit of an answer in one way or another, and feel smarter for it.
that's dumb
sorry, i mean I'm not sure if I can put that any other way, that's just sorta dumb. Feeling smarter because you worship your own ignorance? I can't think of any other way to put that concept other than "worshiping your own ignorance", either.
[singularity]
singularity stuff like what you describe is basically more religion, except that it worships Elon Musk or Ray Kurzweil or Eliezer Yudkowsky or whoever and so pretends not to be. You could say it's "better" because the thing you're worshiping is a possibility, but then you could say the same about UFO cults or Charles Manson, and then you're going way into crazy.
It is an appealing course of action, as one can see, because most answers to questions you believe to be important are, in fact, beyond your ability to determine (no matter how smugly one may state otherwise, see preceding paragraphs and probably the current one, too). And since it is strictly irrelevant which non-answer you ultimately pick, you might as well pick the one that lets you go places, meet interesting people and sing your heart out in praise for a great and sentient creator, and one that has a very nice historic document to go with it.
I can sorta see how one would get comfort in that, but I don't quite understand why anyone would want any answers to be beyond one's ability to determine, that sounds way more discomforting than comforting. If anything actually turns out to be intractable or unknowable etc. (like whatever goes on in black holes, most likely), we should probably say "that sucks" and move on to something useful instead of saying "in there lives God" or whatever.
On-topic, free will: seems obviously false to me. There's nothing that could create free will that I know of within our current models of physics, and our current models of physics are hilariously accurate on the level of brains and neurons that make them up.Our current laws of physics are both incomplete and almost certainly wrong somewhere, maybe everywhere lol
Heck, the assumption that energy cannot be made or destroyed must be wrong or else the big bang should just not have happened and nothing should exist
2spook8me
No, I don't really accept that. We're way too precise on some things to be entirely wrong. Wrong somewhere I can believe, yeah, but it's probably not in the range of general relativity or quantum mechanics, especially between the orders of microns and meters (I.E where neurons and brains live), both of those things are fairly well-constrained and they both predict very well what's going to happen given some event or another (at least probabilisticly, in the case of QM).
Also, the assumption that energy cannot be made or destroyed is already known to be false globally, we know that for a fact, the universe is expanding and space has a minimum amount of energy per volume, which means that energy is constantly created at long distances. Not to mention the whole "could've already been there at the moment of the Big Bang" thing.
Post by: Egan_BW on February 05, 2016, 02:30:12 pm
Post by: Teneb on February 05, 2016, 02:45:14 pm
If we cannot disprove god, then we must improve our instrumentation until we can.Or do prove that he exists. The problem with investigating something when you already have decided on the result is that you end up overlooking stuff.
Disclaimer: not abrahamic.
Anyway, even gods don't exist, I sure hope there is an afterlife (even if it is more of the same (actually, that'd probably be my preferred one)), because non-existence scares the crap out of me.
Post by: Egan_BW on February 05, 2016, 02:55:28 pm
Post by: Putnam on February 05, 2016, 03:01:29 pm
the very thought of becoming a solipsist makes me shudder
Post by: Bohandas on February 05, 2016, 03:04:09 pm
[singularity]
singularity stuff like what you describe is basically more religion, except that it worships Elon Musk or Ray Kurzweil or Eliezer Yudkowsky or whoever and so pretends not to be. You could say it's "better" because the thing you're worshiping is a possibility, but then you could say the same about UFO cults or Charles Manson, and then you're going way into crazy.
Agreed. Definitely.
A couple of weeks ago I actually came up with a short way to describe singularitarianism that more clearly shows what it actually is, and I'd like to share it with all pf you now (As I've been waiting for an excuse to):
"Basically it's the belief that the accelerating rate of advancement in computer technology will eventually lead to the invention of a messianic supercomputer which, depending on who you ask, will either descend from the heavens to solve all of our problems like at the end of a bad Greek play, or else usher in 1000 years of darkness."
Post by: Egan_BW on February 05, 2016, 03:13:35 pm
Hmm. What if all we need is a machine (a "crane") to lower a god down to the stage?
Post by: Harry Baldman on February 05, 2016, 03:38:16 pm
that's dumb
sorry, i mean I'm not sure if I can put that any other way, that's just sorta dumb. Feeling smarter because you worship your own ignorance? I can't think of any other way to put that concept other than "worshiping your own ignorance", either.
Rationality's difficult because people are dumb by default, with moments of productivity and intelligence sprinkled in there. I'm sure if one examines their own behavior they can easily find any number of things where they do not act as completely rational actors that further their own best interest. This is hardly news, is it? We do dumb things because they are easy, comforting, intuitive or otherwise appealing, not because they're the right thing to do.
Best part is, you can rail against this, but ultimately you're likely to settle back into the easier alternative, which is to not give a shit, reduce the phenomenon to a contemptuous generalization of human nature and thus adequately distance yourself from it in your own opinion, then go back to business as usual without effecting anything a hardcore rationalist would rationalize as positive change on a personal or societal level. You do nothing, and feel smarter for it.
singularity stuff like what you describe is basically more religion, except that it worships Elon Musk or Ray Kurzweil or Eliezer Yudkowsky or whoever and so pretends not to be. You could say it's "better" because the thing you're worshiping is a possibility, but then you could say the same about UFO cults or Charles Manson, and then you're going way into crazy.
A lot of things are basically more religion, is my point. Singularitarian thought is just a funnier example than most, given that most practitioners are probably as euphoric as internet dwellers can be. I mean, I used to buy into that shit myself, so I guess I think it's just a pithy way to give an example of eloquent ideologues that people disagree with less confidently and less often than they do with Paul the Apostle.
I can sorta see how one would get comfort in that, but I don't quite understand why anyone would want any answers to be beyond one's ability to determine, that sounds way more discomforting than comforting. If anything actually turns out to be intractable or unknowable etc. (like whatever goes on in black holes, most likely), we should probably say "that sucks" and move on to something useful instead of saying "in there lives God" or whatever.
I meant more on a personal level. Somebody might eventually find out what goes on in black holes. You almost certainly never will. Most of the complexity of existence remains and will remain a mystery to you for the duration of your natural life. And you are not alone. So you admit defeat and move on, whether in the form of "well, somebody smarter and better situated will get better instruments and find out eventually and tell me if I'm still alive" or "well, God works in mysterious ways and maybe I'll understand more in Heaven".
I don't think people actually dwell on the god of the gaps, as they call the phenomenon, so that poke at religion is a bit misaimed. They just say "god did it" and move on. Inconsistencies in religion exist because people didn't think them through very carefully or with correct information when they were created and often not even when they were codified. It's only when you get into serious apologetics and/or attempts at disproval that people start to dwell on things like flat-earthers, creationists, well-sourced atheists (I myself am a very poorly sourced atheist, thank you very much), Bible scholars and other assholes tend to.
There's also the way declaring something to be unknowable to you means you shift something from the category of "haven't found out" to "can't find out". So you bear no responsibility for never finding out and never acting appropriately. Once again, it's so you can easily move on rather than dwell.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2016, 03:40:33 pm
God from the machine. Fitting. :PLowering a god to our level, eh?
Hmm. What if all we need is a machine (a "crane") to lower a god down to the stage?
The webcomic True Magic starts with a premise like that. The legends say a god called the Lightbringer arrived, and was really nice, and shared the gift of fire and light, and was about to go summon the rest of the pantheon. But his priests basically tricked and cannibalized him, and that's where the nobility come from and why they have magic powers.
Of course, that's what the resentful peasants claim happened :P
Even if I shook his hand my self I'd still try to disprove her. If you can prove something is true than you simply lack the precision to disprove it.I'd believe in the entity, maybe not that they were Jehovah or literally all-powerful.
But given sufficient show of power, I'd say whatever the hell they wanted!
Post by: Egan_BW on February 05, 2016, 03:45:51 pm
Hmph. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. :DEven if I shook his hand my self I'd still try to disprove her. If you can prove something is true than you simply lack the precision to disprove it.I'd believe in the entity, maybe not that they were Jehovah or literally all-powerful.
But given sufficient show of power, I'd say whatever the hell they wanted!
Post by: Descan on February 05, 2016, 08:34:30 pm
i'm not the latter but i am the former
and i don't truck with no "just be patient and Machine Jesus will save us all" tripe, gotta work for your paradise son
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 05, 2016, 09:15:49 pm
Our current laws of physics are both incomplete and almost certainly wrong somewhere, maybe everywhere lolUnless the natural state of the universe is stuff existing. Still, I read somewhere that after the heat-death of the universe, that after around 10^10^45 years, then natural fluctuations in space (like the constantly popping in and out of existence stuff) might happen big enough and just off-of-balanced-enough to make another one. It made me feel better.
Heck, the assumption that energy cannot be made or destroyed must be wrong or else the big bang should just not have happened and nothing should exist
2spook8me
Gonna have to call you out on that one. That's a straw man argument. He was talking about whether god qualifies as omnibenevolent and you subtly changed it to whether god qualifies as benevolent at all while still trying to construe it as the same question.That says more about how you define omnibenevolent than it does about a being which is purported to be such. I also happen to disagree with you about how omnipotence could function.
Personally I don't think a being could harm, or call for the harm, of any being for any reason (except if it was the only possible way to prevent an even greater evil; an exception which is categorically inapplicable to beings that are also omnipotent) and still qualify as omnibenevolent.
Short answer: YesThat's pretty interesting, actually. I hope that if God is real he'll finish the Trifecta and establish the final Covenant, the Covenant of Knowledge. And then we learn Plato was right all along, with dark matter being the platonic ideal of matter. :D
Long answer: The basic principle on how one should behave has stayed the same. What's changing is the covenant God is operating within. In the Old Testament, we have the Covenant of Works, which is God saying "do what I say or I'll smite you, also racial purity and blood sacrifice". Often expressed by attempted genocide of neighbouring people, mountains of foreskins, and similarly brutal things.
The (slightly) newer Covenant of Faith (i.e. what Christ established) changes the basis of how God works from a very Earth-centric view to a Heaven-centric view. God no longer requires the brutal OT stuff from his followers. Basically, it's a different religion.
Don't ask me why it's that way, though. I might actually try to answer >.>
I read it as "Divine judges do good by punishing evil". Which I think is a bad moral code - In my personal opinion, punishment is only good as far as it rehabilitates someone. Eternal punishment is the worst example of course, but also it's not right to cut off someone's hand for stealing, if they can be taught not to steal some other way. Punishment for its own sake is wrong.Eternal punishment serves as determent. Game theory allows, even requires, punishing defectors. If you don't, they have no reason not to defect. Rehabilitation is useful for situations where someone was forced into it or could get past it with some help. For people who consciously decide to do evil, punishment serves as a hard con for them, to try and outweigh the pros of committing said selfish/evil/defecting act.
But that's just, like, my opinion. In Christian morality, sin does require punishment independent of actually fixing anything.
Oh, and as something actually useful? Putnam, I've found myself drawn to be religious a couple of times, and I'm fairly sure that if I'd been raised differently, I would have made a very good apologetic and/or preacher. The simple reason is that it's easy. Religion provides an explanation for the unknowable. It provides comfort when things are bad ('even though you're being shit on right now, in heaven you'll have so much nice stuff and all you have to do is not be a dick to people and go to church once a week!'), it provides convenient explanations so long as you don't pry too hard (sorta like science, actually, just need more poking to find the flaws in science). It provides community, a band of people united by their knowledge of the One True God/Gods/All Gods/Flying Spaghetti Buddha. It provides a narrative, which our conscious brains are practically built from, for the universe. One in which you have a place, and matter. It prevents existential crises (usually).
Science is hard. Avoiding bias is difficult, and being certain you have impossible(in my experience). Researchers using exactly the same procedure for experiments, and reviewing each other's data, who are in the same field and level of experience, but have different viewpoints on whether the subject is true or not, can/will find opposite results, despite utmost rigor. It allows an easy way to say 'this is moral, that is immoral'. It provides answers. Those answers do not always correspond to what we can find exists in reality when we look hard enough. They do not always actually contain meaningful information. But they sate that part of your monkey brain that fears the dark, that fears the unknown, that dreads that which it cannot find out. The part that gets scared when it thinks about the utter nothingness at the end of time. The conscious mind is, from what I know, a product of evolution looking for better ways to lie. In signalling games, after all, the ability to give and detect false signals is paramount. But it's easier to lie if you believe the lie. That's why we're so good at finding patterns, rationalizing, finding justifications, especially after the fact. The brain wants a way to present itself as the good guy. If it's organism was the bad guy, it might get kicked out of the tribe. And that means getting mauled by lions, or at least not getting to have kids. My explanation is itself a rationalization which could very well be 'proven wrong' in fifteen years time (and proven right again, and wrong again, in another thirty). Monkeys are better at simple games than we are, like Prisoner's Dilemma. They are more rational than we are. If everyone was perfectly rational, we wouldn't be people, we'd be little more than computers. And say what you like, at least for the moment there's a hefty and important difference between people and utility-maximizing algorithms.
Religion provides, in a word, hope.
Oh and everything you and I do is mostly community cults, social signalling, and half-decent, half-bad self-justifications.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 05, 2016, 09:45:39 pm
I'm in no shape to properly appreciate most of your post, which looks pretty good from a skim, but I think I can reply to this...I read it as "Divine judges do good by punishing evil". Which I think is a bad moral code - In my personal opinion, punishment is only good as far as it rehabilitates someone. Eternal punishment is the worst example of course, but also it's not right to cut off someone's hand for stealing, if they can be taught not to steal some other way. Punishment for its own sake is wrong.Eternal punishment serves as determent. Game theory allows, even requires, punishing defectors. If you don't, they have no reason not to defect. Rehabilitation is useful for situations where someone was forced into it or could get past it with some help. For people who consciously decide to do evil, punishment serves as a hard con for them, to try and outweigh the pros of committing said selfish/evil/defecting act.
But that's just, like, my opinion. In Christian morality, sin does require punishment independent of actually fixing anything.
I agree that game theory shows that there needs to be a deterrent. But I'd argue that the length of punishment is of vanishingly small value. IE, that torturing someone for a year, is almost the same as torturing them for 1000, or infinite, years... When it comes to deterrent. It's not a linear relation.
I mean, I never said that defectors shouldn't be punished to deter evil. My point, which maybe I didn't make clearly, was that they should ONLY be punished in order to deter evil.
Abrahamic religions emphasize that sins require punishment or justice in blood (often literally). I think it's more important that people be dissuaded from further evil. And there are usually (not always, but usually) better ways to dissuade than demanding blood.
Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 05, 2016, 11:22:43 pm
Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.You seem to be overlooking the fact that most churches agree Christ was punished for every sin made by the elect - that is, he suffered God's wrath a few million times over
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2016, 11:42:04 pm
Huh, when you bring that up I realize that I'm not sure where I got the idea that he's said to be omnibenevolent at all.It's an incredibly common premise to christian theology and rhetoric (if not quite so much scripture). Not entirely universal, but close enough to it that denominations that claim the christian god is not all good (i.e. omnibenevolent) are quite rare. Especially if they're actually consistent about it in sermon and proselytizing. Silly vast amounts of theological work has gone into treating the question of God's omnibenevolence and trying to reconcile that with... well, more or less everything. You almost certainly just kinda' absorbed the idea from general cultural osmosis, heh.
Post by: Descan on February 06, 2016, 12:21:21 am
It's the same thing as the hell argument, though, since it's all relative. In the face of eternity, anything else is small beans, whether you're burning in hell for eternity or ruling in heaven for eternity.Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.You seem to be overlooking the fact that most churches agree Christ was punished for every sin made by the elect - that is, he suffered God's wrath a few million times over
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 06, 2016, 01:26:13 am
If you believe in the concept of justice, it makes sense. I mean, it seems sad that they must be punished, but if that's what justice requires, and God is just...it's not even necessarily that it requires you to take action about sin. It's just that the natural consequence of sin is suffering and distance from god. Period. The natural consequence of combustion is heat, water, and carbon dioxide. It's the way the world works, in that world view.I'm in no shape to properly appreciate most of your post, which looks pretty good from a skim, but I think I can reply to this...I read it as "Divine judges do good by punishing evil". Which I think is a bad moral code - In my personal opinion, punishment is only good as far as it rehabilitates someone. Eternal punishment is the worst example of course, but also it's not right to cut off someone's hand for stealing, if they can be taught not to steal some other way. Punishment for its own sake is wrong.Eternal punishment serves as determent. Game theory allows, even requires, punishing defectors. If you don't, they have no reason not to defect. Rehabilitation is useful for situations where someone was forced into it or could get past it with some help. For people who consciously decide to do evil, punishment serves as a hard con for them, to try and outweigh the pros of committing said selfish/evil/defecting act.
But that's just, like, my opinion. In Christian morality, sin does require punishment independent of actually fixing anything.
I agree that game theory shows that there needs to be a deterrent. But I'd argue that the length of punishment is of vanishingly small value. IE, that torturing someone for a year, is almost the same as torturing them for 1000, or infinite, years... When it comes to deterrent. It's not a linear relation.
I mean, I never said that defectors shouldn't be punished to deter evil. My point, which maybe I didn't make clearly, was that they should ONLY be punished in order to deter evil.
Abrahamic religions emphasize that sins require punishment or justice in blood (often literally). I think it's more important that people be dissuaded from further evil. And there are usually (not always, but usually) better ways to dissuade than demanding blood.
Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.
If God exists, and eternal life is a thing, it becomes utterly objective. Especially if you consider God to be timeless, in which case Christ could easily have suffered God's Wrath a few billion trillion times over.It's the same thing as the hell argument, though, since it's all relative. In the face of eternity, anything else is small beans, whether you're burning in hell for eternity or ruling in heaven for eternity.Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.You seem to be overlooking the fact that most churches agree Christ was punished for every sin made by the elect - that is, he suffered God's wrath a few million times over
I still just view it as divine self-flagellation to feel better about having been a dick in the Old Testament. "I'M SORRY GUYS! SEE HOW SORRY I AM? PLEASE WORSHIP ME! I DON'T LIKE PUTTING PEOPLE IN HELL. ALSO I HAVE SELF-CONFIDENCE ISSUES AND THE OTHER DIVINE ENTITIES ARE MAKING FUN OF MY SCRIPTURE SIZE"
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 06, 2016, 01:37:35 am
A few million eternities is less than an eternity? o.OIt's the same thing as the hell argument, though, since it's all relative. In the face of eternity, anything else is small beans, whether you're burning in hell for eternity or ruling in heaven for eternity.Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.You seem to be overlooking the fact that most churches agree Christ was punished for every sin made by the elect - that is, he suffered God's wrath a few million times over
That said, eternal punishment isn't particularly backed by Scripture (it also raises weird problems like the above). Hell is eternal but whether the souls in question actually stay there or just get annihilated is debatable.
I still just view it as divine self-flagellation to feel better about having been a dick in the Old Testament. "I'M SORRY GUYS! SEE HOW SORRY I AM? PLEASE WORSHIP ME! I DON'T LIKE PUTTING PEOPLE IN HELL. ALSO I HAVE SELF-CONFIDENCE ISSUES AND THE OTHER DIVINE ENTITIES ARE MAKING FUN OF MY SCRIPTURE SIZE"That argument only holds up if you think God is less of a dick in the NT than in the OT.
Post by: Putnam on February 06, 2016, 01:55:35 am
my only beef with discussions of singularity is when people conflate it with transhumanism in general, or AI researchers who are working on general AIFrankly, I don't trust others in regards to this sort of technology to not fuck it up and get us all killed. I have... well, no hope in the other researchers, though this could be (and probably is) just my ego talking.
i'm not the latter but i am the former
and i don't truck with no "just be patient and Machine Jesus will save us all" tripe, gotta work for your paradise son
Musk and Yudkowsky's work both have the exact same stated goal. I haven't seen Musk talk much, but I read Yudkowsky's book, so I've got an idea of his ego, and yeah, I can see it being that. I'm reminded of that time he said the entire readership of his fanfiction, which seems to be the most popular fanfiction on fanfiction.net, might be smarter than him. Might. Seriously, here's the exact post I'm referring to. (https://www.reddit.com/r/HPMOR/comments/2x0wua/chapter_110/covvuz1?context=3) When it comes to ego, you're in good company.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 06, 2016, 01:55:50 am
Gonna have to call you out on that one. That's a straw man argument. He was talking about whether god qualifies as omnibenevolent and you subtly changed it to whether god qualifies as benevolent at all while still trying to construe it as the same question.The hell you on about? He was quoting Deuteronomy where God casts judgement and the sentence is death. I don't do subtlety, I say what I mean as bluntly as possible.
Personally I don't think a being could harm, or call for the harm, of any being for any reason (except if it was the only possible way to prevent an even greater evil; an exception which is categorically inapplicable to beings that are also omnipotent) and still qualify as omnibenevolent.I can think of nothing more disgusting than the guilty being allowed to escape justice, you cannot be omnibenevolent and just stand by whilst you let the strongest prey on the weakest unpunished. What God that does is an arbitrary fool of good feels, not worth of worship.
I read it as "Divine judges do good by punishing evil". Which I think is a bad moral code - In my personal opinion, punishment is only good as far as it rehabilitates someone.This is very interesting. Take Denmark for example, when they brought back ISIS fighters who had killed many innocents and deigned not to punish them, but to try rehabilitate them. And you always get funny stories of fighters caught by police back in Europe talking about how they only went to Syria to provide ideological support, and if you believe them then no one is fighting in Syria, all of them are doing the dishes! Denmark is running off of the belief that there are no people who take joy in causing suffering, take no profit in greediness, take no arousal in gaining power to seize all one desires by force, that deceit is no attractive object to the disloyal. That we are all good people at heart, and some of us are led astray, and can be led back with ease. That is not our choice to make. I find this as a bad moral code. I've been astounded through my life when amongst the people I've known there've been thieves who had the money for the moral trinkets they stole.
When there are no punishments for immorality, that is the definition of injustice, that is the state of unfairness where the guilty get help whilst the innocent are denied payment. Rehabilitation is only fit for the sincerely remorseful.
Tying this into theology, look at the greatest religions of our time. In Islam this is known as tawba, giving up past sinful behaviours sincerely without pretense and abstaining from ever repeating these actions in future. This is rooted in Christianity's repentance which entails giving up past sinful behaviours sincerely without pretense and abstaining from ever repeating these actions in future. The Catholics take it one step further by formalizing the act of seeking forgiveness, seeking penance and confessing that one has done wrong. This is again rooted in Judaism's teshuva, pertaining to giving up past sinful behaviours sincerely without pretense and abstaining from ever repeating these actions in future.
In all three atonement can only ever be achieved by accepting that one has done wrong, by accepting penance for what has been done, by refraining from doing what has been done again, and from being sincerely remorseful (with additional stipulations to prove it varying by faith and creed). Also tying this into theology and the morality of judgement, the omnibenevolence of Allah, God and Yhwh comes from his willingness to be merciful and always forgive the truly remorseful. And I don't know where people got the notion that this was not founded in scripture, because in all three religions this is founded in the religious canon. And for the unrepentant who are quite happy to indulge themselves in the immorality which wreaks woe upon others as readily as on themselves, there is very much the same punishment given to the repentant - that is fair, but there is no forgiveness, for there is none sought.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 06, 2016, 02:05:07 am
I kinda do. Less blood sacrifice and genocide, mostly.I still just view it as divine self-flagellation to feel better about having been a dick in the Old Testament. "I'M SORRY GUYS! SEE HOW SORRY I AM? PLEASE WORSHIP ME! I DON'T LIKE PUTTING PEOPLE IN HELL. ALSO I HAVE SELF-CONFIDENCE ISSUES AND THE OTHER DIVINE ENTITIES ARE MAKING FUN OF MY SCRIPTURE SIZE"That argument only holds up if you think God is less of a dick in the NT than in the OT.
I mean, not a lot less, but less. (:P)
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 06, 2016, 02:15:20 am
No, I don't really accept that. We're way too precise on some things to be entirely wrong. Wrong somewhere I can believe, yeah, but it's probably not in the range of general relativity or quantum mechanics, especially between the orders of microns and meters (I.E where neurons and brains live), both of those things are fairly well-constrained and they both predict very well what's going to happen given some event or another (at least probabilisticly, in the case of QM).Maybe some time soon, but I'm paraphrasing a deaf scientist who worked at CERN I had the pleasure of speaking to, in that every now and then discoveries are made that completely turn the current scientific models on their heads - the scientific process is an iterative process from which old models are discarded in favour of increasingly accurate models until such time as we finally arrive at the most, total, accurate. Being entirely wrong is entirely within the realm of reality, until such time as our understanding encompasses the entirety of reality. It's not a grand bold statement about the qualities of the Universe, it's just the nature of how long humankind has been looking into the nature of things. On the grand scale, we haven't had that much time, just a blink.
Also, the assumption that energy cannot be made or destroyed is already known to be false globally, we know that for a fact, the universe is expanding and space has a minimum amount of energy per volume, which means that energy is constantly created at long distances.Unless you know something that will revolutionize science right now and smash the law of conservation of energy, that assumption is not known to be false globally, and the current scientific model in regards to the expansion of Universe attributes the expansion of the Universe to dark energy (http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/) not energy created ex nihilo. I agree conservation of energy must be wrong, but it is by scientific standards not wrong, it is not globally known it is wrong, we have not yet observed a single case where it has been wrong.
Not to mention the whole "could've already been there at the moment of the Big Bang" thing.Then the question just moves to how that began, where the energy from that was created. I think we'll have to walk in baby steps in our understanding, because we're trying to figure out the nature of existence before... Existence. It will take us some time to figure it out.
Post by: Putnam on February 06, 2016, 03:04:17 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 06, 2016, 03:10:41 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 06, 2016, 04:12:39 am
Post by: Descan on February 06, 2016, 04:30:11 pm
I pay attention to him, and I like some of the stuff he's written, but yeah. He's got an ego.my only beef with discussions of singularity is when people conflate it with transhumanism in general, or AI researchers who are working on general AIFrankly, I don't trust others in regards to this sort of technology to not fuck it up and get us all killed. I have... well, no hope in the other researchers, though this could be (and probably is) just my ego talking.
i'm not the latter but i am the former
and i don't truck with no "just be patient and Machine Jesus will save us all" tripe, gotta work for your paradise son
Musk and Yudkowsky's work both have the exact same stated goal. I haven't seen Musk talk much, but I read Yudkowsky's book, so I've got an idea of his ego, and yeah, I can see it being that. I'm reminded of that time he said the entire readership of his fanfiction, which seems to be the most popular fanfiction on fanfiction.net, might be smarter than him. Might. Seriously, here's the exact post I'm referring to. (https://www.reddit.com/r/HPMOR/comments/2x0wua/chapter_110/covvuz1?context=3) When it comes to ego, you're in good company.
Post by: sprinkled chariot on February 13, 2016, 03:32:37 am
Post by: Harry Baldman on February 13, 2016, 03:48:41 am
What are gods results in mayers-briggs?
He's a textbook YHWH, I think.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 13, 2016, 03:49:08 am
What are gods results in mayers-briggs?I just did a test and gave snarkily-God-ish answers, got INTJ (http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality)
My favourite questions were ones like "I often feel envious of other people" where I could rattle off Bible verses to support a Fully Agree answer :P
...
10/10What are gods results in mayers-briggs?He's a textbook YHWH, I think.
Post by: Putnam on February 13, 2016, 03:52:25 am
What are gods results in mayers-briggs?I just did a test and gave snarkily-God-ish answers, got INTJ (http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality)
My favourite questions were ones like "I often feel envious of other people" where I could rattle off Bible verses to support a Fully Agree answer :P
it's one of the ten commandments, heck, I think I can recite it from memory
"I am the LORD your god; you will have no other gods before me. For my name is jealous, and I am a jealous God."
or something like that
Post by: Descan on February 13, 2016, 05:28:22 am
Post by: Calidovi on February 14, 2016, 10:43:57 am
not to mention the genocide in order to take others lands
Where was the verse in which it said that Israel was destined to take the Gentile's lands and their sons and daughters will be enslaved?
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2016, 11:36:49 am
Post by: Descan on February 14, 2016, 07:32:18 pm
I don't know about that, I think the verses were basically "Kill literally every man and woman and take their virgin daughters."not to mention the genocide in order to take others lands
Where was the verse in which it said that Israel was destined to take the Gentile's lands and their sons and daughters will be enslaved?
I might be mixing it up with the verses that say "Kill literally EVERYTHING, don't even take their goats."
... There might be an issue with someone when you can get his genocidal rampages confused with each other.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 14, 2016, 07:52:40 pm
When God first directed the tribes to Canaan, he said "kill everyone there", and they mostly just mucked around. So God started directing them to genocide individual kingdoms, but the same thing happened. Basically, the Jews were bad at genocide.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2016, 07:54:05 pm
When God first directed the tribes to Canaan, he said "kill everyone there", and they mostly just mucked around. So God started directing them to genocide individual kingdoms, but the same thing happened. Basically, the Jews were bad at genocide.Joshua blew the horns at the battle of Jericho and then their baneling bust rekt the wall off and they took all their minerals
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 14, 2016, 08:44:42 pm
YHWH knows whats up, he gives you virgins for conquest in this life not just the nextBefore that though, God told them (while Moses was in charge) to go in and take it, but the people were scared, so they had to wander in the desert for 40 years, then go the long way around and kill everything in the way.When God first directed the tribes to Canaan, he said "kill everyone there", and they mostly just mucked around. So God started directing them to genocide individual kingdoms, but the same thing happened. Basically, the Jews were bad at genocide.Joshua blew the horns at the battle of Jericho and then their baneling bust rekt the wall off and they took all their minerals
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 14, 2016, 11:01:50 pm
YHWH knows whats up, he gives you virgins for conquest in this life not just the nextInidividual Jews are great at genocide. It's only in large groups that they become incompetent. It's like the Conservation of Ninjutsu rule, except with miracles and mass murder.When God first directed the tribes to Canaan, he said "kill everyone there", and they mostly just mucked around. So God started directing them to genocide individual kingdoms, but the same thing happened. Basically, the Jews were bad at genocide.Joshua blew the horns at the battle of Jericho and then their baneling bust rekt the wall off and they took all their minerals
Post by: Putnam on February 14, 2016, 11:04:55 pm
Post by: Helgoland on February 16, 2016, 04:19:43 pm
Spoiler: It was either this thread or the laugh one (click to show/hide)
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 16, 2016, 06:30:54 pm
Halp
Post by: Graknorke on February 16, 2016, 06:33:21 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 16, 2016, 06:39:45 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2016, 08:06:50 am
Was this before or after he told Moses he would never enter the Promised Lands?YHWH knows whats up, he gives you virgins for conquest in this life not just the nextBefore that though, God told them (while Moses was in charge) to go in and take it, but the people were scared, so they had to wander in the desert for 40 years, then go the long way around and kill everything in the way.When God first directed the tribes to Canaan, he said "kill everyone there", and they mostly just mucked around. So God started directing them to genocide individual kingdoms, but the same thing happened. Basically, the Jews were bad at genocide.Joshua blew the horns at the battle of Jericho and then their baneling bust rekt the wall off and they took all their minerals
Post by: TempAcc on February 17, 2016, 08:16:38 am
Spoiler: It was either this thread or the laugh one (click to show/hide)
Welp, time to sleep, Jesus, we'll wake you up when we Putin gets here.
Anyway, on the "Moses would never see the promissed land" thing, I think its meant to mean Moses would die before his people actualy settled in the land promissed to them by God. After all, in the context of the old testament, "the promissed land" is meant to be actual territory, and not heaven/paradise/etc.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2016, 09:41:41 am
It's how matter of fact the guard is about it, too.I am 90% sure Moses was banned from entering before everybody else. I don't have time to check it right now, but it would be in Exodus somewhere.Was this before or after he told Moses he would never enter the Promised Lands?YHWH knows whats up, he gives you virgins for conquest in this life not just the nextBefore that though, God told them (while Moses was in charge) to go in and take it, but the people were scared, so they had to wander in the desert for 40 years, then go the long way around and kill everything in the way.When God first directed the tribes to Canaan, he said "kill everyone there", and they mostly just mucked around. So God started directing them to genocide individual kingdoms, but the same thing happened. Basically, the Jews were bad at genocide.Joshua blew the horns at the battle of Jericho and then their baneling bust rekt the wall off and they took all their minerals
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2016, 10:27:05 am
Not relevant to anything, really, just thinking online.
Post by: Arx on February 17, 2016, 10:29:04 am
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2016, 10:30:31 am
conceive
kənˈsiːv/Submit
verb
1.
create (an embryo) by fertilizing an egg.
"she was conceived when her father was 49"
2.
form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.
"the dam project was originally conceived in 1977"
Post by: Arx on February 17, 2016, 10:32:02 am
Post by: Rose on February 17, 2016, 10:32:14 am
Post by: TD1 on February 17, 2016, 10:33:53 am
I am entirely able to conceive the idea of there being no afterlife for humans. I just think it's wrong.Why is it right for animals (at least, I assume you think so) but wrong for humans?
Post by: Egan_BW on February 17, 2016, 10:35:34 am
Anyways, everybody knows your soul just gets transfered to another body when you die.That's the goal, anyway. I don't believe you can get to exist forever without finding a way to make it happen.
Post by: Teneb on February 17, 2016, 10:40:46 am
Anyways, everybody knows your soul just gets transfered to another body when you die.Please. Everyone knows that there is no "dying"; people just get a plastic surgery and change their names.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 17, 2016, 10:42:36 am
Bow to God, God bows to youSpoiler: It was either this thread or the laugh one (click to show/hide)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 17, 2016, 02:18:14 pm
Post by: Arx on February 17, 2016, 02:33:20 pm
I am entirely able to conceive the idea of there being no afterlife for humans. I just think it's wrong.Why is it right for animals (at least, I assume you think so) but wrong for humans?
I don't actually know. I guess I'm agnostic concerning it? It's just not actually a critical issue compared to the rest of Christianity.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 17, 2016, 03:27:17 pm
There is much debate about whether animals go to heaven, or if they even go anywhere at all. I am of the opinion that they don't go to heaven, and they were created for the earth for humans.Nah they'd follow us to heaven and hell, bacon in the garden of eden, flies, wasps and mosquitoes in hell
Made for us, made to bugger us
Post by: Rose on February 18, 2016, 04:08:57 am
Except mosquitoes. Mosquitoes have an afterlife, and are made in god's image.
Post by: Teneb on February 18, 2016, 04:46:18 am
Except mosquitoes. Mosquitoes have an afterlife, and are made in god's image.Is the current pandemic divine wrath then?
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 18, 2016, 05:02:39 am
Except mosquitoes. Mosquitoes have an afterlife, and are made in god's image.Don't forget streptococcus. Word become flesh-eating parasite.
Post by: Egan_BW on February 18, 2016, 09:13:44 am
Post by: TD1 on February 18, 2016, 09:39:49 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 18, 2016, 09:56:44 am
No, no, no - God is meant to be praised, no matter what he does :PWell, yeah.
I feel like the Jewish view is a bit more honest in that respect. You don't necessarily worship God for being good; you worship him because he's God, and if you don't, you're gonna piss him off. Zeus was just the God of Lightning, and look what he did to people who pissed him off. You think the Alpha and Omega who's destroyed the world once already in flood will be any more forgiving?
New Testament God is the nice-ish one.
Oh, and this is a bit old, but in reference to the whole eternal punishment and deferment thing and blah; in comparison to infinity, all else eventually becomes negligible. Including punishment. Therefore, the only effective punishment is an eternity of something. Or purgatory, I suppose, but trying to reconcile different branches of Christian thought as if they were one entity is guaranteed to bring in headaches.
Post by: TD1 on February 18, 2016, 10:14:30 am
Post by: scrdest on February 18, 2016, 11:59:39 am
Thing is, it is my belief/assumption that most people don't praise God because he's what they'd typically call praiseworthy, necessarily. More to the point, they believe in him. As they believe in him, they know that if they don't praise him, they go to hell. So it's not that they're praising Him because he deserves it, per se - it's still the old praise-or-be-punished formula. It's just eschatological punishment.It's pretty much impossible to praise God for being praiseworthy and simultaneously holding a Judeo-Christian-style morality based on divine mandates.
If you do the latter, you intrinsically accept that X is Good because God says so, thus God being Good is pretty much tautologically true - if you claim to praise him because of his goodness, it boils down to praising him because he exists, whatever he does. He could club baby seals for fun, but since he says he's good, well, he's right, because he's God, he decides.
That would mean the only praiseworthy God who's not wanking himself with morality is a God who is either someone beholden to an objective (i.e. independent of any being whatsoever, mortal or not - at least presuming you don't make a rather heretical claim there's a God above God) source of morality and is only relaying the moral truth to humanity...
...but that brings along the hilarious implication that all the stuff about not worshipping other gods and the like is quite likely God being a self-serving unreliable source hijacking the regular objective moral stuff to entrench his position as an object of worship.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 18, 2016, 12:03:31 pm
I'd argue that humans don't have an afterlife, nor do any other animals.And that afterlife is here, yes?
Except mosquitoes. Mosquitoes have an afterlife, and are made in god's image.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 18, 2016, 12:37:27 pm
DeepI'd argue that humans don't have an afterlife, nor do any other animals.And that afterlife is here, yes?
Except mosquitoes. Mosquitoes have an afterlife, and are made in god's image.
Deeper than hell
Which is here
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 18, 2016, 07:10:43 pm
New Testament God is the nice-ish one.New Testament God is the same God, it's just that most of the interaction is happening through Jesus who is nice.
DeepHell is where the heart is
Deeper than hell
Which is here
Post by: TD1 on February 18, 2016, 07:13:29 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 18, 2016, 07:14:56 pm
New Testament God is the same God, it's just that most of the interaction is happening through Jesus who is nice.Suspiciously nice. What's his angle? What's his agenda? Something fishy about the guy, and it's not just that he conjures fish from thin air.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 18, 2016, 07:17:46 pm
Does the New Testament God do literally anything? I'm trying to remember but I'm drawing a blank.New Testament God is the nice-ish one.New Testament God is the same God, it's just that most of the interaction is happening through Jesus who is nice.
Mary gets visited by angels, instead of God speaking through a prophet like normal...
I guess He impregnates her
Other than that though...?
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 18, 2016, 07:24:33 pm
Beyond that it's mostly just Jesus doing miracles (when he isn't scolding the apostles).
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 18, 2016, 07:25:30 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 18, 2016, 07:31:00 pm
Post by: Descan on February 18, 2016, 07:33:53 pm
The NT is basically letters written by early Christians espousing and talking about a single person. They more personal, and more direct. Thus the only time God is mentioned is when they bring him out of their packs to prop up Jesus.
It's like the difference between the Silmarillion and the Hobbit. Ones grand myth-building, the other is one persons story plus the people around him.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 18, 2016, 07:39:39 pm
Ah, yeah:
Quote
38 Two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left.(bleh, the Skeptics Annotated Bible copy-pastes with a lot less hand-editing than Biblehub, but apparently people find SAB offensive and say the KJV doesn't count)
39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads
40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”
41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him.
42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.
43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ”
44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
Fakedit: It's weird that God wouldn't intercede or interact with what is supposedly the most important event in all of human history. The doctrine is that it's all according to his plan, sure, but he's suspiciously and uncharacteristically hands off.
It's like he's a different entity (Cathars, gnostics) or that this is a false account (Jews).
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 18, 2016, 07:41:16 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 18, 2016, 07:50:12 pm
The way things are recorded in the gospels is dry by comparison. "Jesus then went to the Decapolis. He drove demons out of a man and into a herd of pigs. The herd of pigs jumped into a lake. Jesus then went to Galilee." It's written as a report, rather than a "founding mythos" as Descan describes the OT.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 18, 2016, 07:54:40 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on February 18, 2016, 08:14:04 pm
lovingI never got that impression.
Post by: TD1 on February 18, 2016, 08:17:35 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 18, 2016, 08:22:24 pm
It is intentionally jarring that God doesn't intercede. On some level, even Jesus thought he was going to if "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" is to be believed.
Post by: Frumple on February 18, 2016, 08:23:39 pm
Post by: Teneb on February 18, 2016, 09:03:47 pm
DeepHell is where the heart is
Deeper than hell
Which is here
[/quote]
Hell is within your chest.
Yeah, in the OT he is more of a vengeful and spiteful entity, while in the NT he is just... not there.lovingI never got that impression.
It's a godly sort of love. You know, the kinda' that says it only broke one of your legs because you made it angry, instead of both. It only murdered people en masse because it loved them, etc., etc. Or at least loved some of them, and needed to make an example of someone else.So... a psychopath or something along those lines?
Post by: Robsoie on February 18, 2016, 09:13:43 pm
It is intentionally jarring that God doesn't intercede. On some level, even Jesus thought he was going to if "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" is to be believed.
Actually with those words Jesus point to the Psaulm 22 that start with this exact sentence and describe the scene as if it had been a prophecy that just got achieved.
This was pointed to the more knowledgable in the religion and texts, and then that knew that Psaulm, so they could understand and see what they decided to blind themselves to when they sent him to be crucified.
Post by: Flying Dice on February 18, 2016, 09:16:36 pm
Or an abusive lover.It's a godly sort of love. You know, the kinda' that says it only broke one of your legs because you made it angry, instead of both. It only murdered people en masse because it loved them, etc., etc. Or at least loved some of them, and needed to make an example of someone else.So... a psychopath or something along those lines?
We're gonna need a nerf Earth.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 18, 2016, 09:42:56 pm
EDIT: Osama ben Ladin. Autocorrect turned it into Obama ben Ladin ::)
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 18, 2016, 09:52:52 pm
The God in the Old Testament is the same as the God in the New Testament. He is extremely scary, but loving in both.Loving in the possessive sense, at best. The way you love a pet. But if your pet doesn't
And really, you only have room for
But, I mean, don't worry, you're not a bad pet owner! You make sure they have enough
Sure,
:D
He loved us enough to give us free will, and pay the harshest price when we abuse it. There are still consequences for sin everywhere though. About the mass slaughter, the bible mentions that they were evil. If you could go back in time and kill Osama Ben Ladin and stop 9/11 (without any other repercussions on the future or yourself), would you do it? That is kind of what it is like to have God tell you what to do. He know the future, so doing what he says is the best option.So those people were all of them, 100%, Osama bin Ladin-level evils? What with the gay sex and all? Not a single Good Samaritan in the bunch? Giving your pet access to the outdoors is nice, but it doesn't make you the perfect pet owner. Sometimes, when it means that they're likely to be hit by a car, it just makes you irresponsible. Depending on analogy, beating your pet when they run away and make you worry for a few days isn't that great either.
EDIT: Osama ben Ladin. Autocorrect turned it into Obama ben Ladin ::)
If you want to make it seem like a partner-lover thing, it only gets worse. And if we're his children; guess what? I find it profoundly immoral to ever beat your child to within an inch of their life (hell). For any reason.
Post by: Putnam on February 18, 2016, 09:54:30 pm
New Testament God is the same God, it's just that most of the interaction is happening through Jesus who is nice.
but like
jesus said that y'all are hypocrites for not killing children if they don't like their parents (Matthew 15)
Post by: Frumple on February 18, 2016, 09:55:55 pm
And it's still entirely irreconcilable with love, regardless. If you love someone, you don't correct their poor actions by killing them. Unless you're saying god only loved some people, I guess.
... which, to be fair, is pretty accurate for the OT. Thing was a racist bastard in those texts.
Also no, if you sent me back in time, instead of killing bin ladin I'd, y'know, do the proper ethical thing and help the dude out so he wouldn't consider leading a terrorist organization to be acceptable action. Murdering someone for something they will do is about as goddamn unconscionable an act as you can perform, doubly so when it's within your power to just prevent the future act entirely without, y'know, murder, torture, rape, etc., etc.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 18, 2016, 10:04:05 pm
That's also being very optimistic as to how much you could help him do that. I will also disagree with that bit about the 'killing someone to prevent them from doing something is the worst thing ever'. I mean, I think killing people is awful, but the two biggest reasons for execution are deterrent and prevention. I think it's one hell of a last resort to fall back on, but some things are more important than one life. Large numbers of lives, usually. If you can do it other ways then yeah sure go for it. But I think a big part of the difference between the christian idea of omnipotence (if it is to be reconciliable at all) and the one a lot of non-religious people seem to hold, is that in one, the Omnipotent can do anything. In the other, they can do anything, via any means. Big, important, massive distinction
On a different note, though, origamiscienceguy? It looks like in the past people tried doing what he said, and that resulted in some bad shit. So God's track record on that count is poor, and without a secondary source to even confirm that he does know the future (you can understand why I might consider Jesus a biased source; trying to get your Dad more followers is a pretty obvious conflict of interest here).
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 18, 2016, 10:13:38 pm
Children who do not have a choice for believing God, or are not old enough to understand it properly. The best example of this is 2 Samuel 12:21–23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that, because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David’s response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David’s response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child but could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted by this knowledge. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would see his baby son (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.New Testament God is the same God, it's just that most of the interaction is happening through Jesus who is nice.
but like
jesus said that y'all are hypocrites for not killing children if they don't like their parents (Matthew 15)
So children too young to understand will most likely go to heaven (although this interpretation could be completely wrong) so having them die would save them from what Jesus says in Matthew 15. if you read on: He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 18, 2016, 10:23:08 pm
but likeNo, he said the Jewish leaders were hypocrites. Christians aren't expected to kill their children, that would be contrary to the whole "do good to everyone" thing.
jesus said that y'all are hypocrites for not killing children if they don't like their parents (Matthew 15)
Post by: Frumple on February 18, 2016, 10:30:49 pm
As for scale, it kinda' doesn't bloody matter. Regardless of how much other time is available, doing worse in a particular timeframe than you could -- and let's be completely straight up, even if you're still going to kill someone you can stop shit like ripping apart pregnant women -- is still a big deal, especially when you've got as much presumed capability as the friggin' divine. Eternity doesn't make the sins of a moment magically disappear, and you can't claim a thing does out of love acts significantly worse than they could have. You may be able to reconcile love with harshness, but you cannot reconcile it with cruelty. Any least not any kind of sane love. Though, mind, if you want to make the argument that the entity described as the christian god is bloody insane, I'd be pretty easy to convince -- the displayed behaviors definitely fit more than one type of mental illness.
As for the argument that the god in question can only do so much... bugger can drown pretty much the entire bloody human species, according to the texts. I'm pretty sure with that kind of capability it could instead put someone in a box and feed them until they die of natural causes instead of murdering their firstborn or whatever the hell atrocity is being considered. It's not a matter of "via any means", it's a matter of "via means at least as impressive as attributed acts". Blame the text itself that those attributed acts covers quite a lot.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 18, 2016, 11:04:31 pm
You're going to have a bloody hard time convincing me unborn infants, toddlers, preteens, etc., are evil.Do you really want to be convinced? I'll warrant there's not a lot of homicidal fetuses, but never place your faith in man
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 18, 2016, 11:06:52 pm
The idea of there being concrete, irrevocable sins is a very christian idea. Consider: The only true 'evil' is anguish, physical, mental, emotional. All else is evil because it leads to that. If, in the timescale of eternity, 'life' is negligible, ending it an even more negligible amount sooner is less significant, because it is a relatively smaller act. What you're saying right now is because God isn't perfect, that he obviously can't love us, and it's cruel. To which I respond; why aren't you doing everything in your power to make as much money as possible to make more money in order to donate to charity? How can you consider yourself anything but cruel for not doing so? What, it's tiring? Too bad. People are suffering, and you can save lives with as little as $800 a pop if you're smart about it.
Sane love has boundaries. And that's before getting to truisms like 'it is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it', except replace war with 'sin'.
And...
As for the argument that the god in question can only do so much... bugger can drown pretty much the entire bloody human species, according to the texts. I'm pretty sure with that kind of capability it could instead put someone in a box and feed them until they die of natural causes instead of murdering their firstborn or whatever the hell atrocity is being considered. It's not a matter of "via any means", it's a matter of "via means at least as impressive as attributed acts". Blame the text itself that those attributed acts covers quite a lot.HOW THE FUCK IS THAT ANY BETTER? 'oh, you know, rather than kill this infant, whose soul will go instantaneously to heaven, in order to try and get your consciousness to be useful, let's kidnap you and isolate you from all stimuli save basic sustenance until you grow old and die'. The hell, dude. Torture is fucked up, which is why I would refuse to worship any god who abided by it. Permanent purgatory I could accept.
And what does the impressiveness have to do with it? Seriously I'm confused here as to what you were trying to convey. Can you explain that bit again?
Post by: Chevaleresse on February 18, 2016, 11:46:24 pm
Obviously this would be the work of a psychopath, but with my (admittedly middling to poor) knowledge of the Bible the only contradiction to it I can find is violation of the whole "thou shalt not kill" bit.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 18, 2016, 11:53:48 pm
Also yeah, that's a power held for God and God alone. We cannot be entrusted with it, as we are flawed.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 19, 2016, 12:01:36 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 19, 2016, 12:04:21 am
Obviously this would be the work as a psychopath, but with my (admittedly middling to poor) knowledge of the Bible the only contradiction to it I can find is violation of the whole "thou shalt not kill" bit."Thou shalt not murder" would be a better translation. God doesn't mind killing, just unlawful killing.
Post by: Chevaleresse on February 19, 2016, 12:08:08 am
Unless of course infertile people are going to hell. I don't know if you get points for trying, so maybe it's only deliberately choosing not to reproduce? I won't claim to know the answer.
...I'm also not suggesting we go about murdering babies. Let me make that quite clear.
(As a side note, I'm fairly certain the Commandments were only meant to apply to one's own tribe. Granted that would mean that the hypothetical baby-murdering spree would have to occur at the very least in Canada and not where I live, but it could still happen.)
Post by: Arx on February 19, 2016, 12:09:43 am
Sure, you'll also prevent some bad, but it's like going into a nuclear reactor and flipping switches are random; if you get the right switches, it'll keep running fine, but if you don't you could put it into meltdown, or more likely just break it in some boring way. The analogy isn't perfect, so please just take it in the spirit it's given in.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 19, 2016, 12:12:08 am
Be fruitful and multiply seems to be a command to the entirety of humans, but do not murder is actually a better one to use. Like orange wizard said.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 19, 2016, 12:14:10 am
That's more of a recommendation than a command, no?It's a command to humanity as a whole, rather than every individual. The NT epistles have a number of passages that say it's up to each person whether to marry and have children or not (with the implication being that the extra time/money goes towards the church or somesuch), but the expectation is that the human species should continue to expand as much as possible.
...
Anyway, re: murdering babies - it's pretty plainly a bad thing (discounting the afterlife possibilities) and it's not actually stated in the Bible whether or not every dead child will go to heaven. What is stated, however, is that God's covenant is made with believers and their children.
In other words, this means that the children of believers will go to heaven, but the children of others will not. Admittedly that's not certain (we're reminded time and time again that we can't know for sure who will or won't go to heaven) but it's definitely a point against murdering every infant out of "love".
Post by: Chevaleresse on February 19, 2016, 12:19:01 am
The other issue with that that a lot of people seem to miss is the second-degree consequences. Murdering innocents could have a lot of knock-on effects on future conversion rates that you can't know about. What if one of those foetuses would, bar your interference, have been a great leader who would have saved hundreds or thousands, and [ good thing] to boot?
Sure, you'll also prevent some bad, but it's like going into a nuclear reactor and flipping switches are random; if you get the right switches, it'll keep running fine, but if you don't you could put it into meltdown, or more likely just break it in some boring way. The analogy isn't perfect, so please just take it in the spirit it's given in.
I suppose. Still, my main point was that the whole "babies go to heaven" thing is perhaps not the greatest principle to use - though I'd accept that babies killed by God probably get a free pass or somesuch. I guess not having that idea leaves the answer of what happens when an infant dies open once more. If God can see the future then I suppose they'd just go to wherever they would have gone should they have lived their life without my infanticidal interference, but then seeing the future kind of requires that our universe be deterministic, meaning that everyone's lives were preset from the beginning so why bother with life at all? Just toss everyone in the appropriate plane and wash your hands of it.
EDIT: Wouldn't that mean I should just murder -Christian- babies then? Leave the rest to grow up so they can convert.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 19, 2016, 12:20:12 am
so why bother with life at all? Just toss everyone in the appropriate plane and wash your hands of it.Because then the people in question don't get to experience life, and the whole point of life is to live it.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 19, 2016, 12:22:31 am
If you kill all the christian babies, who's gonna convert them? And yada yada murder etc.The other issue with that that a lot of people seem to miss is the second-degree consequences. Murdering innocents could have a lot of knock-on effects on future conversion rates that you can't know about. What if one of those foetuses would, bar your interference, have been a great leader who would have saved hundreds or thousands, and [ good thing] to boot?
Sure, you'll also prevent some bad, but it's like going into a nuclear reactor and flipping switches are random; if you get the right switches, it'll keep running fine, but if you don't you could put it into meltdown, or more likely just break it in some boring way. The analogy isn't perfect, so please just take it in the spirit it's given in.
I suppose. Still, my main point was that the whole "babies go to heaven" thing is perhaps not the greatest principle to use - though I'd accept that babies killed by God probably get a free pass or somesuch. I guess not having that idea leaves the answer of what happens when an infant dies open once more. If God can see the future then I suppose they'd just go to wherever they would have gone should they have lived their life without my infanticidal interference, but then seeing the future kind of requires that our universe be deterministic, meaning that everyone's lives were preset from the beginning so why bother with life at all? Just toss everyone in the appropriate plane and wash your hands of it.
EDIT: Wouldn't that mean I should just murder -Christian- babies then? Leave the rest to grow up so they can convert.
Post by: Chevaleresse on February 19, 2016, 12:24:10 am
I should mention that I'm not trying to somehow be obstinate or flippant, by the way, so sincere apologies if that is indeed the impression I'm giving.
Fake edit: If the pact's with the believers and their children, and you accept the implication that this means the children also get a shot at Heaven, no one has to come around and convert them.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 19, 2016, 12:26:46 am
Post by: Chevaleresse on February 19, 2016, 12:32:11 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 19, 2016, 01:17:40 am
My point was that a particular view calls that idea into deep question, since murdering said innocents would be doing them a favor.It's only a favour if we're 100% dead certain they're destined for heaven (which we're not), and even then you're still killing the kid, which is something they probably wouldn't appreciate.
Post by: Arx on February 19, 2016, 01:24:20 am
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 19, 2016, 03:31:33 am
Post by: i2amroy on February 19, 2016, 04:04:35 am
Do all Christian branches and denominations believe in original sin? If a child has not sinned at all (likely if not 100% every-time certain) and they're somehow absolved of original sin, then they should at least have a favorable outcome in the afterlife, if not the best.Not even close, and of those that do I'd be willing to say that the majority don't even follow the strict Calvinist view of original sin (i.e. that you are born with a "negative balance") but rather are of the opinion that instead you are born neutral/good, but the default state of man is to tip towards the bad unless checked properly (i.e. the original sin is a thing of temperament/temptation that needs to be check instead of starting in the red and needing to work your way up to the black).
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 19, 2016, 07:26:16 am
Do all Christian branches and denominations believe in original sin? If a child has not sinned at all (likely if not 100% every-time certain) and they're somehow absolved of original sin, then they should at least have a favorable outcome in the afterlife, if not the best.Not even close, and of those that do I'd be willing to say that the majority don't even follow the strict Calvinist view of original sin (i.e. that you are born with a "negative balance") but rather are of the opinion that instead you are born neutral/good, but the default state of man is to tip towards the bad unless checked properly (i.e. the original sin is a thing of temperament/temptation that needs to be check instead of starting in the red and needing to work your way up to the black).
Pretty much.
And in response to why it's bad to kill children, I believe that it would be kind of pointless because I believe that the point of life is to get experience. Children who die early are still going to have to have some kind of experience that also gives them the experience they need. But a lot of other Christians would probably disagree with my interpretation.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 19, 2016, 07:50:03 am
Post by: TD1 on February 19, 2016, 09:15:29 am
Post by: Rolan7 on February 19, 2016, 02:04:42 pm
Post by: lemon10 on February 19, 2016, 02:54:00 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on February 19, 2016, 10:31:46 pm
And according to most doctrines, our spirits won't want the same things we did in life.
And will be immortal...
And by some doctrines will be reincarnated into a different person with a practically unrecognizable personality.
These spirits sound like completely different entities from us. They sound like inhuman observers.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 19, 2016, 10:51:15 pm
Welcome to spirituality. You're a completely different entity now than you were when you were 7. Do you think 7-year old you should still care about what happens to you now?
A physical being and a spiritual being will be different by definition. Viewing that as a bug betrays a flawed understanding of the fundamental concept of afterlives and stuff. I mean, you can argue that it's not a change for the better, but that's a different matter. *shrug*
I find it hard to believe our species exists to acquire life experience when we've had a really high infant mortality rate for the vast majority of our existence. It would seem like a pretty major design oversight.Simple. Having your kid die is life experience. Knowing other people are suffering...and that maybe there's something you can do about it...is life experience. Means to an end, that must be genuine, or as close to it as possible. If God is omniscient, and everything is part of his 'plan', easy enough to imagine those kids/infants weren't given souls in the first place. Would also go a way to explaining deterministic behavior; to make it as real as possible to 'train' us, they make the physical shells of souls and the hollow shells of the automata which exist to be killed as similar as possible, then introduce quantum randomness so that the future can't be perfectly predicted, allowing free will to reside in the gaps, without revealing it.
Yeah, it's a stretch, but logical consistency is easy to do. Just imagine it's a really weird fantasy setting.
Post by: Egan_BW on February 19, 2016, 10:54:41 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on February 19, 2016, 11:02:30 pm
Yeah.Ah yeah, that's a good point. We do change as we live, to an incredible extent.
Welcome to spirituality. You're a completely different entity now than you were when you were 7. Do you think 7-year old you should still care about what happens to you now?
A physical being and a spiritual being will be different by definition. Viewing that as a bug betrays a flawed understanding of the fundamental concept of afterlives and stuff. I mean, you can argue that it's not a change for the better, but that's a different matter. *shrug*
Still, the difference between me and 7-year-old me is far less than the difference between me and a serene immortal with perfect recollection. I think there are fundamental differences which make it hard to consider that immortal "human". Or, "me".
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 19, 2016, 11:10:59 pm
You don't think the maturity you've gained, the different perspective of time(aka patience), the relative equanimity with which you handle being told 'no', your (likely) utterly different perspective towards attractive members of the opposite(or same) sex, your ability to keep track of 'oh yeah I have things to do' and the like, are significantly different there?
I mean, if I'd said 'the you 30 years from now' I think you would be absolutely correct. Additionally, we're only speculating that it's perfect; it could just be really good, without being photographic. Like you can definitely remember the stuff you talked about with that one guy, but not the exact words spoken.
Immortality is really only relevant insofar as one's attitude towards death and aging. Serenity...if you consider stress and worry to be central to being you, I can't really dispute it. I consider it central to being human, but only because we all experience so much of it; it isn't an intrinsic necessary feature for us to have life suck, it's a product of our environment.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 19, 2016, 11:25:24 pm
But I do agree that we change extremely over time. The metaphor of the boat which has every piece replaced is apt. Maybe we retain a couple pieces, but mostly our past selves just influence what we become.
To stretch the metaphor, though, I'm a boat all my life. An immortal is totally different... Like, a news helicopter or something. Recording everything, unbound by water.
Particularly if it has perfect recall, which I agree is an assumption on my part. Though, I think most religious people would claim that an Alzheimer's gets at least their "normal" memory restored when they "become" a spirit. Which I think raises worrisome questions.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 19, 2016, 11:36:54 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 19, 2016, 11:43:43 pm
It's kinda funny since I've been dealing with a very childish 60-year-old recently :PWell yeah, you get your broken bits restored.
But I do agree that we change extremely over time. The metaphor of the boat which has every piece replaced is apt. Maybe we retain a couple pieces, but mostly our past selves just influence what we become.
To stretch the metaphor, though, I'm a boat all my life. An immortal is totally different... Like, a news helicopter or something. Recording everything, unbound by water.
Particularly if it has perfect recall, which I agree is an assumption on my part. Though, I think most religious people would claim that an Alzheimer's gets at least their "normal" memory restored when they "become" a spirit. Which I think raises worrisome questions.
Actually, if you look at it from a certain point of view, that's all that happens. You were a boat only because you'd never realized that you could fly, with a bit of fixing. The raft which is secretly a plane, hidden beneath the sea.
EDIT: To be fair, I may be biased towards 'immortal is not fundamentally different' since I'm hoping to help get people functionally immortal within my lifetime.
Post by: Putnam on February 20, 2016, 01:18:08 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 20, 2016, 01:48:11 am
The physical body itself is the flaw, in my analogy. It doesn't necessarily look exactly the same, because you have nothing to compare it to; there's a shitton of stuff we can barely detect/that only interacts occasionally with stuff we can detect right now, if ever. The world, as we can see it directly, also looks exactly the same as it would if Dark Matter were not to exist. Doesn't mean it doesn't.
Post by: Putnam on February 20, 2016, 02:01:40 am
The world, as we can see it directly, also looks exactly the same as it would if Dark Matter were not to exist.
That's... not true at all (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/dark-matter-in-galaxies-proven-ebcbea1a5402). Dark Matter isn't some stuff that does nothing that we made up for no reason, like the implication of a philosophical zombie or whatever.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 20, 2016, 02:43:23 am
I'm not going for external justification here, I'm not religious. I'm conducting a mental and philosophical exercise about how it can be logically self-consistent in about a thousand different ways. A crapton of the points brought up to try and refute it are made in lack of context, or forgetting context the bible was in, and etc. Like if someone claims the bible's dumb because it called a whale a fish when clearly it's a mammal. Which somebody in my class did, more or less, today.
Post by: Putnam on February 20, 2016, 02:45:30 am
seriously, though: "abstract instruments" is something I can only describe as... hilariously wrong. What's "abstract" about them? Our instruments are far, far better than human senses and dark matter not existing would show completely different things on our instruments (in fact, the galaxy wouldn't have a similar structure, so the night sky would be entirely different too).
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 20, 2016, 03:24:45 am
Whales being a mammal and incorrectly identified in the bible IS damning to its claims of divine provenance (even via inspiration) and of being a "perfect work".
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 20, 2016, 05:20:37 am
They are indeed far better. And yes, they measure things, and if things were different they would measure different things. That's what instruments do, abstract or not. But you could not do it yourself, not in a million years. Other instruments just let you do things you already could with greater precision. Look at small things, make far away things look closer, compare weights more accurately. This is looking at things do far away and in such minute changes of precision, from the bending of light, that we are wholly reliant upon the instrument. Electron microscopes are abstract because they measure things we simply cannot scale ourselves down to look at in a roundabout way. This is the same in the opposite direction.
Now as to my point with that: if we didn't have those instruments, we would not be able to discern the phenomena. The page you linked even said that there were two theories; that we'd gotten gravity wrong for large enough scales, or there was new type of matter we didn't know about. It required the development and refinement of those instruments to be able to say definitively. We don't yet have an instrument for measuring anything spiritual, if there is indeed such. Dismissing it because we as of yet have no instruments that would clue us in as to how there would be a difference in the world if souls [did/didn't] exist seems like a poor judgement call. It's isn't a reason to believe, and there's other reasons to disbelieve, but that seems like a poor one.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 20, 2016, 08:44:36 am
Post by: Arx on February 20, 2016, 12:23:02 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 20, 2016, 12:51:26 pm
The Bible is not perfectly scientifically accurate, no. And this torpedoes it's validity? Newtonian mechanics are pretty useless in most highly rigorous scenarios, but that doesn't mean they should be completely thrown out. They're still a good approximation in an Earth frame of reference.
The bible not being scientifically accurate torpedoes any claims of it being a perfect work. Any inaccuracies in it (and there are plenty) hit any claims of it being "perfect", and there are people out there (yes, a minority, I know) who adopt a literalistic stance on the matter and who assert the bible is perfect, when it is demonstrably not. In the same way, anyone who asserts that Newtonian mechanics is perfect is wrong.
Post by: Arx on February 20, 2016, 12:56:53 pm
The Bible is not perfectly scientifically accurate, no. And this torpedoes it's validity? Newtonian mechanics are pretty useless in most highly rigorous scenarios, but that doesn't mean they should be completely thrown out. They're still a good approximation in an Earth frame of reference.
The bible not being scientifically accurate torpedoes any claims of it being a perfect work. Any inaccuracies in it (and there are plenty) hit any claims of it being "perfect", and there are people out there (yes, a minority, I know) who adopt a literalistic stance on the matter and who assert the bible is perfect, when it is demonstrably not. In the same way, anyone who asserts that Newtonian mechanics is perfect is wrong.
Ah, okay. In that case, I don't actually necessarily disagree with you.
Post by: Putnam on February 20, 2016, 01:09:00 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 20, 2016, 01:55:27 pm
My point about the iron sphere may have been a bit glib - sorry. That said, the whole Whale not being a fish thing is kind of a big deal with regards to people who claim the bible is perfect in nature. Notice, not that Whales should be identified as mammals (for the reasons you outline), but that it is not a fish. Subtle but important difference. Why the mis-categorisation occurred is fairly irrelevant compared to the fact that calling it a fish is wrong. The same as calling grasshoppers 4-legged, or labelling bats as birds. They are claims made by a book that are wrong, and torpedo any claims of divine perfection. They are creatures that are lumped in with others that they should not be, and such a thing would not occur in a work of divine provenance.
I'm not saying the bible doesn't make false claims. I'm saying that believing that they have been lumped in with others that they should not be - that the category used is wrong - is a subjective matter. These categories are not objective. They follow general guidelines of nature, but playtpi if nothing else go to show they aren't perfect (in all seriousness, they're weird). We create the categories, not the other way around. If their definition for the category of fish isn't the one we use, then it isn't fair to say 'you said it was something it wasn't! ha!'. Use the grasshopper bit to prove them wrong, if you like (bats fly, and if that's how you're defining your categories, telling them that they way they categorize things is objectively wrong is...dumb(and pointless cuz it was 2000 years ago but whatevs), at best). But whales swim, they don't have paws or legs or claws, and they look quite a bit like a fish, if you can't examine them up close. They fell into the category of 'fish' for a long time, historically, and that's for a reason. It is a categorization error. It's not saying 'it's a fish because they have scales and gills' (although it's possible it claims they do in which case nevermind but I don't believe it does), it's saying 'it's a fish because fish swim in the ocean and have fins'.
The real point here I'm making is something about fallacies and intellectual rigor when debating or something but the whole issue is really besides the point. Only came up because of the example I chose. Bible's wrong on a bunch of stuff, it's 'right' on a bunch of other stuff, it's not perfect but the contradictions are harder to spot then people think, and having good arguments is important, because otherwise all you end up as is a weak man(different from a strawman) which trains the other side to believe there are no good arguments for your viewpoint, since all the ones they've seen are poor and can be easily dismissed. How many intelligent people and lines of thinking are dismissed because of their ruder or less verbally skilled compatriots tainting them by association?
Post by: Vilanat on February 20, 2016, 02:23:34 pm
Quote
Whale not being a fish thing is kind of a big deal with regards to people who claim the bible is perfect in nature. Notice, not that Whales should be identified as mammals (for the reasons you outline), but that it is not a fish. Subtle but important difference. Why the mis-categorisation occurred is fairly irrelevant compared to the fact that calling it a fish is wrong. The same as calling grasshoppers 4-legged, or labelling bats as birds
The Leviathan (In modern hebrew Leviathan is the same word as Whale) in the bible is considered a sea dwelling dragon breathing fire which resemble a great scaled snake in appearance, and as far as i can tell and would be glad to be proven wrong, not mentioned anywhere in the bible as a fish.
In fact, as far as i can tell, the Whale is not mentioned anywhere in the bible (Which is not that uncommon since a few relatively common creatures of the area of Israel are not mentioned as well).
There is no where in the bible where a bat is considered the modern definition of a bird. it is considered a flying creature, but that's the only categorization it gets since the bible categorized animals through means of transportation.
The grasshopper, along with various other such insects are mentioned to have 4 legs, and 2 leaping hinds.
I would strongly suggest to avoid the english translations of the bible, since in the case of the Birds, it is rather confusing. in the English translation of leviticus it says Birds, in the hebrew text it says Of, which literally means "flying". there is also a passage (in Deuteronomy) where the bat is included with Tziporim, which is indeed the modern hebrew word for Birds, however, early on in Noah tale, Tzipor is defined as "those with wings".
In the case of the grasshopper argument, or rather, the "4 legged insects" in some english translations it says insects and in some it says creepers, while in the hebrew text it says Sheretz which is a general word to describe small creatures. other inclusions of Sheretz, beside the obvious are mice, worms and moles.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 20, 2016, 02:38:41 pm
Post by: Vilanat on February 20, 2016, 02:45:16 pm
Basically if we all learnt Hebrew and Latin things would be simpler
In this context, sadly yes. Not too sure about Latin though.
Post by: Arx on February 20, 2016, 02:52:00 pm
Basically if we all learnt Hebrew and Latin things would be simpler
In this context, sadly yes. Not too sure about Latin though.
Greek would be better. And yes. There's a reason three out of six of my family have a grounding in Ancient Greek.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 20, 2016, 03:05:42 pm
In this context, sadly yes. Not too sure about Latin though.Covers the biblical to renaissance and provides etymological roots for the Romance languages
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 20, 2016, 03:20:36 pm
EDIT: Nevermind, whale shark is a filter feeder. It could have been some other kind of shark though.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 20, 2016, 03:48:01 pm
Context. Thank you, Villanat, for illustrating my point far more adeptly than I.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2016, 04:31:16 pm
I would strongly suggest to avoid the english translations of the bible, since in the case of the Birds, it is rather confusing. in the English translation of leviticus it says Birds, in the hebrew text it says Of, which literally means "flying". there is also a passage (in Deuteronomy) where the bat is included with Tziporim, which is indeed the modern hebrew word for Birds, however, early on in Noah tale, Tzipor is defined as "those with wings".A decent study bible will point out things like this in the notes, which is really helpful for those of us who don't want to learn Hebrew or whatever.
In the case of the grasshopper argument, or rather, the "4 legged insects" in some english translations it says insects and in some it says creepers, while in the hebrew text it says Sheretz which is a general word to describe small creatures. other inclusions of Sheretz, beside the obvious are mice, worms and moles.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 20, 2016, 04:37:46 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2016, 04:44:23 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 20, 2016, 04:54:48 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2016, 05:00:43 pm
Quote from: Luke 1:5
In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah...Luke specifies that King Herod was alive when John the Baptist's birth was foretold. This was a couple of years, roughly, before the census.
Quote from: Luke 2
1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.When the time for Jesus' birth rolls around, Herod the Great is dead, Herod Archelaus has succeeded him (in Judea), Archelaus was banished, and Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria by Augustus.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 20, 2016, 05:05:56 pm
The differences in God's morality between the New and Old Testament are actually important, and not a result of translation. Discussion of them is harder, though, because it usually involves comparing concepts instead of facts. Heavily loaded concepts... Morality is a touchy subject.
But I'd like to attack a common argument: That God gave the Israelites the disgusting laws of Leviticus because the Israelites weren't ready for actual morality.
Nonsense. The Israelites lived in absolute fear of God, because he would murder hundreds of them over the most trivial disobedience. He killed a man for trying to catch the Ark when it fell. He ruined a Jewish king for being too merciful, daring to capture an enemy king rather than killing him outright. Time and again he specifically commanded the Jews to conquer, slaughter, and rape their neighbors.
I don't accept that he "wanted" to show them proper New Testament morality, but that they weren't ready. He forced them at smite-point to do atrocities in His name.
I'll say it again: Completely different entity from Jesus, with nearly opposite goals.
Post by: Vilanat on February 20, 2016, 05:25:59 pm
Pointing out factual inaccuracies is fun and all, but mostly just applies to KJV literalists. Which is a depressingly large number of people, with a lot of influence in American politics, but they coincidentally don't really care about factual arguments. Generally.
The differences in God's morality between the New and Old Testament are actually important, and not a result of translation. Discussion of them is harder, though, because it usually involves comparing concepts instead of facts. Heavily loaded concepts... Morality is a touchy subject.
But I'd like to attack a common argument: That God gave the Israelites the disgusting laws of Leviticus because the Israelites weren't ready for actual morality.
Nonsense. The Israelites lived in absolute fear of God, because he would murder hundreds of them over the most trivial disobedience. He killed a man for trying to catch the Ark when it fell. He ruined a Jewish king for being too merciful, daring to capture an enemy king rather than killing him outright. Time and again he specifically commanded the Jews to conquer, slaughter, and rape their neighbors.
I don't accept that he "wanted" to show them proper New Testament morality, but that they weren't ready. He forced them at smite-point to do atrocities in His name.
I'll say it again: Completely different entity from Jesus, with nearly opposite goals.
Different, yes. better? totally subjective.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2016, 05:54:51 pm
I am not sure why there's even a need to refute the bible through pointing its obvious scientific errors since it makes them as early as its first chapter.Because people insist that it is scientific, or that "science" is wrong/evil/untrustworthy for disputing the Bible.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 20, 2016, 05:57:39 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on February 20, 2016, 06:00:44 pm
Different, yes. better? totally subjective.OH yeah, absolutely. Not arguing that at all.
It's just that modern Christians almost always claim that God is, well, nice (is love, is good, is merciful, etc). And that's clearly untrue based on the Old Testament.
Post by: Vilanat on February 20, 2016, 06:13:01 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 20, 2016, 06:13:08 pm
Post by: Putnam on February 20, 2016, 06:15:05 pm
Post by: Harry Baldman on February 20, 2016, 06:18:06 pm
Come to think of it, what if you read the Bible as a whole while assuming the above to be its purpose?
Post by: Teneb on February 20, 2016, 06:20:18 pm
It might that God isn't actually meant to be love, good or merciful, or even omniscient or omnipotent. Rather, that's just the words you use to flatter and appease him. Kind of like you would with an unstable king who could have you killed for any number of reasons at any time, except in this case the king does not need to obey the laws of physics to do so and also happens to be functionally immortal in your time scale.So... Kim Jong-Un?
Come to think of it, what if you read the Bible as a whole while assuming the above to be its purpose?
Post by: Putnam on February 20, 2016, 06:21:08 pm
It might that God isn't actually meant to be love, good or merciful, or even omniscient or omnipotent. Rather, that's just the words you use to flatter and appease him. Kind of like you would with an unstable king who could have you killed for any number of reasons at any time, except in this case the king does not need to obey the laws of physics to do so and also happens to be functionally immortal in your time scale.
Come to think of it, what if you read the Bible as a whole while assuming the above to be its purpose?
are you saying that god is a wizard
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 20, 2016, 06:21:28 pm
Quote from: Matthew 2:1
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod
Post by: Rolan7 on February 20, 2016, 06:24:08 pm
Marcionists argued that, actuallySo did the Cath- feck, ninja-Putnam!
Yeah, I like the Cathar take on things. It *makes sense*.
(In a nutshell the OT God is Satan and ruler of the world and shit sucks, LIKE IT OBVIOUSLY DOES, but fortunately Jesus can help us escape instead of being reincarnated for another round. You just have to adopt a clean path when you're about to die. And some crazy people become clean when they *aren't* about to die, and they're the priest basically, and they have to be very fuckin careful until they die. No killing, not even animals.)
And while I somehow still don't understand what "gnostic" means, the impression I've gotten is that they largely considered God to be separate from Jesus. *
Myself, I would say I have sympathy for the idea of a powerful divine dictator. I mean, how enlightened can you get?
Not to be confused with progressive, ohhhh no.
But it doesn't matter what sounds good to me, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.
Edit: The main reason people don't know what a gnostic is is probably because the Catholic church desperately murdered them all as heretics, starting with the Cathars, after trying to argue against them and failing
Post by: Vilanat on February 20, 2016, 06:54:02 pm
Getting back to your initial question Rolan7. come to think of it, i kinda tend to see the reason in the initial common christian argument you didn't like.
Liken it to raising a child. when you see your two years old kid about to stick a fork into the electric socket, most fathers would quickly and forcefully remove the kid's hand and shout at him. from the kid eyes, his dad is a schizophrenic monster that a second ago gave him food and now shouts at him and treat him badly. when he is six years old you can teach him the result of closing an electric circuit.
Same as the Israelites. maybe as a society they were too infantile to appreciate love and believe in god through understanding and faith, and were forced to believe in him and follow him through fear. as for the forced raping, pillaging and other stuff, well, can't always be sticks, gotta give some carrots here and there.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 20, 2016, 07:37:11 pm
Whut
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 20, 2016, 07:41:08 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2016, 07:46:10 pm
... yes, Herod Antipas. His Latin title was tetrarch, but that was translated to king for some reason.Quote from: Matthew 2:1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod
...
christians are monotheistsMost (theologically-minded) Christians wouldn't call themselves monotheists because of the Trinity, which doesn't really qualify as either monotheistic or polytheistic.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 20, 2016, 07:52:32 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 20, 2016, 07:57:18 pm
... that said, most theologically minded (and pretty much all of the rest of) christians I've met definitely call christianity monotheistic. If there's much divergence from that I've not noticed it. Trinitarianism isn't considered some kind of half-way state, just an odd form of monotheism.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 20, 2016, 08:00:21 pm
I mean it's so simple rite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 20, 2016, 08:07:31 pm
Do you have a source for that? From what I can tell the original Greek of Matthew gives this Herod's title as βασιλέως or vasileos, which translates as "King."
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 20, 2016, 08:19:18 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCwThanks for linking that channel, it's great.
...
Do you have a source for that? From what I can tell the original Greek of Matthew gives this Herod's title as βασιλέως or vasileos, which translates as "King."Ooooookay, that's interesting. Don't really have a proper answer for you. My excuse-tier answer would be something along the lines of "Matthew wasn't concerned about details and wrote down βασιλέως instead of τετράρχης (tetrarch) for whatever reason; perhaps the proper word wasn't used in common parlance or something".
Post by: Teneb on February 20, 2016, 09:37:22 pm
It might that God isn't actually meant to be love, good or merciful, or even omniscient or omnipotent. Rather, that's just the words you use to flatter and appease him. Kind of like you would with an unstable king who could have you killed for any number of reasons at any time, except in this case the king does not need to obey the laws of physics to do so and also happens to be functionally immortal in your time scale.
Come to think of it, what if you read the Bible as a whole while assuming the above to be its purpose?
are you saying that god is a wizard
Et tu, OW?
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 21, 2016, 06:08:59 am
If Matthew didn't want to say Tetrarch, I assume he'd still use a word that distinguished this Herod from the actual King Herod. Oh well, it's not like I expect you to know what Matthew meant. I still think it's most likely a mistake though.
Also, while I was looking that up I discovered that the original text of the Bible is a lot more accessible than I thought. Seriously, side-by-side translations are free online. It's pretty easy to see how the Greek and English connect even if you don't know the words. The Old Testament is probably harder though.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 21, 2016, 06:14:01 am
I still think it's most likely a mistake though.Yeah, fair enough. It's not terribly clear. I want to assume that Matthew knew what he was talking about and just wrote it down vaguely, but that's mostly because I'm biased.
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 24, 2016, 08:50:43 pm
1. There is no God. This is possible. If so, there's no point in thinking about what happens in the afterlife/if there is one because the most likely truth here would be that you cease to exist upon death, and thus would never know the answer is nothing.
2. There are multiple "Gods". If this were true, they'd realistically each try to reach out to their creations and make themselves known, so this can be ruled out.
3. There is one God. He/She never makes himself or herself directly known. I don't know whether we can declare for certain whether He/She knows everything or makes mistakes, but rather we are in no position to question Him/Her, as He/She has existed since, quite literally, God knows how long and would realistically have vastly superior knowledge over the physical universe having created it and would have had plenty of time to think about everything He/She has done.
As such, I believe 3 is the most likely solution.(or at least the best assumption to work with)So the question would be then, why would God not make himself known to anyone for 100% unless it was a necessary exception to the rule? No person in their right mind would knowingly sin if they had had it proved to them that upon death their sins could be eternally punished.
All that said, I'm still not 100% sure about Jesus being the son of God/God(though I certainly believe his teachings are a very good way to live your life and the word would be great if everyone actually followed it.(Referring to judgmental holier-than-thou "Christians" who don't embody the peace, love, or forgiveness Jesus taught, yet love to call themselves "Good Christians."
I also take the Bible with a grain of salt as it was written by people (and for different times and cultures than our own)and we all know people make mistakes. I'm still deciding on how I feel about the Old Testament.
On the "Trinity", and I'd probably be called either a blasphemer or a heretic for saying this, but I believe it is one of the most confusingly worded teachings I've heard in the Catholic Church, and indeed the words don't make a ton of sense. I believe that God isn't three persons, but rather we know of 3 different manifestations of God, the "Father"/Creator, The Son- Jesus, and the "Holy Spirit", the "force" or "touch" of God in the material world. They are all the same being, just different manifestations of this being, not 3 separate people.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 24, 2016, 08:57:17 pm
(https://manyprophetsonemessage.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/doctrine-trinity.png)
Post by: Putnam on February 24, 2016, 09:01:06 pm
Post by: Descan on February 24, 2016, 09:07:16 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 24, 2016, 09:23:59 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 24, 2016, 09:52:31 pm
~~~I'm morally obligated to convert you to Protestantism, so please imagine I'm trying to do that here.
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 24, 2016, 09:53:42 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 24, 2016, 09:54:44 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 24, 2016, 10:01:37 pm
My main issue here is with the wording. The word person defines a human. I think the term entity or manifestation would be more accurate as the only member of the Trinity considered human is the Son/Jesus. I believe that God could very easily defy/bend the laws of our universe if he so wished, as he did in fact create them, I'm just saying the wording is flawed."Person" meaning... human... like? I guess? Sentient, sapient, etc. If humans are made in the image of God then we're not all that different, anyway.
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 24, 2016, 10:09:27 pm
God can defy mathmatics if he wants. :P Honestly we have no idea exactly how it works, but maybe we will in the afterlife.Honestly, I think the thing I most hope for in an afterlife is answers(not the "Oh God why is there sadness? Kind. I'd just like to understand the world, why it was made, why God decided to make it, that sort of thing.)In fact, I think my hell would likely be sitting alone in a dark room with no explanation of what I did wrong for an eternity(but heaven/hell is another subject).
~~~I'm morally obligated to convert you to Protestantism, so please imagine I'm trying to do that here.
I suppose I'll take a look at it, but I think I'd rather just believe my own beliefs independent of any religious group and go along with the Catholic ceremonies with my family, as they do not differ from my beliefs drastically for the most part, except maybe some symbols taken literally. I don't believe I'm drinking Jesus' blood in church, but rather it is a symbol that salvation comes by taking to heart the words of Jesus.
Edit: I also don't really believe in baptism the same way as the Church does. I don't think a priest pouring water over your head thrice and blessing you removed "original sin", and I also don't believe a loving or forgiving God would damn a person for not being baptized if say, they weren't Christian. If you believe in it or just do it as a sign of faith, I don't really mind, I just don't take it literally.
I really wonder whether we were made in the image of God. It's an interesting question. Though I still believe we evolved from lesser life, God very easily could have planned and or shaped this evolution and would still be ultimately be responsible for any life that appeared, or the universe that created and housed them.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 24, 2016, 10:33:35 pm
God very easily could have planned and or shaped this evolution and would still be ultimately be responsible for any life that appeared, or the universe that created and housed them.That is something I haven't heard before. I choose to believe that God made most animals, plants, etc basically how they were today, and evolution made only slight changes to divide them into individual species. Humans and apes were created separately during the creation. And we were made in the image of God.
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 24, 2016, 10:39:03 pm
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 24, 2016, 10:40:37 pm
Somewhat Ninja'd
Edit Note: I find it extremely unlikely that the Earth's history was faked by God. I'm merely stating that it's within His realm of possibility. I still would probably bet all of my worldly possessions that we evolved from single-called organisms and dinosaurs existed etc.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 24, 2016, 10:47:19 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 24, 2016, 11:05:09 pm
Nah m8 it's fractals all the way down and up and beyond
Oddly enough, this matches my beliefs more than Quartz's comments.
And about the "made in God's image" thing, I think that evolution happens and God created a universe with the proper conditions for it but he also directs things along the way. And I believe that people are physically (not just mentally/spiritually) made in God's image (although my ideas about the nature of God differ from most Christians, since I believe that there are three separate beings rather than a trinity and that the Father and Son have physical bodies, with the Spirit still a spirit).
Post by: smirk on February 24, 2016, 11:13:09 pm
As with all important things, the answer lies in Filk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vDhYTlCNw).God very easily could have planned and or shaped this evolution and would still be ultimately be responsible for any life that appeared, or the universe that created and housed them.That is something I haven't heard before. I choose to believe that God made most animals, plants, etc basically how they were today, and evolution made only slight changes to divide them into individual species. Humans and apes were created separately during the creation. And we were made in the image of God.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 24, 2016, 11:30:51 pm
Well scientific evidence tells us that there were millions of years before life we would even recognize existed on Earth, it's honestly true that God could have faked all the fossils and rock layers he wanted to throw us off(though I doubt this is the case, I honestly believe it's possible). If we were made in the image of God, I think it's more in the sense that we are capable of thinking, reasoning, creating, and doing things instead of being a carbon copy of His physical form. For example, I'd hazard a guess that God wouldn't have a reproductive system in physical form (except as Jesus), as our reproductive systems are our means of reproducing, whereas God can make whatever He wants without sexual reproduction.tfw you realize that, going off the old testament, god's actually kind of a dick, but when he knocked up Mary, figured he had to try and be a good dad. Jesus reformed God. :P
Somewhat Ninja'd
Edit Note: I find it extremely unlikely that the Earth's history was faked by God. I'm merely stating that it's within His realm of possibility. I still would probably bet all of my worldly possessions that we evolved from single-called organisms and dinosaurs existed etc.
Post by: TD1 on February 25, 2016, 04:25:54 am
As with all important things, the answer lies in Filk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vDhYTlCNw).God very easily could have planned and or shaped this evolution and would still be ultimately be responsible for any life that appeared, or the universe that created and housed them.That is something I haven't heard before. I choose to believe that God made most animals, plants, etc basically how they were today, and evolution made only slight changes to divide them into individual species. Humans and apes were created separately during the creation. And we were made in the image of God.
It's sad that I knew what the song would be before I clicked it.
As for evolution, if pain is god's megaphone for a deaf word, and he uses it like a chisel forming a statue (for our own good) then why can't evolution (the physical manifestation of the changes hardship brings to bear on a species) be the process by which we see the statue created. Of course, given that it's likely all animals came from the same place, the other animals we see are the ones who have not yet been so well formed. As such, when God saw us creeping along a fairly accurate trajectory towards His image he decided to intervene with the bible and such.
Not saying I believe it, I'm just being...uh... God's Advocate.
Post by: Putnam on February 25, 2016, 04:30:30 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 25, 2016, 04:34:45 am
As for evolution, if pain is god's megaphone for a deaf word, and he uses it like a chisel forming a statue (for our own good) then why can't evolution (the physical manifestation of the changes hardship brings to bear on a species) be the process by which we see the statue created. Of course, given that it's likely all animals came from the same place, the other animals we see are the ones who have not yet been so well formed. As such, when God saw us creeping along a fairly accurate trajectory towards His image he decided to intervene with the bible and such.I think you'll find a large number of Christians these days believe something along those lines. "Evolution's just the way God gets things done", etc.
Not saying I believe it, I'm just being...uh... God's Advocate.
god has some frigging explaining to do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve) in that caseYeah, there's a lot of flaws with human bodies and such. Like the blind spot, or telomeres decaying, or... sin.
Post by: Putnam on February 25, 2016, 04:36:04 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 25, 2016, 05:04:00 am
And even then, the Bible consistently ascribes sin to the body, not the soul. Except under Calvinism the soul is also corrupt.
IMO the best interpretation is that the soul is part of (or at least fundamentally connected to) the body; which is imperfect because/therefore sin is a thing. The soul isn't a separate dohickey, and there's not really any reason for it to be a supernatural thing anyway.
E: Kinda rambly. It's late, sue me.
Post by: Egan_BW on February 25, 2016, 08:41:49 am
Post by: TD1 on February 25, 2016, 09:16:10 am
Yes, I know I've said that ten thousand times. To quote OW, "sue me" :P
Post by: TempAcc on February 25, 2016, 09:20:04 am
Post by: Egan_BW on February 25, 2016, 09:24:10 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 25, 2016, 10:19:12 am
Spoiler: list (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 25, 2016, 02:23:57 pm
I've always found something amazing by the endless nature of crystals composing crystals, from the quanta to the cosmosNah m8 it's fractals all the way down and up and beyondOddly enough, this matches my beliefs more than Quartz's comments.
And about the "made in God's image" thing, I think that evolution happens and God created a universe with the proper conditions for it but he also directs things along the way. And I believe that people are physically (not just mentally/spiritually) made in God's image (although my ideas about the nature of God differ from most Christians, since I believe that there are three separate beings rather than a trinity and that the Father and Son have physical bodies, with the Spirit still a spirit).
Post by: Egan_BW on February 25, 2016, 02:30:06 pm
I don't know if anyone actually believes that, but I can interpit things I don't believe however I want.
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 25, 2016, 03:58:43 pm
sin was a concept that people came up with from back when dualism was still the generally accepted explanation for consciousness and you know it buddy, can't really theologically say that it's a flaw of this mortal flesh when souls are supposed to existRegarding sin, what exactly is supposed to constitute as a sin and why? Is it just anything that is wrong? I know of course there's the Ten Commandments, but those were written for a very different time and you must read between the lines to find things applicable to modern life in some cases. Ex. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's* wife". Interpreted literally, I, as a male, could covet the wife of a man who is not my neighbor. A woman can covet any man she wants, but she cannot covet another man's wife... Doesn't make much sense. One of the reasons I hate when people try to treat the Bible as the one infallible truth(word for word), especially when reading a translation of it. *Neighbor likely = your fellow person, but it's not written as such.
Going off of the spirit of the word, I would read more as "Do not desire the spouse of any other person." As this applies universally, or at least over a much broader scope, instead of to a select situation.
What do you(pl.) think about sin?
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 25, 2016, 04:09:35 pm
Though, as with anything rooted in faith based postulations, as a non-tangible/unfalsifiable concept that can not be objectively shown, it is not something that I take seriously at all.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 25, 2016, 05:12:40 pm
how your soul would end up in heavenOh, that's easy. Christ promised the resurrection of the body. That phrase is repeated through the NT. We will be given new bodies to live in the new heavens and the new Earth.
The whole "souls going up to heaven" thing is a popular misconception that the Bible doesn't support at all.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 25, 2016, 05:55:32 pm
Exactly. I cited every verse that mentions soul in the above post, and none of them have anything to do with heaven.how your soul would end up in heavenOh, that's easy. Christ promised the resurrection of the body. That phrase is repeated through the NT. We will be given new bodies to live in the new heavens and the new Earth.
The whole "souls going up to heaven" thing is a popular misconception that the Bible doesn't support at all.
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 25, 2016, 06:10:51 pm
sin was a concept that people came up with from back when dualism was still the generally accepted explanation for consciousness and you know it buddy, can't really theologically say that it's a flaw of this mortal flesh when souls are supposed to existRegarding sin, what exactly is supposed to constitute as a sin and why? Is it just anything that is wrong? I know of course there's the Ten Commandments, but those were written for a very different time and you must read between the lines to find things applicable to modern life in some cases. Ex. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's* wife". Interpreted literally, I, as a male, could covet the wife of a man who is not my neighbor. A woman can covet any man she wants, but she cannot covet another man's wife... Doesn't make much sense. One of the reasons I hate when people try to treat the Bible as the one infallible truth(word for word), especially when reading a translation of it. *Neighbor likely = your fellow person, but it's not written as such.
Going off of the spirit of the word, I would read more as "Do not desire the spouse of any other person." As this applies universally, or at least over a much broader scope, instead of to a select situation.
You're confusing two commandments - "Thou shalt not commit adultary" and "Thou shalt not covet", neither of which specifies a gender.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 25, 2016, 06:29:46 pm
Quote from: Exodus 20:17 (NIV)
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Quote from: Exodus 20:17 (KJV)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Post by: Teneb on February 25, 2016, 06:33:16 pm
Those are easy commandments to confuse. "Coveting thy neighbor's wife" sounds a lot like adultery. Also that part does specify gender.What if you covet thy neighbour's husband? Or the neighbour himself/herself?Quote from: Exodus 20:17 (NIV)You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.Quote from: Exodus 20:17 (KJV)Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Since I shitposted in the past, I would like to point out this is an honest question. (though perhaps I should note that it is my religious duty to occasionally shitpost)
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 25, 2016, 07:01:37 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 25, 2016, 07:04:25 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 25, 2016, 07:29:36 pm
I don't know why you're apologizing. Your point wasn't about which commandment it was, you were talking about the wording. And what you quoted is actually part of the commandments, pulled almost letter for letter from the KJV. I'd say your whole point still stands.
Post by: Egan_BW on February 25, 2016, 08:04:30 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 25, 2016, 08:05:54 pm
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 25, 2016, 08:14:18 pm
Where does the bible say that? What verses/lines?(is that what you call them? I don't speak Bible very well as I think it's more like guidelines and I'm annoyed by people who interperit it literally, but I know how to look things up.)how your soul would end up in heavenOh, that's easy. Christ promised the resurrection of the body. That phrase is repeated through the NT. We will be given new bodies to live in the new heavens and the new Earth.
The whole "souls going up to heaven" thing is a popular misconception that the Bible doesn't support at all.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 25, 2016, 08:19:29 pm
Unfortunately for the most part it's not a straight-up thing, but it's pretty clearly implied. I can also check my creeds and confessions book for some more concrete stuff if you like.
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 25, 2016, 08:30:12 pm
Post by: Catmeat on February 27, 2016, 05:34:24 am
By: Andy Weir
You were on your way home when you died.
It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.
And that’s when you met me.
“What… what happened?” You asked. “Where am I?”
“You died,” I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.
“There was a… a truck and it was skidding…”
“Yup,” I said.
“I… I died?”
“Yup. But don’t feel bad about it. Everyone dies,” I said.
You looked around. There was nothingness. Just you and me. “What is this place?” You asked. “Is this the afterlife?”
“More or less,” I said.
“Are you god?” You asked.
“Yup,” I replied. “I’m God.”
“My kids… my wife,” you said.
“What about them?”
“Will they be all right?”
“That’s what I like to see,” I said. “You just died and your main concern is for your family. That’s good stuff right there.”
You looked at me with fascination. To you, I didn’t look like God. I just looked like some man. Or possibly a woman. Some vague authority figure, maybe. More of a grammar school teacher than the almighty.
“Don’t worry,” I said. “They’ll be fine. Your kids will remember you as perfect in every way. They didn’t have time to grow contempt for you. Your wife will cry on the outside, but will be secretly relieved. To be fair, your marriage was falling apart. If it’s any consolation, she’ll feel very guilty for feeling relieved.”
“Oh,” you said. “So what happens now? Do I go to heaven or hell or something?”
“Neither,” I said. “You’ll be reincarnated.”
“Ah,” you said. “So the Hindus were right,”
“All religions are right in their own way,” I said. “Walk with me.”
You followed along as we strode through the void. “Where are we going?”
“Nowhere in particular,” I said. “It’s just nice to walk while we talk.”
“So what’s the point, then?” You asked. “When I get reborn, I’ll just be a blank slate, right? A baby. So all my experiences and everything I did in this life won’t matter.”
“Not so!” I said. “You have within you all the knowledge and experiences of all your past lives. You just don’t remember them right now.”
I stopped walking and took you by the shoulders. “Your soul is more magnificent, beautiful, and gigantic than you can possibly imagine. A human mind can only contain a tiny fraction of what you are. It’s like sticking your finger in a glass of water to see if it’s hot or cold. You put a tiny part of yourself into the vessel, and when you bring it back out, you’ve gained all the experiences it had.
“You’ve been in a human for the last 48 years, so you haven’t stretched out yet and felt the rest of your immense consciousness. If we hung out here for long enough, you’d start remembering everything. But there’s no point to doing that between each life.”
“How many times have I been reincarnated, then?”
“Oh lots. Lots and lots. An in to lots of different lives.” I said. “This time around, you’ll be a Chinese peasant girl in 540 AD.”
“Wait, what?” You stammered. “You’re sending me back in time?”
“Well, I guess technically. Time, as you know it, only exists in your universe. Things are different where I come from.”
“Where you come from?” You said.
“Oh sure,” I explained “I come from somewhere. Somewhere else. And there are others like me. I know you’ll want to know what it’s like there, but honestly you wouldn’t understand.”
“Oh,” you said, a little let down. “But wait. If I get reincarnated to other places in time, I could have interacted with myself at some point.”
“Sure. Happens all the time. And with both lives only aware of their own lifespan you don’t even know it’s happening.”
“So what’s the point of it all?”
“Seriously?” I asked. “Seriously? You’re asking me for the meaning of life? Isn’t that a little stereotypical?”
“Well it’s a reasonable question,” you persisted.
I looked you in the eye. “The meaning of life, the reason I made this whole universe, is for you to mature.”
“You mean mankind? You want us to mature?”
“No, just you. I made this whole universe for you. With each new life you grow and mature and become a larger and greater intellect.”
“Just me? What about everyone else?”
“There is no one else,” I said. “In this universe, there’s just you and me.”
You stared blankly at me. “But all the people on earth…”
“All you. Different incarnations of you.”
“Wait. I’m everyone!?”
“Now you’re getting it,” I said, with a congratulatory slap on the back.
“I’m every human being who ever lived?”
“Or who will ever live, yes.”
“I’m Abraham Lincoln?”
“And you’re John Wilkes Booth, too,” I added.
“I’m Hitler?” You said, appalled.
“And you’re the millions he killed.”
“I’m Jesus?”
“And you’re everyone who followed him.”
You fell silent.
“Every time you victimized someone,” I said, “you were victimizing yourself. Every act of kindness you’ve done, you’ve done to yourself. Every happy and sad moment ever experienced by any human was, or will be, experienced by you.”
You thought for a long time.
“Why?” You asked me. “Why do all this?”
“Because someday, you will become like me. Because that’s what you are. You’re one of my kind. You’re my child.”
“Whoa,” you said, incredulous. “You mean I’m a god?”
“No. Not yet. You’re a fetus. You’re still growing. Once you’ve lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born.”
“So the whole universe,” you said, “it’s just…”
“An egg.” I answered. “Now it’s time for you to move on to your next life.”
And I sent you on your way.
But you already know this.. dont you?!
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 27, 2016, 05:40:45 am
Post by: Catmeat on February 27, 2016, 05:53:28 am
You guess? I am you? Thats not vaguely interesting. Its beautiful and deep, maybe if you consider it to be true for a day or two you begin to treat others nicely, at least I do.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 27, 2016, 06:29:30 am
Post by: Catmeat on February 27, 2016, 07:01:52 am
Sounds snarky... yes...
Post by: Harry Baldman on February 27, 2016, 07:20:05 am
What would strike you as deep then? An all knowing future seeing god who creates angels without will that betray him then creates humans that betray him? Becomes wrathful and removes their immortality? because they ate a fruit that made them sentient and realise that god just wanted to have his perfect kitset garden to watch? Maybe you havnt thought it through to understand what depth actually is?
Sounds snarky... yes...
It's more that the story you posted is pretty well-known than it not being an interesting idea. Depth is dependent on breaking the mold of conventional thought, so novelty is all-important. Kind of like how Christian theology, at least the non-weird, widely known parts of it, doesn't seem deep at all to you. By that same virtue, a copypasta that seemed deep long ago loses its charm in our enlightened, well-memed day.
Come to think of it, being deep and being funny have a lot in common.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 27, 2016, 01:28:09 pm
The same problems plague humanity era after era.
Also, Catmeat; you need to show some respect.
Its beautiful and deep, maybe if you consider it to be true for a day or two you begin to treat others nicely, at least I do."You don't like the thing I like? That just means you're a dick who doesn't get it!"
Not cool dude. This discussion absolutely requires respect for the participants involved, even if you can't hold their religion or viewpoint in particularly high esteem. Rolan7 epitomizes this; as much as you can tell they dislike/are suspicious of Christianity in specific and religion in general, they have nonetheless been highly courteous.
Though, yeah, Harry, from what I've read/pondered, humor developed as a signal of intelligence. Which is why a well-timed pun is far better than one you have to set up; it requires quick thinking, and it's hard to falsify if it's dependent on reaction/processing speed. The idea of wisdom is about unconventional ways of looking at patterns, which is sorta like learning, and there's an obvious reason for that to be more common.
Finally, in response to the actual meat of Catmeat's point; "'tis better to have loved and lost than never have loved at all."
Plus, perhaps even God is not strong enough to escape Causality/Fate. In order for him to see that future, it must occur that way. He is trapped in an endless loop of loss, tragedy, and retroactive horror at his actions. And he can never escape, because time is nigh-meaningless for him. There is no way to move on.
Or there is and he already has and we're just farther back in the timeline than that. *shrug*
Post by: Arx on February 27, 2016, 01:38:02 pm
It is thought provoking, and I like the message (it's fundamentally the same as an African cultural concept, ubuntu, which translates as something like 'personhood' or 'humanity', or possibly 'our shared humanity' - it's difficult to quantify), but it's not... shocking or profound per se.
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 27, 2016, 01:58:08 pm
Even if we're not all incarnations of the same being, we still share the experience of being human, and we interact with each other here in the physical world. We exchange ideas and experiences together in a way that ultimately connects us all.
Post by: TempAcc on February 27, 2016, 03:28:22 pm
So ye, be nice to people, have empathy, forgive your enemies, love others before you love yourself. In the end, it'll be better for you, even if you aren't part of some ur-being that encompasses all of humanity. Its also a goal envisioned in several interpretations of buddhism, IE, the greatest happiness is when the happiness of others becomes your own happiness, so help people be happy.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 27, 2016, 07:12:42 pm
Essentialy, yes. There's no need for a justification to be nice to other people and help them in whatever way you can. Even if you are a huge atheist, you still have to realize that ultimately, its better to use your life to the benefit of the entire species rather then your own pleasure.I mean, you don't really have to realize that, really. I mean, I think it's true, but nihilistic hedonism is totally a thing.
So ye, be nice to people, have empathy, forgive your enemies, love others before you love yourself. In the end, it'll be better for you, even if you aren't part of some ur-being that encompasses all of humanity. Its also a goal envisioned in several interpretations of buddhism, IE, the greatest happiness is when the happiness of others becomes your own happiness, so help people be happy.
I don't agree with all that last part, though. Love yourself so that you can love others. The workers at the soup kitchens need to eat too. Put on your own mask before helping your fellow passengers.
Post by: i2amroy on February 27, 2016, 07:44:33 pm
So ye, be nice to people, have empathy, forgive your enemies, love others before you love yourself. In the end, it'll be better for you, even if you aren't part of some ur-being that encompasses all of humanity. Its also a goal envisioned in several interpretations of buddhism, IE, the greatest happiness is when the happiness of others becomes your own happiness, so help people be happy.Or love yourself by realizing that helping others will actually lead to a better net total for yourself in most cases. :P Every person that I help now is one more person I can call on in a time of need, one less person who is likely to come back at me for revenge, and that much more of a benefit to the whether or not individuals in society view me as a potential threat that they need to address. As game theory will tell you, an altruistic eye-for-an-eye with a chance of forgiveness is the plan that will come out on top in any iterated prisoners dilemma by far. Give first to others, and then give back what they give to you, but be willing to forgive occasionally to break any cycles of hatred that may be formed.
Post by: Frumple on February 27, 2016, 07:47:55 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 27, 2016, 08:36:27 pm
I think the stuff specifically about that excommunicated priest is kind of a separate, tangential discussion. I'm less prepared to talk about it so I'm leaving it be, but people can bring it over here if they want to.
I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying Catholicism is "as bad" as Mormonism. I wouldn't even broadly describe Mormonism as bad. What I'm saying is that Catholicism's united structure isn't responsible for its views being more accepting, and that the structure does not deal with many of the problems that were originally brought up, such as being ostracized by lay church members. In fact, the church can hinder improving the situation for its followers if people perceive that it would harm the church organization.
Post by: Amperzand on February 28, 2016, 12:20:33 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 28, 2016, 12:56:05 am
... nihilistic hedonism doesn't preclude dedicating much of one's life to charity/aid/goodwill/etc. The benefit of the entire species often is your own pleasure -- some of the earliest/most fundamental hedonists in human history held being in the company of other people, helping friends/family/etc., to be one of the highest pleasures attainable in life. There's plenty of folks that help out like that mostly just 'cause it makes 'em feel good. Far from the sole reason for it, but it's definitely an existent one.I'm not saying it doesn't. For some people, helping others is fun and they like doing it. I am one of those people. But not everyone is one of those people. Some people just don't like other people. Misanthropes and whatnot, they're usually referred to as. Whether it's because they look at the world and say 'Well this is fucked, and I can guess whose fault that is', or if they just don't get many warm fuzzies out of it like most people, my point was that you don't have to realize that doing things for the Greater Good is better than doing things for the pleasure you can get out of them in your limited lifespan. That's not the only 'valid' philosophical viewpoint. For some people, it's actually a rather toxic viewpoint because it means they end up not taking care of themselves.
Post by: Amperzand on February 28, 2016, 02:28:15 am
I'm not religious, nor am I looking to start some kind of flamebaity shenanigan, I just felt it would be an interesting question to ask.
I'd probably be fascinated and consider involving myself in religion in the former case, and amusedly approving in the latter.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 28, 2016, 02:31:56 am
In the event that the existence of YHWH was proven to be false (I believe this to be impossible, mind you, so I can't really see it happening), I'd have to find some other way to achieve immortality.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 28, 2016, 02:38:43 am
I'd probably convert to whatever the relevant religion happened to be.Nanobots.
In the event that the existence of YHWH was proven to be false (I believe this to be impossible, mind you, so I can't really see it happening), I'd have to find some other way to achieve immortality.
Depends on which supernatural entity/what relevance said entity had. I'm less straight atheist and more mysotheistic agnostic.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 28, 2016, 02:41:42 am
Nanobots.I mean eternal immortality, not that pansy only-until-the-heat-death-of-the-universe immortality.
Post by: Rose on February 28, 2016, 02:45:41 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 28, 2016, 02:52:36 am
From my perspective, they're essentially equal. Tens of trillions of years compared to maybe a hundred+ seems like a good deal to me. :PNanobots.I mean eternal immortality, not that pansy only-until-the-heat-death-of-the-universe immortality.
Plus, live long enough, and we might find that the laws of physics are more mutable than we'd thought. Or simply escape to other universes as gods of a sort. *Shrug*
Post by: Kot on February 28, 2016, 06:18:37 am
Eh, God existing isn't a good enough reason to worship him.Especially considering that he turns out to be quite a dick if you think hard about it and in case he reveals himself (and the question, would it be actually the actual God or maybe some alien impersonating him to exploit humanity weakness?), the whole thing would give out slavery vibes even more.
Post by: TD1 on February 28, 2016, 06:46:26 am
I still wouldn't worship it though. I'd try to understand it, sure, but why would I want to do anything else? The only reason such a being would be followed would be because it has power. Personally, a Supreme Leader/Almighty isn't on my list of priorities - I wouldn't blindly follow Kim Jung Un either.
Post by: Amperzand on February 28, 2016, 06:59:29 am
I'd probably convert to whatever the relevant religion happened to be.
In the event that the existence of YHWH was proven to be false (I believe this to be impossible, mind you, so I can't really see it happening), I'd have to find some other way to achieve immortality.
I mean, yeah, to be clear, I don't necessarily think proving any of this stuff is remotely possible, but saying we somehow managed it.
Depends on which supernatural entity/what relevance said entity had. I'm less straight atheist and more mysotheistic agnostic.
Sounds a lot like me, yes.
I was basically just referring to any given supernatural entity powerful enough to be a genuine God, as opposed to, say, the wendigo, or Jesus and Buddha, both of whom totally existed, though I do contest their semi-divine nature.
Post by: Descan on February 28, 2016, 03:37:35 pm
Even if god were real, he's too much of a c*** for me to even acknowledge her, let alone worship them.
Post by: Egan_BW on February 28, 2016, 05:28:34 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 28, 2016, 06:01:21 pm
If the existence of mr. YHWH was proven, I'd have to find a way to destroy it, because both possible afterlives would be incredibly infinitely worse than death.I disagree vehemently.
Also, if his existence was proven, 'I must destroy God' is kindof a non-starter. And Amperzand never specified YHWH, nor did s/he say that they would be exactly how these random books say they are. Think a bit farther outside the box, guys. :P What if Shiva and Brahman turned out to be real, and Hinduism was right all along?
Post by: TD1 on February 28, 2016, 06:13:58 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 28, 2016, 06:17:21 pm
What if the dinner you ate yesterday was the physical manifestation of your Lord God?The Catholics were right all along
Post by: TD1 on February 28, 2016, 06:18:19 pm
What if the dinner you ate yesterday was the physical manifestation of your Lord God?The Catholics were right all along
Ha. Sigtexting.
Post by: Amperzand on February 28, 2016, 06:20:52 pm
If the existence of mr. YHWH was proven, I'd have to find a way to destroy it, because both possible afterlives would be incredibly infinitely worse than death.I disagree vehemently.
Also, if his existence was proven, 'I must destroy God' is kindof a non-starter. And Amperzand never specified YHWH, nor did s/he say that they would be exactly how these random books say they are. Think a bit farther outside the box, guys. :P What if Shiva and Brahman turned out to be real, and Hinduism was right all along?
Indeed I did not. The question was intentionally generalized, and largely meant to refer simply to the existence of any supernatural higher power whatsoever. That could include, say, destiny, Karma, or God-Emperor Einstein. Anything and everything.
A separate, but also interesting discussion is the actual proof or antiproof for any specific religion's tenets or relevant entities.
Post by: Kot on February 28, 2016, 06:30:23 pm
Humanity Fuck Yeah.
Post by: Graknorke on February 28, 2016, 06:35:05 pm
God-Emperor EinsteinMake it God-Emperor Galileo and you have a deal. Guy had some serious bants.
Relevant because lots of it was just antagonising the Catholic Church while being on cheeki terms with the pope so he didn't get his shit smashed in.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 28, 2016, 06:49:09 pm
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 28, 2016, 08:25:21 pm
Considering the existence of "natural" evil (babies dying to ilnesses, volcanoes killing people, stuff like that), and the fact that he is certainly capable of creating the perfect world (Heaven, not to mention that souls there supposedly retain the free will, so basically all the evil people do is his fault anyway, since he is capable of stopping it and he doesn't) the God is certainly not really that good as Church(es) want us to belive. So, all things considered, I would be more than happy to blast Gods face off with nukes, for being such a dick. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheSalvationWar)Okay, I'd like to present you with a challenge. Think about what being God is like. Imagine that there is nothing except you and infinite power. Now, create something perfect. Do you think that's possible? Have you done better? I'm not claiming that God is perfect, far from it. I simply think we are in no position to judge a divine being with infinitely more knowledge and experience than each of us, and if he has made mistakes, then quite honestly, why can't we forgive Him? Maybe he has made mistakes, but so have we, and many of us can forgive each other. Think about it, if he made you, without him you'd never have existed. You'd never have enjoyed anything, never had a single thought or experience. Why curse His name?
Humanity Fuck Yeah.
Edit: Also this is all hypothetical. God may or may not exist and may or may not be male/female/not applicable.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 28, 2016, 08:51:48 pm
Considering the existence of "natural" evil (babies dying to ilnesses, volcanoes killing people, stuff like that), and the fact that he is certainly capable of creating the perfect world (Heaven, not to mention that souls there supposedly retain the free will, so basically all the evil people do is his fault anyway, since he is capable of stopping it and he doesn't) the God is certainly not really that good as Church(es) want us to belive. So, all things considered, I would be more than happy to blast Gods face off with nukes, for being such a dick. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheSalvationWar)Are you certain of that? (http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/15/answer-to-job/) I mean other than the whole, if you're certain he can create a perfect world, you should also be fairly certain he can smite you straight to eternal torture. Antagonising infinitely powerful entities is a bad idea, usually. Refusing to worship, sure, but actively annoying?
Humanity Fuck Yeah.
What's more, you're creating something of a conundrum here, without actually taking into consideration the metaphysical forces at play. If he doesn't give people free will, and they do evil, it's his fault since he predetermined what they would do. If he does give people free will, and they do evil, it's his fault because he let them. Bit of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', to pardon the pun. From what I know, Heaven/happy afterlife isn't perfect, it's just better. If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, it is yours.
Holy shit. That's a bit of a revelation/twist on it's head. Setting that temptation in the Garden of Eden was His 'letting us go'. The key to the cage and our own experiences. Our own lives, free will, knowledge. Yeah, He cast us out for it, but that's half the point. Otherwise we would've been stagnant, in the Garden forever. Now we can either stay away or return. Huh. Still don't believe it, but it casts it a bit better light when you think of it that way.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 28, 2016, 08:57:06 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 28, 2016, 09:03:53 pm
But muh predestinationIf predestination is a thing, God's a dick and no two ways about it.
Post by: Descan on February 28, 2016, 09:52:05 pm
What's more, you're creating something of a conundrum here, without actually taking into consideration the metaphysical forces at play. If he doesn't give people free will, and they do evil, it's his fault since he predetermined what they would do. If he does give people free will, and they do evil, it's his fault because he let them. Bit of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', to pardon the pun. From what I know, Heaven/happy afterlife isn't perfect, it's just better. If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, it is yours.That's a pretty false dichotomy. He's damned either way because, either way, he's allowing evil. He could, you know, have people not do evil, especially in the situation of "doesn't give people free will," but even in the other situation, humans DO have tendencies. Like we have a tendency to shun the outgroup/strangers, or a tendency to not eat babies. He could change those to be less evil-tending.
So yes he's damned either way cuz there's still evil. It's not the free will that's the problem, it's the evil causing! V:
Also: The world doesn't have to be perfect for it to be a HELL of a lot (puns!) better than it is now. Case in point: Harlequin babies. Most of you know not to google that, but a world without such a disease would be marginally better than ours which does have them. Still not perfect, but better. Worms that lay eggs in your eyes or veins, putting people in areas of the world with vastly different opportunities for development, thereby indirectly causing genocide and slavery (Europe vs Australia vs the America vs Africa, a la Guns Germs and Steel), peanut allergies. All of these are further examples of the same principle.
A lot of shit that just doesn't need to be that, were he just to go "You know what, let's NOT have peanut allergies!" would be fixed with no impact on humans beyond preventing needless suffering.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 28, 2016, 09:53:53 pm
But he's also God, so we're not really in a position to complain.But muh predestinationIf predestination is a thing, God's a dick and no two ways about it.
Post by: Teneb on February 28, 2016, 09:59:38 pm
I wantBut he's also God, so we're not really in a position to complain.But muh predestinationIf predestination is a thing, God's a dick and no two ways about it.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 28, 2016, 10:12:54 pm
I really can just point back at the whole thing about multiworld theory and god's hosting of a nigh-infinite number of worlds that have more goodness than evil in them, or will in the future. I was gonna say something about you viewing it as needless and God understanding the purpose behind it, but meh.What's more, you're creating something of a conundrum here, without actually taking into consideration the metaphysical forces at play. If he doesn't give people free will, and they do evil, it's his fault since he predetermined what they would do. If he does give people free will, and they do evil, it's his fault because he let them. Bit of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', to pardon the pun. From what I know, Heaven/happy afterlife isn't perfect, it's just better. If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, it is yours.That's a pretty false dichotomy. He's damned either way because, either way, he's allowing evil. He could, you know, have people not do evil, especially in the situation of "doesn't give people free will," but even in the other situation, humans DO have tendencies. Like we have a tendency to shun the outgroup/strangers, or a tendency to not eat babies. He could change those to be less evil-tending.
So yes he's damned either way cuz there's still evil. It's not the free will that's the problem, it's the evil causing! V:
Also: The world doesn't have to be perfect for it to be a HELL of a lot (puns!) better than it is now. Case in point: Harlequin babies. Most of you know not to google that, but a world without such a disease would be marginally better than ours which does have them. Still not perfect, but better. Worms that lay eggs in your eyes or veins, putting people in areas of the world with vastly different opportunities for development, thereby indirectly causing genocide and slavery (Europe vs Australia vs the America vs Africa, a la Guns Germs and Steel), peanut allergies. All of these are further examples of the same principle.
A lot of shit that just doesn't need to be that, were he just to go "You know what, let's NOT have peanut allergies!" would be fixed with no impact on humans beyond preventing needless suffering.
If people were different, they'd be different. 'We aren't perfect, therefore God is both imperfect and an asshole' is a bit pointless. I actually find it rather interesting that so many people are willing to drop the 'omnibenevolence' part (and take it all the way around into actively malicious) before they're willing to drop the 'truly fully omnipotent in every sense of the word' or the 'truly fully omniscient in every sense of the word' parts.
Also: A tendency towards perfection would be a leash, when he's trying to do the whole 'love something, let it go'. If he's giving people free will, no, he can't have people not do evil. That defeats the point of free will, which is of being our own individuals honestly and being more than puppets for God's amusement. You point out all the crappy things that do exist and say 'why can't we have a world without these' and a. maybe there already are quite a few, and b. how many crappy things do you think might have existed that he didn't let exist? Yeah, whatever, God's supposed to be perfect, but perfection includes goodness in this context, so if you're going to discard that you may as well consider discarding some other bits. And in order to love someone, they don't have to be perfect.
Post by: Putnam on February 28, 2016, 10:17:51 pm
Post by: Amperzand on February 28, 2016, 10:21:44 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 28, 2016, 10:50:19 pm
well there's imperfections like "sometimes people kill people" and then there's imperfections like "every single human being and the vast majority of other mammals have a nerve in their larynx that is required for the brain to control it that goes all the way out of the neck, wraps around the aorta and goes up back right next to where it started". The latter is pretty dumb.He also didn't make women until after men, which would've meant having to create the broken Y chromosome and then turn it into an X chromosome again, and he did so by taking a rib from the first guy. Which also means that their family would've been incredibly incestuous if they were to give rise to all of humanity.
You call it an imperfection, god calls it character. :P Perfect is the enemy of the good.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 29, 2016, 06:07:52 am
If godlike entities revealed themselves, I would want to learn from them. I would try to ask them questions if they're a sentient entity and follow them if necessary. If the universe is run by an impersonal force like karma, I'd try to study it in a more scientific way.
Post by: Kot on February 29, 2016, 09:44:00 am
Okay, I'd like to present you with a challenge. Think about what being God is like. Imagine that there is nothing except you and infinite power. Now, create something perfect. Do you think that's possible? Have you done better? I'm not claiming that God is perfect, far from it. I simply think we are in no position to judge a divine being with infinitely more knowledge and experience than each of us, and if he has made mistakes, then quite honestly, why can't we forgive Him?Since he is all powerful and whatnot, that what apparently he himself claims. Get your shit straight God, you're either awesome and amazing and best thing ever or murderous tyrant that poses as best thing ever. Heavenly Kim Jong Un is still Kim Jong Un.
Maybe he has made mistakes, but so have we, and many of us can forgive each other. Think about it, if he made you, without him you'd never have existed. You'd never have enjoyed anything, never had a single thought or experience. Why curse His name?If he didin't make me, I wouldn't give a shit because I wouldn't exist. I mean, gee, thanks for the fish, but ultimately God is akin to a teenager murdering ants by thousands in his own garden. You certainly don't think thats really bad, but for the ants he's proably evil incarnate, and the idea of ants developing nuclear weapons one day is pretty amusing.
Are you certain of that? (http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/15/answer-to-job/) I mean other than the whole, if you're certain he can create a perfect world, you should also be fairly certain he can smite you straight to eternal torture. Antagonising infinitely powerful entities is a bad idea, usually. Refusing to worship, sure, but actively annoying?If he smites me to eternal torture I will at least be eternally tortured knowing that in the end I was right, he's an tremendous dick and should be removed. Oh, and yeah, speaking of Job, I really liked that part when God literally killed (and we're speaking pre-Jesus times here, so no heaven for them, IIRC) off his seven sons and three daughters only because he had an bet with Satan. The whole Job thing is really weird for me, as IIRC it was about wether Job will forsake God for what he did to him, and he was really close to do so until God basically came in and told him that he can do whatever he wants because he's a God. Really nice of him.
What's more, you're creating something of a conundrum here, without actually taking into consideration the metaphysical forces at play. If he doesn't give people free will, and they do evil, it's his fault since he predetermined what they would do. If he does give people free will, and they do evil, it's his fault because he let them.Nah, if he gives us free will and we do evil, it's our fault. The thing is that he is capable of creating a world without evil WHILE giving us free will (unless if you lose it when you go to heaven, which doesn't really seem that much better than hell to me).
Bit of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', to pardon the pun. From what I know, Heaven/happy afterlife isn't perfect, it's just better. If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, it is yours.Dunno, maybe, I don't really remember all the holy texts so I can't provide quotes if the Heaven is perfect, but I do certainly remember getting that vibes everytime it's mentioned.
Holy shit. That's a bit of a revelation/twist on it's head. Setting that temptation in the Garden of Eden was His 'letting us go'. The key to the cage and our own experiences. Our own lives, free will, knowledge. Yeah, He cast us out for it, but that's half the point. Otherwise we would've been stagnant, in the Garden forever. Now we can either stay away or return. Huh. Still don't believe it, but it casts it a bit better light when you think of it that way.That in turn reminds me of this... (http://i.imgur.com/MEgVf.jpg) In that case, I'll hapilly go away and see humanity rule the heavens by themselves.
I really can just point back at the whole thing about multiworld theory and god's hosting of a nigh-infinite number of worlds that have more goodness than evil in them, or will in the future. I was gonna say something about you viewing it as needless and God understanding the purpose behind it, but meh.In that case it really makes me wonder if he really "loves his children". I mean, okay, loving parent's shouldn't really close you in perfect home so you can't experience any uncomfortable stuff, but if he makes it better or worse for different children, then yeah, he has problems.
If people were different, they'd be different. 'We aren't perfect, therefore God is both imperfect and an asshole' is a bit pointless. I actually find it rather interesting that so many people are willing to drop the 'omnibenevolence' part (and take it all the way around into actively malicious) before they're willing to drop the 'truly fully omnipotent in every sense of the word' or the 'truly fully omniscient in every sense of the word' parts.Speaking of perfection, I think that we're pretty goddamn (hue) fine. Maybe not perfect, but humans are the best (though also the worst, but I guess that's the part of being humans) thing ever. As for the dropping omnibenevolence before omnipotence and omniscience - God presents himself as all of these three things, and wether he is actually omnipotent and omniscient doesn't really make a difference, because if he were omnibenevolent he wouldn't present himself as omnipotent and omniscient while not being such, and if he is actually omnipotent and omniscient then he clearly isin't omnibenevolent because due to his inactions he's a fucking dick.
Also: A tendency towards perfection would be a leash, when he's trying to do the whole 'love something, let it go'. If he's giving people free will, no, he can't have people not do evil. That defeats the point of free will, which is of being our own individuals honestly and being more than puppets for God's amusement.Ilnesses. People struck by lightings. Wild animals mauling babies. All the other shits that exist and aren't human fault. I'm not asking for humanity to be perfect, as it pretty much is for me, but I'm asking for a better world since majority of evil happening could be prevented by God, and us being constantly tortured by evil pretty much makes us puppets for God's amusement. He's a cruel one.
You point out all the crappy things that do exist and say 'why can't we have a world without these' and a. maybe there already are quite a few, and b. how many crappy things do you think might have existed that he didn't let exist? Yeah, whatever, God's supposed to be perfect, but perfection includes goodness in this context, so if you're going to discard that you may as well consider discarding some other bits. And in order to love someone, they don't have to be perfect.Oh yeah, thanks for not letting us melt in acidic air, God, you're certainly the best, despite I can't move because you fried my nervous system with a lighting strike and everyone I knew and cared for died due to malaria. I love you.
It takes a lot of assumptions to decide that god could have made the universe a lot better and that it deserves to die for the choices it's made. Maybe this is the best possible universe, and god is the only thing stopping it from being completely hellish. I sure don't know, so I wouldn't use the state of the universe as justification to kill anything.If we can nuke God, we can nuke anything that could make the place worse. Nukes are certainly the only way to be sure. Or we could fix it and give a middle finger to God because we can't nuke him, but that won't stop me from wanting to because clearly, Humanity > God.
If godlike entities revealed themselves, I would want to learn from them. I would try to ask them questions if they're a sentient entity and follow them if necessary. If the universe is run by an impersonal force like karma, I'd try to study it in a more scientific way.Godlike? More like really advanced aliens that might have hostile intentions. Sure, go with it, but the second you do shit I'm going to nuke your face and then your homeworld in retaliation. As for the impersonal force - study it and then abuse it to get profits. That's the human way.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 29, 2016, 10:28:07 am
Post by: Arx on February 29, 2016, 11:01:07 am
Post by: Frumple on February 29, 2016, 11:04:06 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 29, 2016, 11:07:26 am
"Magma is very well known for being the perfect solution to any problem encountered by dwarves. Giant badger invasion? Pour magma on it. Noble being his usual snotty, useless, arrogant self? Pour magma on it. Door locked due to invaders? Pour magma on it! Flooded your fortress with magma? Congratulations, you just won the game!"
Post by: TD1 on February 29, 2016, 11:26:26 am
Interestingly, if you read Genesis, God says, "It is very good." Not, "It's perfect"
Interestingly, if you read Genesis, you realise there are two different creation stories. One doesn't even involve the serpent. Or punishment.
Post by: Kot on February 29, 2016, 12:38:49 pm
Interestingly, if you read Genesis, God says, "It is very good." Not, "It's perfect"And here we get into problems because different languages have different translations and sometimes certain words are understood in different ways.
... You seem to have a bit of a fixation on trying to solve problems with violent force. Have you considered that there are a hell of a lot of problems that can't be solved by nuking them?HUMANITY
FUCK
YEAH
Post by: Arx on February 29, 2016, 12:50:58 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 29, 2016, 12:53:46 pm
טוֹב
This Hebrew dictionary (http://www.morfix.co.il/en/%D7%98%D7%95%D6%B9%D7%91) gives us an extended definition for the word: "good, kind, thoughtful, moral ; pleasant ; appropriate, fitting, good for ; successful ; well behaved."
(edit: the second definition on that site is for a slightly different variation of the word; we're talking about the one with the dot on top of the middle letter, but the forum font doesn't seem to like that Hebrew character)
Given this I feel comfortable saying "It is good" doesn't seem to connote perfection, merely satisfaction.
Post by: Kot on February 29, 2016, 01:23:25 pm
So you're admitting you don't actually have any kind of a legitimate argument. Okay.Dunno, do you?
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on February 29, 2016, 01:24:17 pm
Given this I feel comfortable saying "It is good" doesn't seem to connote perfection, merely satisfaction.
In other words, God pretty much went 'This is good enough' and called it a day? Because that would certainly explain a lot...
Post by: Arx on February 29, 2016, 01:31:13 pm
So you're admitting you don't actually have any kind of a legitimate argument. Okay.Dunno, do you?
Yes. It goes like this:
Have you considered that there are a hell of a lot of problems that can't be solved by nuking them?
Post by: Kot on February 29, 2016, 02:01:05 pm
Eh, this isin't really an argument, since while nukes are cool and whatnot, actually nuking God would be kinda tricky and it was more of a joke anyway, though I do see a lot of truth in Imperial doctrine of "there is nothing that you can't solve with enough artillery".So you're admitting you don't actually have any kind of a legitimate argument. Okay.Dunno, do you?
Yes. It goes like this:Have you considered that there are a hell of a lot of problems that can't be solved by nuking them?
In theory, if he's an amazingly advanced alien (or maybe an actually finite "celestial" being, but then we would have to come up with a way to transfer nukes into other planes of existence), nuking his face would possibly be our only option besides surrendering to space Kim Jong Un. You wouldn't want to surrender to space Kim Jong Un.
Post by: Arx on February 29, 2016, 02:08:41 pm
Eh, this isin't really an argument, since while nukes are cool and whatnot, actually nuking God would be kinda tricky and it was more of a joke anywaySo you're admitting you don't actually have any kind of a legitimate argument. Okay.Dunno, do you?
Yes. It goes like this:Have you considered that there are a hell of a lot of problems that can't be solved by nuking them?
Aah, K. I tend to miss those, sorry, in part because I feel like most of the time people are being serious about things like that.
Post by: lemon10 on February 29, 2016, 03:21:56 pm
Honestly surrender against a being that powerful (without technology thousands of times more advanced), surrender is the only viable option. Hell, it might be the only option at all given that it could forceably change everyone's minds to make them surrender.
Okay, I'd like to present you with a challenge. Think about what being God is like. Imagine that there is nothing except you and infinite power. Now, create something perfect. Do you think that's possible? Have you done better? I'm not claiming that God is perfect, far from it. I simply think we are in no position to judge a divine being with infinitely more knowledge and experience than each of us, and if he has made mistakes, then quite honestly, why can't we forgive Him?Its easy, I would use my omniscience to know exactly what to create, and my omnipotence to create it. Now, its clearly very different if he lacks omniscience. But he doesn't, thus the quandary.
I personally find the argument that "we live in the best of all possible worlds" (to quote the old philosophical argument about the goodness of god) to be a bit ridiculous, but its not really possible to disprove.
After all it is correct that any bad things could theoretically be necessary for better things later on or that happened in the past.
I don't like it because it doesn't line up what humanity has perceived of reality at all (eg. randomness and the viciousness of the universe and evolution), but it is philosophically consistent.
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 29, 2016, 04:06:44 pm
-snip-I never claimed that God was omnipresent or omniscient, only that he ultimately held, in all practical regards, all power. He certainly would know everything that we have discovered, because he made it. And there's no way of knowing how many mortals he has outlived, thus, his knowledge and experience far outweigh our own. I'm also not claiming that God is infallible. I'm stating that perfection* itself may be impossible. I'd like to define this to be clear. *Perfect (adj.)- excellent or complete beyond all practical or theoretical improvement. OK, well how can you declare that anything fits that criteria? When does God say, okay "I added enough it's done." Or "I've fixed every issue. Done."?
Post by: Kot on February 29, 2016, 04:08:28 pm
Nukes are a pretty useless solution against anything sufficiently advanced, because they would presumably be able to protect against them (eg. God makes a plane of existence where fusion doesn't work).Nay. I'd go against that powerful being with a bloody stick. And if he'd forcefully change my mind... wouldn't that go against all that "free will" thing? Though, are we now talking about being that is God (implying there is one) or maybe just any random being posing as one or whatever?
Honestly surrender against a being that powerful (without technology thousands of times more advanced), surrender is the only viable option. Hell, it might be the only option at all given that it could forceably change everyone's minds to make them surrender.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 29, 2016, 04:24:26 pm
I guess. On the other hand that would basically mean he's satisfied with the world where you can die before you're even born and thus be damned forever because you can't exactly be baptised then. What a dick.How did you get to the conclusion that baptism staves of damnation?
Post by: Toady One on February 29, 2016, 04:55:24 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on February 29, 2016, 04:56:07 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 29, 2016, 04:57:11 pm
Anyway, let's drop the nuking God thing because apparently it causes arguments.
Post by: nenjin on February 29, 2016, 04:58:21 pm
Post by: scriver on February 29, 2016, 05:30:16 pm
I guess. On the other hand that would basically mean he's satisfied with the world where you can die before you're even born and thus be damned forever because you can't exactly be baptised then. What a dick.How did you get to the conclusion that baptism staves of damnation?
If I recall my theology right, baptism washes off the stains of original sin.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on February 29, 2016, 05:33:39 pm
Yeah, that's pretty much how it goes.I guess. On the other hand that would basically mean he's satisfied with the world where you can die before you're even born and thus be damned forever because you can't exactly be baptised then. What a dick.How did you get to the conclusion that baptism staves of damnation?
If I recall my theology right, baptism washes off the stains of original sin.
I don't know the theology about when you're afflicted with original sin, though.
Post by: wierd on February 29, 2016, 05:33:53 pm
Baptism is metaphorical washing. the physical act of being baptised does not have magical powers. What empowers baptism is the faith of the person being baptised. It is a symbol of that faith; that of the belief that christ has absolved your sins.
(This is why I find the Catholic practice of baptism at birth to be downright silly, The baby has not reached an age where the practice is deeply and personally spiritual, so the action is just a physical motion.)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on February 29, 2016, 05:35:10 pm
It's mostly about the parents, really. Baptism. I think, at least.
Confirmation, however, is affirming your faith personally.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 29, 2016, 05:36:07 pm
The particulars of Baptism really depend on the denomination. I mean, Baptists believe that you have to consent to baptism. You can't have unbaptized babies go to Hell in a system like that. I think in the Bible you mainly see them performed, and it's not really explained what they do.
Post by: wierd on February 29, 2016, 05:39:48 pm
In ancient hebrew customs, there was very strong emphasis on cleanliness. So much so that there were ritual baths outside temples, and the like. (See for instance, the "if you do X, you will be 'unclean' for Y days" things in the levitical laws) Baptism grows out of that. Christ points out that all people are filthy with sin, and are unclean to god, which is why you cant go to him like that. Christ gives you a means of becoming clean, so that you can. Baptism is a ceremonial/ritualistic expression of accepting that cleanliness, and becoming cleansed spiritually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumah_and_taharah
Post by: TD1 on February 29, 2016, 05:54:34 pm
*shrug*
It's mostly about the parents, really. Baptism. I think, at least.
Confirmation, however, is affirming your faith personally.
The Church of Ireland, of which I was a dubious member (technically still am, I guess) holds confirmation as such a personal affirmation. Baptism is also important, but what's more important at that time is the parents' promise to raise the child in the faith until they can choose to do so by themselves. In order not to break that promise I attended Sunday School and church until my confirmation (ironically, I lied through my teeth, but it meant a lot to my tradition-minded parents) and after that never went back.
Post by: Kot on February 29, 2016, 05:55:28 pm
Eh, that's what I said before Toady trimmed down everything, including the actually relevant part to the topic.Yeah, that's pretty much how it goes.I guess. On the other hand that would basically mean he's satisfied with the world where you can die before you're even born and thus be damned forever because you can't exactly be baptised then. What a dick.How did you get to the conclusion that baptism staves of damnation?
If I recall my theology right, baptism washes off the stains of original sin.
I don't know the theology about when you're afflicted with original sin, though.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on February 29, 2016, 06:06:03 pm
Do you have a scripture reference?I guess. On the other hand that would basically mean he's satisfied with the world where you can die before you're even born and thus be damned forever because you can't exactly be baptised then. What a dick.How did you get to the conclusion that baptism staves of damnation?
If I recall my theology right, baptism washes off the stains of original sin.
Post by: Graknorke on February 29, 2016, 06:13:01 pm
Honestly surrender against a being that powerful (without technology thousands of times more advanced), surrender is the only viable option. Hell, it might be the only option at all given that it could forceably change everyone's minds to make them surrender.A viable option would be killing every human on Earth. Can't have any worship if there's nobody alive to do it. And if the Abrahamic religions are an accurate depiction, that would really bother aforementioned supernatural entity.
Post by: wierd on February 29, 2016, 06:31:59 pm
That means killing all the humans will only make said entity miffed at you. Not stop it.
Post by: Orange Wizard on February 29, 2016, 06:32:44 pm
let's drop the nuking God thing because apparently it causes arguments
...
Biblically, baptism is a symbolic washing (to make the baptised spiritually "set apart", and as a reminder of them being under the covenant of faith) in the same vein as the OT cleanliness thing. It works as a NT replacement for circumcision, which served in the OT as a physical reminder of being under the covenant and part of the Hebrew... group? family? thing? Not church, but vov. There's tonnes of other symbolism and such in the practice, and I can go into more detail if people like.
You can make arguments for and against infant baptism, it's not really a big deal. The main importance of baptism is that it's a sacrament, making it a key ritual within the church.
Post by: lemon10 on February 29, 2016, 06:45:34 pm
Ah, apologies for misunderstanding you then. I thought that we were arguing with the assumptions that god was omniscent and omnipotent. I agree though, if he isn't (merely massively powerful and knowledgeable) a huge amount of blame for the state of the universe is taken off him.-snip-I never claimed that God was omnipresent or omniscient, only that he ultimately held, in all practical regards, all power. He certainly would know everything that we have discovered, because he made it. And there's no way of knowing how many mortals he has outlived, thus, his knowledge and experience far outweigh our own. I'm also not claiming that God is infallible. I'm stating that perfection* itself may be impossible. I'd like to define this to be clear. *Perfect (adj.)- excellent or complete beyond all practical or theoretical improvement. OK, well how can you declare that anything fits that criteria? When does God say, okay "I added enough it's done." Or "I've fixed every issue. Done."?
As for declaring something perfect, you would have to have a set criteria in mind, and obtain the best possible value (eg. getting a score of 100/100 on a test is perfect). The ranking between values would have to be rather arbitrary (eg. 1 life well lived=1/10th of a soul in hell), but it could be done. Now, it obviously couldn't be done for anything sufficiently complex like a universe without omniscience (as proving it would be functionally impossible to prove it), but with it it would be possible.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 29, 2016, 07:24:41 pm
Also, Lemon, you bring up a very good point. If God was to make something perfect, then he would have to be a utility maximizer or something of that sort. Which would be maximizing a numerical score. So maybe the universe is perfect...ly mathematical?
Speaking of which, while we aren't in the best possible world, we're certainly not in the worst. If there's more good then bad, and god is trying to maximize total god, maybe he's created a perfect multiverse, with a nigh-infinite series of worlds, all of which are slightly more good than bad.
And of course, there's the idea that a supernatural entity that powerful seriously just would not see us as having very much moral worth. After all, how much moral worth do you ascribe to an ant? Or a bacteria? I'm not just talking about YHWH, here, people. I think it'd be interesting if we talked about other gods/spiritual systems as well.
Like Zeus.
Ah, the old 'commit suicide to depreciate neighborhood property values' method. :PHonestly surrender against a being that powerful (without technology thousands of times more advanced), surrender is the only viable option. Hell, it might be the only option at all given that it could forceably change everyone's minds to make them surrender.A viable option would be killing every human on Earth. Can't have any worship if there's nobody alive to do it. And if the Abrahamic religions are an accurate depiction, that would really bother aforementioned supernatural entity.
Post by: smjjames on February 29, 2016, 07:57:50 pm
And of course, there's the idea that a supernatural entity that powerful seriously just would not see us as having very much moral worth. After all, how much moral worth do you ascribe to an ant? Or a bacteria? I'm not just talking about YHWH, here, people. I think it'd be interesting if we talked about other gods/spiritual systems as well.
Like Zeus.
The Greek/Roman gods weren't ominipotent in the way that we think of YHWH or whatever equivalent supreme being. Sure they had some degree of omni-whatever, but they weren't infinitely powerful or infinite-everything.
Post by: Amperzand on February 29, 2016, 08:13:37 pm
Post by: Quartz_Mace on February 29, 2016, 08:18:03 pm
They were more like absurdly powerful people, with most of the same flaws and an occasional tendency to fuck geese.Both in the figurative and literal senses.
In fact, I think Zeus might've invented bestiality.
Edit: I read that as "fuck Greece." What I thought was clever wordplay was really just embarrassing.
Ignore the first part, please.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 29, 2016, 08:49:22 pm
Ah, my subject switching was a bit poor. I didn't mean in the omni-[fill in here] sense, I meant in the 'What would you do if there was an overwhelming amount of evidence for them' way. Which may mean Zeus shows up in New York City, lightnings a skyscraper in the middle of the day, and gets shot in the face without being hurt, but still. Or the more contemporary spiritual systems.
And of course, there's the idea that a supernatural entity that powerful seriously just would not see us as having very much moral worth. After all, how much moral worth do you ascribe to an ant? Or a bacteria? I'm not just talking about YHWH, here, people. I think it'd be interesting if we talked about other gods/spiritual systems as well.
Like Zeus.
The Greek/Roman gods weren't ominipotent in the way that we think of YHWH or whatever equivalent supreme being. Sure they had some degree of omni-whatever, but they weren't infinitely powerful or infinite-everything.
Post by: Egan_BW on February 29, 2016, 08:53:51 pm
Post by: smjjames on February 29, 2016, 09:00:43 pm
Heck, the Titans, deities just as powerful or more powerful than the origional Greek gods, were defeated by the origional greek gods. Though I'm not sure how many were killed vs simply defeated or otherwise imprisioned.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 29, 2016, 09:11:24 pm
Many different kinds of power, after all.
Although I don't know why we're killing them, other than 'you're a dick', which isn't an executable offense as far as I know. In the case of YHWH, doing so might literally destroy the universe, if you go by certain philosophies.
Post by: Egan_BW on February 29, 2016, 09:14:06 pm
Post by: smjjames on February 29, 2016, 09:20:59 pm
If they were defeated, they can hardly be said to be more powerful.
Many different kinds of power, after all.
Teamwork? Those that were defeated could be more powerful in some ways, but not others. The greek gods also had some Titans on their side.
Post by: Amperzand on February 29, 2016, 09:23:48 pm
More like "oh shit godlike entities exist we have to kill them before they kill us."
Honestly, to look at it from that perspective, the solution is to set up MAD with said entities. :V Not a good solution, but it worked for fifty years until one side broke down and let it fade.
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 29, 2016, 09:29:14 pm
More like "oh shit godlike entities exist we have to kill them before they kill us."On the other hand, if we aren't capable of killing them, we're dead. In all likelihood, the casualties even if we won would be ridiculous. Not even bothering to negotiate with something which can most likely utterly destroy you, but hasn't done so yet, for one reason or another?
Post by: smjjames on February 29, 2016, 09:30:52 pm
I'm not aware of anything in Greek Mythology though that would be comparable to a Greek god or Titan being at ground 0 of a nuclear blast.
Post by: Amperzand on February 29, 2016, 09:31:53 pm
Their gods literally had ICBMs.
Look it up.
Post by: smjjames on February 29, 2016, 09:39:11 pm
Parvatastra: one of the most dangerous weapon,once it used mountains from sky fall in to the earth. Asteroids anybody?
Post by: Kot on March 01, 2016, 08:30:38 am
They were more like absurdly powerful people, with most of the same flaws and an occasional tendency to fuck geese.TBH, when you think of that one time when God killed ten people due to some stupid bet with Satan... or when he flooded the whole world because people weren't nice... or when he killed a guy just because he tried to help and not let the Ark hit the ground... or numerous other Old Testament happenings, it seems that God isin't really that different from very jealous power-hungry murderous asshole of Olimp, maybe except he doesn't really come to surface to fuck geese or women, though in the latter case WHO KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED WITH MARY.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 01, 2016, 09:15:13 am
Post by: Kot on March 01, 2016, 09:21:11 am
What do geese have to do with anything?IIRC, there was this godness Nemesis who turned into a goose to avoid Zeus but instead Zeus fucked the goose because... well, he's Zeus.
Post by: TD1 on March 01, 2016, 10:31:31 am
Post by: Graknorke on March 01, 2016, 03:01:24 pm
Loki was...possibly...worse. Others say "sleep with some whores," Loki sleeps with a horse.To be fair it was for very good, money saving reasons.
Post by: wierd on March 01, 2016, 04:09:12 pm
Bonus points: Loki was on the bottom, and got knockered up.
Post by: monkey on March 01, 2016, 05:28:08 pm
Also:
http://www.veritablehokum.com/comic/the-egyptian-god-family-tree/
http://www.veritablehokum.com/comic/the-greek-god-family-tree/
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 01, 2016, 09:29:11 pm
Post by: Kot on March 02, 2016, 10:53:25 am
There were several different egyptian cosmologies, though. I don't see the Ogdoad anywhere in that graphic for instanceWell, aren't we talking like three thousand years? Back then they also didin't have really good ways of conserving knowledge and the distances were relatively long, so it's pretty safe to assume that their religion changed and evolved through the years. AFAIK there was also this time when they literally wanted to wipe out some god and other mythology changing shenanigans that they did on purpose.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 02, 2016, 12:04:33 pm
Post by: Kot on March 02, 2016, 12:06:51 pm
Post by: Arx on March 02, 2016, 12:37:05 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 02, 2016, 01:23:05 pm
Post by: Teneb on March 02, 2016, 01:27:51 pm
Now see, this is why the Egyptians died. They didn't PRAISE THE SUNWhat about Ra, though? He was also the Sun. Jaffa, kree!
Post by: Arx on March 02, 2016, 01:37:53 pm
Now see, this is why the Egyptians died. They didn't PRAISE THE SUNWhat about Ra, though? He was also the Sun. Jaffa, kree!
No, see, subtle but critical difference. Ra was the sun god. Aten was the sun itself.
Post by: Putnam on March 05, 2016, 03:08:19 am
Post by: Frumple on March 05, 2016, 09:31:17 am
...
Though thinking on it somewhat, that may be a startlingly accurate statement. Z* movements seem to either do somewhat poorly or catch a pretty bad rep...
Post by: TD1 on March 05, 2016, 09:36:41 am
Post by: Harry Baldman on March 05, 2016, 09:39:58 am
Post by: Frumple on March 05, 2016, 09:45:27 am
Zoro was nice-ish but got ganked pretty hard and is now more or less very dead, Zen was pretty strongly correlated with the whole samurai thing (which came with nasty, nasty associations) -- it's branched out a lot since, but considering the starting point and initial run it definitely had/has a lot of things very, very wrong -- zionism's basically the conspiracy world's boogieman... I think the observation stands pretty well. They're either very badly flawed, dead, or have a rather rough reputation. I'm having trouble thinking of a Z* that doesn't have a fair amount of trouble, heh.
Post by: Teneb on March 05, 2016, 09:48:07 am
The Zunists got it right.Praise the Zun!
...
Also RIP Zunism, victim of the Abbasids.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 05, 2016, 10:53:56 am
Fakedit: Crap, didn't mean to type so much O_o Sorry.
Covered in the KJV: It's okay as long as you don't covet his butt.Those are easy commandments to confuse. "Coveting thy neighbor's wife" sounds a lot like adultery. Also that part does specify gender.What if you covet thy neighbour's husband? Or the neighbour himself/herself?Quote from: Exodus 20:17 (NIV)You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.Quote from: Exodus 20:17 (KJV)Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Since I shitposted in the past, I would like to point out this is an honest question. (though perhaps I should note that it is my religious duty to occasionally shitpost)
(This is not an honest answer)
The real answer is that that commandment is telling you not to covet your neighbor's property. Women were property, men weren't, so a woman coveting a man makes no sense. IE it's "covet" in the "seek to own" sense.
That's why adultery is a separate commandment, which (while vague and long-debated) is probably gender neutral.
It takes a lot of assumptions to decide that god could have made the universe a lot better and that it deserves to die for the choices it's made. Maybe this is the best possible universe, and god is the only thing stopping it from being completely hellish. I sure don't know, so I wouldn't use the state of the universe as justification to kill anything."Best" is pretty relative... But certain diseases and parasitic creatures make it hard to argue that this is the best universe for humanity. Maybe if the universe was only created initially, and then passively observed as everything evolved... In that case things are pretty decent.
If godlike entities revealed themselves, I would want to learn from them. I would try to ask them questions if they're a sentient entity and follow them if necessary. If the universe is run by an impersonal force like karma, I'd try to study it in a more scientific way.
But yeah, it'd probably be a lot smarter to be diplomatic with a superior entity. Assuming the entity is "outside the universe", which basically makes the universe a simulation: Even if there's a theoretical way to escape, like a program escaping a virtual machine (which is nearly impossible with proper safeties), we probably aren't nearly advanced enough to do so yet. And we're just as guilty of running unpleasant simulations, so we can't really judge the entity without hypocrisy.
The main concern would be that we may be "ruining the experiment" by becoming aware of our situation. Or, we could be completing the experiment (with similar results for us, but at least we won?) Or possibly our universe was meant to develop a new race of unique sophonts, and we will be allowed to interact with the real world.
So either we try to hide what we know until we can escape, or we try to communicate with the Furthest Ring and hope they're benevolent.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 05, 2016, 10:55:20 am
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/ghostbusters/images/3/37/ZuulTerrorDog1.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/270?cb=20140515200520)
Post by: Rolan7 on March 05, 2016, 11:22:07 am
http://www.veritablehokum.com/comic/the-norse-god-family-tree/I am only a third through the Norse deity descriptions and I'm literally crying with laughter. I actually loved reading these stories when I was bored at school, but I forgot just how amazing they were.
Also:
http://www.veritablehokum.com/comic/the-egyptian-god-family-tree/
http://www.veritablehokum.com/comic/the-greek-god-family-tree/
I mean, that cow thing.
Quote from: Fenrir
Fenrir is a giant fearsome horrible big bad wolf who spends most of his time eating things he shouldn’t. Or he did – the gods eventually managed to trick him into being chained up forever by playing a “game” where they bet him he couldn’t break out of a bunch of chains. I know these are big important myths that had deep significance to a lot of people, but I swear, sometimes I feel like I’m reading about a bunch of third-graders. Anyway. On the third try, they used special unbreakable chains, but Fenrir got suspicious and demanded that someone put their hand in his mouth as collateral. And that’s how Tyr lost his hand.
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2016, 11:04:03 am
http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/arkeology-new-science-support-creation
Post by: Antioch on March 09, 2016, 11:12:34 am
I'm reading about Arkeology. It's amusing in a sad way.
http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/arkeology-new-science-support-creation
They sure are enthusiastic about not having found their arc.
Post by: Antioch on March 09, 2016, 11:57:25 am
I'm reading about Arkeology. It's amusing in a sad way.
http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/arkeology-new-science-support-creation
They sure are enthusiastic about not having found their ark.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 09, 2016, 07:58:52 pm
CongratsI'm reading about Arkeology. It's amusing in a sad way.
http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/arkeology-new-science-support-creation
They sure are enthusiastic about not having found their ark.
Post by: i2amroy on March 09, 2016, 08:03:02 pm
Post by: Kot on March 09, 2016, 08:05:47 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 09, 2016, 08:20:34 pm
This gives me hope for the Shakers, who have managed to pull off the celibacy thing for less than three hundred years. But hey, if Zoroastrianism can last this long, they've got a shot.
Post by: Putnam on March 09, 2016, 08:28:50 pm
On the Z topic, honestly Zoroastrianism's biggest issue is their whole "we don't accept converts" thing, which is basically tantamount to a religion's suicide. Honestly the only thing worse than not accepting converts in terms of helping to keep your religion alive is forbidding members to have children, since so much of people's religious choices is influenced by their parents. :P
That and IIRC they encourage incest too...
Post by: Descan on March 09, 2016, 09:44:47 pm
That and I think, even if they were, they'd just quietly drop that requirement, considering... well, everything about science and genetics. It's one thing to cling to a requirement that goes against science and biology if you've been doing it for hundreds or thousands of years, it's another when you're returning to said requirement after not doing it for said thousands of years.
Post by: Rolepgeek on March 09, 2016, 11:37:43 pm
I thought that was only in royalty. There are no Zoroastrian royals anymore.Fertility rates are highest between third cousins. Risks of inbreeding are also more or less minimized at that relation distance(relative to fertility, at least). Attraction to people who look like you but not to much like you peaks about there as well.
That and I think, even if they were, they'd just quietly drop that requirement, considering... well, everything about science and genetics. It's one thing to cling to a requirement that goes against science and biology if you've been doing it for hundreds or thousands of years, it's another when you're returning to said requirement after not doing it for said thousands of years.
Mild incest can go for a while. Takes time for the problems to build up.
Post by: smjjames on March 14, 2016, 12:13:56 pm
""Bernie Sanders who doesn't believe in God. How in the world are we going to let Bernie? I mean really? Listen, Bernie gotta get saved. He gotta meet Jesus. He gotta have a coming to Jesus meeting," Burns said before Trump and Christie sat down for their question-and-answer session."
To someone (me) who isn't religious at all (I think I might be classified as aetheist), it certainly sounds like a threat, but uh, I'm asking in here because it might not be and I'm slightly confused because of the whole political injection. Well, the 'gotta meet Jesus' and 'have a coming to jesus meeting' parts sound like a threat.
Edit: Just to make it clear, I'm not trying to bash anybodys religion, I'm just wanting to understand what the guy meant by the 'having a coming to jesus meeting' bit.
Post by: Arx on March 14, 2016, 12:29:30 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on March 14, 2016, 12:30:39 pm
Which is about the same as wanting to kill him, yeah.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 14, 2016, 12:34:51 pm
I think it's generally used more in sects that emphasize committing yourself to the Church as an adult, like Baptists, where I assume more people would credit their faith to a life event they've had (as opposed to being because of their family or religious education).
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 16, 2016, 04:21:32 pm
I think he means that he wants to convert bernie.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 16, 2016, 04:40:27 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 17, 2016, 03:11:23 am
Post by: Arx on March 17, 2016, 03:35:05 am
Theeeere's a title
While we're on the topic, I misread the title as Railgun and Spirituality last night.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 17, 2016, 05:01:56 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 17, 2016, 05:28:04 am
Post by: TempAcc on March 17, 2016, 08:34:00 am
Yea, Sikhs are pretty badass.
Post by: Harry Baldman on March 17, 2016, 08:36:10 am
Post by: Descan on March 17, 2016, 01:21:53 pm
Kesh: uncut hair
Kangha: a wooden comb
Kara: a metal bracelet
Kachera: a specific style of cotton undergarments
Kirpan: a strapped curved sword
... Which means Mormons aren't the only religious group who have magic underpants.
Post by: Frumple on March 17, 2016, 02:00:57 pm
That's almost certainly not a threat. Just something about how Sanders should convert.Well, not an explicit one, anyway. It's... fairly common to have a bit of an "Or else." tinge to those kind of statements, at least from what I've seen. I've definitely heard that sort of statement predicate some pretty serious social approbation (as in, people leaving the area because of it the lucky bastards) before. More than once :-\
Maybe not something that's commonly a threat, but definitely something that's commonly hostile, I guess you could put it. Often not really so much about conversion as signaling to like minded folks that the target is an acceptable one.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 17, 2016, 02:06:20 pm
I looked it up earlier and that was my exact reaction to the underwear.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 17, 2016, 02:24:02 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Putnam on March 17, 2016, 02:31:39 pm
shitposts LW *platonically*
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 17, 2016, 02:34:21 pm
*(platonically) demonstrates the proper way to into (platonically).*
Post by: Rolan7 on March 17, 2016, 02:36:52 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 17, 2016, 10:53:02 pm
I ate ice cream today. After the fact, I learned that it had coffee in it despite having a completely unrelated name (it was only listed in the ingredients list). Coffee also happens to be against my religion. This was accidental and everything, but still.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 17, 2016, 10:57:14 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 17, 2016, 11:09:28 pm
Coffee also happens to be against my religion.Why is that? Guessing it's the caffeine, of course.
Post by: Rose on March 19, 2016, 02:29:08 am
Post by: smirk on March 19, 2016, 06:12:37 am
I definitely probably made up that bit about Santa. Forgive me, Santa O_0
Post by: Teneb on March 19, 2016, 06:19:50 am
I'd guess LDS - Mormonism. IIRC their doctrine prohibits "hot drinks", which includes tea and coffee. Doesn't actually mean caffeine, so soda is still acceptable. But a lot of Mormons consider caffeine to be bad or unhealthy anyway, something something slippery slope, Satan Santa's Siren Song (http://www.wallpaperswala.com/wp-content/gallery/coca-cola-santa/santa-with-coca-cola-in-red-background.jpg), etc.What if the tea or coffee is cold?
I definitely probably made up that bit about Santa. Forgive me, Santa O_0
Post by: smirk on March 19, 2016, 06:40:58 am
What if the tea or coffee is cold?DARK HERESY
...dunno much about the intricacies of it; probably just a blanket ban. Prohibitions gonna prohibit.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 19, 2016, 06:50:58 am
Post by: germanyfrance on March 19, 2016, 08:18:04 am
Post by: Frumple on March 19, 2016, 08:26:36 am
It does condemn certain sorts of sex, and warns against a number of attitudes regarding the subject (and relationships in general), but it neither condemns sex itself nor considers it evil in and of itself, necessary or otherwise. Improper sex, yes, the text has problems with that, but otherwise it's all pretty much good.
Details are more complicated (there's some hypocritical as fuck stuff re: sex in those books, particularly in the OT), but that's the gist of it.
Probably worth noting that a number of christian sects (many protestants, as a non-exclusive example) very much do condemn it and/or consider it a necessary evil. Pretty much spitting on the text itself when they do that, but hey, that's what denominations tend to do one way or another, heh.
Post by: Descan on March 19, 2016, 10:52:49 am
Post by: RedKing on March 19, 2016, 11:04:23 am
Does the bible condemn sex? Or make it like it's a necessary evil?Depends on which part. Consider that the Song of Solomon is basically one big long erotic poem.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 20, 2016, 02:21:29 am
Does the bible condemn sex? Or make it like it's a necessary evil?Not at all. The whole point of Song of Songs/Solomon is that sex is good and enjoyable. The Bible does condemn sexual intimacy outside of marriage, which may include le homogay sex depending on your definition of marriage.
Depends on which part.IIRC Leviticus condemns a few sex acts (such as during a woman's period, or up the butt) because they're ceremonially unclean under Jewish law. It's mostly irrelevant to Christians.
Considering the text quite liberally (hah) has points where God told the Israelites to kill all men, boys, and women who have "known a man" and take the virgin girls for their own... Uses? I think the Bible doesn't have a problem with sex in and of itself.The Israelites did many brutal things. None of them should be a guide for a Christian's conduct.
Post by: Amperzand on March 20, 2016, 04:12:02 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 20, 2016, 05:17:33 am
Post by: Amperzand on March 20, 2016, 05:34:45 am
To be clear, I'm hardly in support of the OT, or even religion in general, but I do find such things interesting.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 31, 2016, 05:35:00 pm
Most of the OT laws have some kind of practical benefit in that sense. Marriage laws keep families structured, restrictions on sex means fewer STDs, farming and land laws to provide for the poor, food restrictions to prevent food poisoning, and rituals to bring communities together.Most importantly, kids growing up with parents
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 31, 2016, 06:58:53 pm
Most importantly, kids growing up with parentsStop trying to enforce sexist gender roles you goddamn chauvinist
Post by: Frumple on March 31, 2016, 07:45:22 pm
And honestly, I'd say the whole "Ya gotta be married" thing was largely intended to prevent rampant population growth/unplanned pregnancy with no legally bound backup, more than it was about sexual morality.S'far as I'm aware it was more just to enforce existing social structures, maintain family lines and whatnot. Was mostly about property and inheritance, basically. Folks that wrote the books didn't really give a shit about overpopulation (frankly, too many kids died for it to be a meaningful issue), and there were rules in place for unplanned pregnancies.
And @OW's shitpost: Or at least acknowledge how often it is that's pretty close to the worst possible outcome. We've still got plenty of christians (among others, of course) killing (among all sorts of other things) their children and being basically let get away with it because that (and especially growing up with the biological parents) is seen as some kind of ideal state.
Christian counseling and whatnot also causes a frankly horrendous amount of fuckup in a number of countries regarding marriage counseling, child rearing, etc., etc. Bible wasn't particularly good regarding child rearing and family structures.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 31, 2016, 07:52:17 pm
I find this very problematic as you're implying there's anything sexist about kids growing up with parents like literally I can't even right now LITERALLY like LITERALLY OMG can you just even like I'm gonna need you to check yourself because I'm going to lose my mind because of close minded bigots like you smhMost importantly, kids growing up with parentsStop trying to enforce sexist gender roles you goddamn chauvinist
#signalboost #doctorwho #savebrendan #shitlords #itsparentingstupid
S'far as I'm aware it was more just to enforce existing social structures, maintain family lines and whatnot. Was mostly about property and inheritance, basically. Folks that wrote the books didn't really give a shit about overpopulation (frankly, too many kids died for it to be a meaningful issue), and there were rules in place for unplanned pregnancies.I CAN'T EVEN RIGHT NOW
And @OW's shitpost: Or at least acknowledge how often it is that's pretty close to the worst possible outcome. We've still got plenty of christians (among others, of course) killing (among all sorts of other things) their children and being basically let get away with it because that (and especially growing up with the biological parents) is seen as some kind of ideal state.
Christian counseling and whatnot also causes a frankly horrendous amount of fuckup in a number of countries regarding marriage counseling, child rearing, etc., etc. Bible wasn't particularly good regarding child rearing and family structures.
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 31, 2016, 08:17:06 pm
#itsparentingstupidbasically
And @OW's shitpost: Or at least acknowledge how often it is that's pretty close to the worst possible outcome. We've still got plenty of christians (among others, of course) killing (among all sorts of other things) their children and being basically let get away with it because that (and especially growing up with the biological parents) is seen as some kind of ideal state.Eh. Having two parents (or at least more adults in the house so it's not one parent doing anything) is a positive for everyone. Trying to raise kids on your own, and work for a living is hard. It's hard on the kids too, who don't get as much time with their parent.
I do agree that keeping a nuclear family intact in spite of abuse, etc. is a terrible approach, but breaking it up to pre-empt that is also foolish.
And, yeah. Biology is basically irrelevant when it comes to parenting, so it's kinda dumb that people think that's important.
Christian counseling and whatnot also causes a frankly horrendous amount of fuckup in a number of countries regarding marriage counseling, child rearing, etc., etc.Christian counselling is basically terrible, yeah. Along with any other ideologically-driven counselling (unless that ideology is "a secular approach to arrive at the best outcome" but that doesn't really count).
Bible wasn't particularly good regarding child rearing and family structures.I dunno, it gets the basic points in order. OT has a very... traditional(?) approach to family structure, which to be fair is about as good as it was going to get at the time. A traditional approach that generally works is vastly easier to maintain, at least.
In the NT family structure is a minor point, but there are strong themes around marriage of working towards closer understanding and agreement. The husband is the head of the household in the style of Roman law at the time, which today should be mostly irrelevant when the couple is in agreement, and is a waste of time when they're not.
Finally, the moral imperative of "In all things, work for the good of those around you" is plenty of justification IMO to give plently of leeway in family structure for the people involved to be happy and healthy.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on March 31, 2016, 08:22:45 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 31, 2016, 08:24:49 pm
I do agree that keeping a nuclear family intact in spite of abuse, etc. is a terrible approach, but breaking it up to pre-empt that is also foolish.Didn't say anything about preemptively breaking anything up, heh. Basically just noting that the important part isn't the kids growing up with parents, it's them growing up well with a side of fuck the parents if they get in the way of that, which is incredibly goddamn common in everything I've seen in life. Not a majority, perhaps, but far too damned often.
And to an extent OSG. It is good if the love is good and what they're being asked to obey is as well, and the both of them aren't getting in the way of various other important things. Just seems that in practice christian culture et al is pretty damn bad at actually inculcating that, y'know?
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 31, 2016, 08:30:57 pm
The bible tells parents to raise children with love and children to obey parents. I know that people don't always do that, but I can't think of a better upbringing for the children or the parents.Ye. The problem's not in the rules, it's people sticking to them even when it's actively working against the point of the rules
Didn't say anything about preemptively breaking anything up, heh.I may have been pre-emptively striking down the strawman
Post by: Teneb on March 31, 2016, 08:35:10 pm
I may have been pre-emptively striking down the strawman"And the LORD said: strike down the strawman!"
Anyway, why is it that traditional often gets automatically equaled to "good"? Is it something inherent of human psychology?
Post by: Frumple on March 31, 2016, 08:38:20 pm
And sorta', T. It's mostly a sort of "Old people did it, they've lived longer and accumulated more experiences, their wisdom should be heeded" sort of thing, s'far as I'm aware. It just kinda' forgets that age doesn't actually necessarily correlate with wisdom, and that the situation changes with time.
Post by: Telgin on March 31, 2016, 08:59:56 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 31, 2016, 09:32:30 pm
Literally#itsparentingstupidbasically
Eh. Having two parents (or at least more adults in the house so it's not one parent doing anything) is a positive for everyone. Trying to raise kids on your own, and work for a living is hard. It's hard on the kids too, who don't get as much time with their parent.No, not two adults. Two parents, when it's just two adults that's a sign of desperation, the whole being hard on the kids thing is not an afterthought it is the primary concern - if they grow up useless or kill themselves then there's really no point in the family having ever started in the first place
And, yeah. Biology is basically irrelevant when it comes to parenting, so it's kinda dumb that people think that's important.Oh yeah, that thing people are biologically wired to do is irrelevant when it comes to doing it, is this April Fools (???). Is this just part of that newfangled ancient arrogance that claims mankind is above biology again? What are the three behaviours a baby will first instinctively react (in the generalized "seven sense" inaccurate sense of the term)? 1. Breathe 2. Cry 3. Search for a Teat
Christian counselling is basically terrible, yeah. Along with any other ideologically-driven counselling (unless that ideology is "a secular approach to arrive at the best outcome" but that doesn't really count).Why would Christians go to Christian counselors, if you're going for secular psychiatry you'd see a psychiatrist and if you wanted something religious you'd seek religious advice, the whole thing seems redundant unless it's just about talking to someone you trust. Yeah that makes sense
I dunno, it gets the basic points in order. OT has a very... traditional(?) approach to family structure, which to be fair is about as good as it was going to get at the time. A traditional approach that generally works is vastly easier to maintain, at least.You're reading it the wrong way around, the Hebrews got it right. Strong families build society and make society easy to maintain. It is also not traditional unless you're being anachronistic in the definition of traditional as we use it today. If it is traditional, it is of many traditions, as whilst monogamy was the standard, there are examples of monogamy, concubinage and with marriage being a civil affair without religious rites. Amusingly the OT and Talmud says you can probably get away with Polygamy but you should take note that you'll likely create families within the family which will cause all sorts of problem, as exemplified wonderfully by the Saudi Arabian family's many, many, many, many different clans, who despite being all of one family function as independent clans.
Also lol:
Quote
Loyalties are no longer to fathers, uncles, and the other "patriarchs" of the family who once formed a veritable safety net for then eedy of the family: the ill and the infirm, and orphans, and divorcees and their children. Each family unit was hence-forth "on its own," the unit having become the parents, their children and grandchildren, and their fathers and mothers, whenever all these coexisted. It is this unit that reflects the "model family" promoted by the modern state, not only because this is the predominant European model - the exporter of this state - but also because the new "Islamic" nation-state could more easily secure the loyalty of such a nuclear family as the defined and articulated site of the good citizen. The loyalties within clans and tribes, being quasi-political, can hardly be divided. Thus, the modern nation-state, which also was fundamentally engaged in, and intertwined with, the new forms of capitalism and new economic modes of production, had a profound interest in refashioning the modern family into a family that is distinctly nuclear.I've always seen though the whole family unit thing as more cultural than anything, especially since I grew up in a family culture that is very different to American, Christian, Jewish or Arab Islamic units with the basis not being religion but function
An Introduction to Islamic Law, by Wael B. Hallaq
In the NT family structure is a minor point, but there are strong themes around marriage of working towards closer understanding and agreement. The husband is the head of the household in the style of Roman law at the time, which today should be mostly irrelevant when the couple is in agreement, and is a waste of time when they're not.And functional
Finally, the moral imperative of "In all things, work for the good of those around you" is plenty of justification IMO to give plently of leeway in family structure for the people involved to be happy and healthy.
No point in giving leeway to dysfunction
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 31, 2016, 10:44:00 pm
Oh yeah, that thing people are biologically wired to do is irrelevant when it comes to doing it, is this April Fools (???).Sorry, I wasn't very specific there. I was replying to Frumple's statement about children being with biological parents being regarded as better than adoptive of foster parents.
I agree that a well-structured family is good for raising healthy children, and that healthy children should be the primary goal of a family. I guess I'm trying to emphasise that we shouldn't be too rigid in defining that structure when other approaches are also good for the children.
Not that I'm a sociologist or whatever.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 31, 2016, 11:19:59 pm
Sorry, I wasn't very specific there. I was replying to Frumple's statement about children being with biological parents being regarded as better than adoptive of foster parents.Oh right
Yeah I'd still consider that preferable, though not a prerequisite to a successful family
Speaking from London experience there is a great diff between kids who grew up being able to trace their looks back to their GGPs and those who were probably the offspring of the milkman
I agree that a well-structured family is good for raising healthy children, and that healthy children should be the primary goal of a family. I guess I'm trying to emphasise that we shouldn't be too rigid in defining that structure when other approaches are also good for the children.Vague platitudes that might mean something, but the alternatives are not offered so there's nothing to sink teeth into :(
Bedouin clans? Western dysfunction? Nuclear units? Bamboo units? Hakka my shit up? Hebrew the next brew? Getting agoge goggly? What approaches, because if you offer none I'm gonna be a cuturally enriching fellow and export this shit up the dialogue web fam
Not that I'm a sociologist or whatever.I was reading the other day some woman in the Medieval times of old England complaining about how Roman clerks who'd never slept with a woman in their life should have zero say in how a family should be run
Centuries of work has worked up to the keks I have today
Point being whoever she was she said nothing wrong, I dunno why you'd place your faith in men more concerned with dismantling industrial capitalism than starting functional families
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 01, 2016, 12:05:26 am
The bible tells parents to raise children with love and children to obey parents. I know that people don't always do that, but I can't think of a better upbringing for the children or the parents.Well, problem is, you can love someone and still be a horribly abusive person. Also children are usually cruel, selfish, and impulsive. Like, just naturally. Difficult to make that work with it.
Also, guys? Marriage thing worked because of STDs. It's not even about what it was meant to do; "it's tradition and culture and blah and that's why we put it in our book". The reason it happened to be part of the most successful religion ("Be fruitful and multiply"; infant mortality rates were massive, nobody was concerned with population control in an agricultural society) is because it meant fewer people got gonorrhea and died. Not, none, but fewer. Plus some advantages to do with blahblahblah childrearing it kinda pales in the face of anything that cuts down on disease, which is the biggest cause of mortality for humans in general, back then or now.
Or just a more general fear of the unknown. You at least know how well "traditional" things work, but for all you know changing it could be disastrous. Best to stick with what you know works, even if it's not perfect.
The Devil that you Know...
Being a parent is hard. I kinda hate it when people go 'well you deserve what you get'. From either side. Whether it's 'you got pregnant, woman up and deal with having a kid, abortion is wrong', or 'you had a kid, parent up and deal with the next 18-20 years of expenses and stress'. Especially since if you don't give 'em up for adoption in the first couple months or so, good luck living with the guilt. Oh, and those hormones won't make it easy. So you know, if you fuck up at it, at making sure that your kid grows up to be pretty alright, when you probably had less than great parents because they were dealing with much of the same shit, in a world that's as fucked up as it is - and don't get me wrong, it's a pretty nice place, relative to what it could be and has been, but I hate it for the same reason I hate the idea of 'don't be proud that you aren't [type of bigot]; sure, the default is bigot, but non-bigot is the absolute minimum to be considered a ('decent') human being and thus worthy of respect'. Right. Cuz' it totally isn't difficult or a massive effort at all times or incredibly stressful to constantly second-guess yourself and your own motivations and thoughts when you see someone of a different [X]. And there certainly isn't any feedback mechanism where the worry that comes up there means your mind associates [X] with negative thoughts and feelings, such that you have to work harder and harder just to keep up with 'decent'. No, if you want to be a good person, you need to do that for everything, and then you need to go become an advocate. Like us! Yay us! YayyyyyI do agree that keeping a nuclear family intact in spite of abuse, etc. is a terrible approach, but breaking it up to pre-empt that is also foolish.Didn't say anything about preemptively breaking anything up, heh. Basically just noting that the important part isn't the kids growing up with parents, it's them growing up well with a side of fuck the parents if they get in the way of that, which is incredibly goddamn common in everything I've seen in life. Not a majority, perhaps, but far too damned often.
And to an extent OSG. It is good if the love is good and what they're being asked to obey is as well, and the both of them aren't getting in the way of various other important things. Just seems that in practice christian culture et al is pretty damn bad at actually inculcating that, y'know?
...
I may have gotten off on a tangent. Point was, kids don't grow up well on their own. It takes hard fucking work, and telling anyone who doesn't manage it to go fuck themselves is a shitty thing to do. People are people, even when they suck. That's why you call them terrible human beings. Still human beings, still deserve some modicum of respect.
Though there are people for whom I would feel very satisfied to point out that I'm better at the core tenets of their religion than they are. Which probably means I'm not, after all, but that's why I don't actually point it out.
It takes a village to raise a child. Not two parents, an extended family. If it's just a nuclear family, that's a sign of desperation.Eh. Having two parents (or at least more adults in the house so it's not one parent doing anything) is a positive for everyone. Trying to raise kids on your own, and work for a living is hard. It's hard on the kids too, who don't get as much time with their parent.No, not two adults. Two parents, when it's just two adults that's a sign of desperation, the whole being hard on the kids thing is not an afterthought it is the primary concern - if they grow up useless or kill themselves then there's really no point in the family having ever started in the first place
You need people who care. Guardians/what have you. Yeah, it's nice to have parents. Studies also find that shared environment, aka the way you get parented? Basically no influence on life outcome. At least for twins. Maybe it's different for everyone else, but it's hard to do studies on that when people's genes vary even by that much.
Though really, there's more to being part of a family than having kids. If you're a married couple without kids? You're also a family. If your kids grow up 'useless', but still have a good life? Oh well. I'm sure Van Gogh seemed pretty useless at the time when he was alive too, what with having only sold one painting ever while alive (I'm also aware he didn't have a good life, hush). People are biological machines, but if your primary concern is output, or some arbitrary definition of functional, because it's functioned enough ways by now that what I thought of as it's functional meaning has been made dysfunctional, then Socrates sounds great for you.
I think I may have been too...angry? To be posting here, tonight? I don't know. I didn't think I was angry when I started. I still don't feel angry...Apologies if I offend/insult anyone, or come off too hostilely. I'll try to monitor myself better on this in the future. People have made good points. I probably missed several. Sorry if I missed yours.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 01, 2016, 12:13:21 am
Also, guys? Marriage thing worked because of STDs. ... Plus some advantages to do with blahblahblah childrearing it kinda pales in the face of anything that cuts down on diseaseThat's another benefit. It's not like these things only have one reason.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 01, 2016, 09:40:42 am
I think I may have been too...angry? To be posting here, tonight? I don't know. I didn't think I was angry when I started. I still don't feel angry...Apologies if I offend/insult anyone, or come off too hostilely. I'll try to monitor myself better on this in the future. People have made good points. I probably missed several. Sorry if I missed yours.Nah you're legit calm
Also, guys? Marriage thing worked because of STDs. It's not even about what it was meant to do; "it's tradition and culture and blah and that's why we put it in our book". The reason it happened to be part of the most successful religion ("Be fruitful and multiply"; infant mortality rates were massive, nobody was concerned with population control in an agricultural society) is because it meant fewer people got gonorrhea and died. Not, none, but fewer.I disagree on your STD argument, though there's not much of substance to disagree on. Which is the most successful religion? Also if you read the OT the focus is clearly not on avoiding gonorrhea (though you should you filthy degenerates), but on rearing at least two kids and then raising them well, heck one of the big exceptions I was talking about earlier with concubinage was to do with infertile wives and moral loopholing
Plus some advantages to do with blahblahblah childrearing it kinda pales in the face of anything that cuts down on disease, which is the biggest cause of mortality for humans in general, back then or now.Hahahah, only if you have a death based morality, all the things you blahblahblah over are the most important in all three of the Abrahams
The Devil that you Know...
And anyone who makes deals with the devil they know don't even have the excuse of ignorance to explain their retardation
Being a parent is hard.You can be a parent or take the easy route, die a childless hedonist or else abandon the offspring you have to end your days pleasurable, relaxed in excess wealth. If virtue wasn't hard, then the apathetic would be the paragons of virtue. I do not like people who hold trying to do something as immoral in any regard. It still grated me around 2010 when pretending you cared about nothing and did nothing got back in vogue.
The fuck is this lolSpoiler (click to show/hide)
I may have gotten off on a tangent. Point was, kids don't grow up well on their own. It takes hard fucking work, and telling anyone who doesn't manage it to go fuck themselves is a shitty thing to do. People are people, even when they suck. That's why you call them terrible human beings. Still human beings, still deserve some modicum of respect.Religion is better as trade school than faith school, if you practice their core tenets of their religion well (I won't say better because I don't think it's healthy to have moral highground competitions, in the words of some guy who worked with Jun Seba, "I'm not better than you, I just think different"), then you probably are. Anyone who doesn't manage it because they never even tried have already fucked all those who were dependent upon them and should face the consequences of their wilful failure; failure is rarely a personal thing but for parents this is truer even moreso. No shame in failing, everyone must fail every now and then, but there's shame in not trying because you'd end up fucking kids up with neglect, and you can't unfuck that even if you learn from your mistakes. This shit be important yo
Though there are people for whom I would feel very satisfied to point out that I'm better at the core tenets of their religion than they are. Which probably means I'm not, after all, but that's why I don't actually point it out.
It takes a village to raise a child. Not two parents, an extended family. If it's just a nuclear family, that's a sign of desperation.Lol I doubt you can call it a sign of desperation when it's a product of deliberate social engineering
That's a calculated attempt at creating an easily dividable unit for political and economic exploitation, running off of the bare minimum that should be feasibly possible to run a functional family on
Requoting because very relevant:
Quote
Loyalties are no longer to fathers, uncles, and the other "patriarchs" of the family who once formed a veritable safety net for then eedy of the family: the ill and the infirm, and orphans, and divorcees and their children. Each family unit was hence-forth "on its own," the unit having become the parents, their children and grandchildren, and their fathers and mothers, whenever all these coexisted. It is this unit that reflects the "model family" promoted by the modern state, not only because this is the predominant European model - the exporter of this state - but also because the new "Islamic" nation-state could more easily secure the loyalty of such a nuclear family as the defined and articulated site of the good citizen. The loyalties within clans and tribes, being quasi-political, can hardly be divided. Thus, the modern nation-state, which also was fundamentally engaged in, and intertwined with, the new forms of capitalism and new economic modes of production, had a profound interest in refashioning the modern family into a family that is distinctly nuclear.The West is too aversed to Patriarchal families though so maybe they could be sold a different model? Can't go back to the old agrarian ones, they're too far long gone. The nuclear model would just be back to square one of dysfunction, don't know why American traditionalists look back on a piece of shit with nostalgia but hey, maybe it worked for them. I like the Hakka, Han and Hebrew models (not just because they're H&H&H. Though that does factor :D). In reverse order the Hebrews have very nice legalistic interpretations of marriage as a functional family building (with the linguistic connotations of house building) that grows the family without breaking the clan into smaller clans or requiring all families to live under one roof and one patriarch, with the sons and daughters moving out of their parents' abode whilst still remaining in their parents' families (leaving a respectful distance between married couples and their in-laws). Also funny stuff like giving engaged men exemption from the military whilst they set up their family, countries with the draft really should consider that, funny as it is it is notable what WWI and WWII did to Europe. Also to quote the Jewish library:
An Introduction to Islamic Law, by Wael B. Hallaq
Quote
Perhaps in nothing was the strength of the family bond more seen than in the paradox that whereas in theory divorce among Jews is the easiest of all processes, in practice it was, until recent times, a comparative and even absolute rarity. The powerful bond which united parents and children in one bond with mutual responsibilities and mutual consideration made it a bulwark of Judaism able to withstand all stresses from without and from within.Where mutual responsibilities and mutual consideration cement families in foundations incredibly hard to break, whilst with Western families of disloyalty and self-serving units have divorce rates of 1/2 and kids who grow up retarded with blue hair, no roots and no value. Han family units rather specially worked in cyclical fashions. You started off with something that resembles a nuclear family, with a patriarch, wife and kids - but once the sons grow up, even after marrying they were subservient to the family's patriarch. Upon death of the patriarch the land would be split between them and their families and the nuclear stem would all branch off and start again, with the obvious problem being inter-familial rivalries could and would get intense with sons chafing under the absolute authority of their fathers vs their filial duties and obligations, and Freud would probably get a boner reading how many times mothers and daughters in law competed over the loyalty of their sons and husbands. The great benefit is everyone is fervently loyal to one another and the ties can create networks of supporting families all a part of one greater family, once or if you get past the stifling social control which can go to harmful extremes rather quickly (I do recall the anecdote where some bloke actually went to his job interview with his mother talking for him). The Hakka one is very similar to the Hebrew and Han ones with patrilinieal family units making up segments of a larger family unit, alongside the same expectations of filial duty and so on. The big difference would probably be in how they deal with social advancement, labour and the sexes, with the Hakka notably having not practiced footbinding because it would've rendered their women incapable of working in the fields, being one of the few family units that did not see domestic affairs as such a vast sphere of labour that it required making women useless elsewhere. Instead of a rigid hierarchy, it's more dynamic, changing as people are born and die; for example a family of one father, mother, two sons and three daughters may have the mother managing the properties the father earns, but if the father dies then the sons would quit education to support their sisters' education so they could advance themselves e.t.c.
And that's not a rule mind you, just an expression of the family coherence and mutual support which is pretty damn neat
You need people who care. Guardians/what have you. Yeah, it's nice to have parents. Studies also find that shared environment, aka the way you get parented? Basically no influence on life outcome. At least for twins. Maybe it's different for everyone else, but it's hard to do studies on that when people's genes vary even by that much.Studies have also shown my lovemaking skills to be supreme in the universe towards achieving the best outcome
Shared environment is not even the way you get parented, and the way children are parented is fundamental to how they develop as adults. This flies in the way against all the scientific models we have constructed and I have not yet seen evidence to the contrary.
Quote
There have been some studies related to the researchers work on parenting and self-esteem. In a recent work done by Hetherington (2003), children in divorced and remarried families show an increased risk for internalizing problems, including higher levels of depression and anxiety, and lower levels of self-esteem compared to children in nondivorced families.The effects on self-esteem are even affected by the power dynamics of the family unit (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151006131942.htm), with the dominant parents having more importance towards the self-esteem of the children. Social development. (http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/sites/default/files/textes-experts/en/654/parenting-styles-and-child-social-development.pdf) Language acquisition. (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjI7ZfnzO3LAhVBWxQKHUt3BOAQFgghMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.literacytrust.org.uk%2Fassets%2F0001%2F3375%2FHamer_NCT_research_overview_Parent_child_communication_p15-20_Mar12.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFpbdV1u7MH39DEUSfYX075xVU-Lw&sig2=zU0J5y9zLVIAIDA0N92kXA&bvm=bv.118443451,d.ZWU) Mental health - how you are raised will most certainly determine your adult behaviour:
A study by Elfhag, Tynelius and Rasmussen et al. (2010) also found out that children have lower self-esteem living with a single parent than those raised by two parents. In 1991 Amato and Keith examined the 92 studies involving 13,000 children ranging from preschool to young adulthood and the overall result of this analysis was that children from divorced families are on "average" somewhat worse off than children who have lived in intact families. These children have more difficulty in school, more behavior problems, more negative self-concepts, more problems with peers, and more trouble getting along with their parents. A more recent update of the findings indicates that this pattern continues in more recent research (Amato, 2001). Naderi et.al (2009) who studied the relationship between achievement of motivation, self-esteem and gender among high school of students found that there is significant relationship between self-esteem and gender. It was found out that male adolescents had higher self-esteem than female adolescents.
Mruk in 1995 also found that children with parents who are absent frequently or for long periods of time display lower levels of self-esteem. Krider (2002) found out that two (2)- three (3) years after the divorce, children were two (2) to four (4) times more likely to be seriously disturbed emotionally and behaviorally than children of intact families. In another study, it was found out that two years after the divorce, children displayed lower levels of social and peer functioning as well as lower self-esteem than they did immediately following the divorce (Krider 2002).
The Effects of Parenting on the Self-Esteem of Adolescents: A study
at Labadi Presbyterian Secondary School (Ghana), Literature Review (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjv6dPiyu3LAhVMOhQKHSCSCQwQFgghMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iiste.org%2FJournals%2Findex.php%2FRHSS%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F3784%2F3833&usg=AFQjCNEgm05z12pB-NtJy2ZXnZjb2hDR1A&sig2=lFEv5GuGf2FIlxzbPwrJYg&bvm=bv.118443451,d.ZWU&cad=rja)
Quote
Parenting stylesAnd for that matter, physical health. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2531152/) Fucking hell, Freud's whole entire work basis is that childhood traumas internalize an form as adult psychoses.
The dominant model in research on parent–child relationships is most loosely associated with the early work of Diana Baumrind in the 1960s (e.g. Baumrind, 1991) and has been elaborated on by several subsequent teams of investigators (Maccoby and Martin, 1983; Steinberg et al., 1994b; Hetherington et al., 1999). Baumrind, in her naturalistic study of interactions between parents and young children, described important dimensions of parenting. These were warmth (as opposed to conflict or neglect) and control strategies. Parenting typologies were, thus, constructed from a cross of warmth, conflict and control: ‘authoritative’ (high warmth, positive/assertive control and in adolescence high expectations), ‘authoritarian’ (low warmth, high conflict and coercive, punitive control attempts), ‘permissive’ (high warmth coupled with low control attempts) and ‘neglectful/disengaged’ (low warmth and low control).
These four typologies have been repeatedly associated with child outcomes. Children and adolescents of authoritative parents are consistently described as most prosocial, academically and socially competent, and least symptomatic. Children whose parents are described as authoritarian, permissive and disengaged show significantly worse outcomes, with children of authoritarian parents showing typically the most disturbed adjustment of the four parenting types
Kings College London, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiLyb-Sze3LAhWLOxQKHZDeDdIQFggvMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrf.org.uk%2Fsites%2Ffiles%2Fjrf%2Fparenting-outcomes.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEer3ztVmwXXaciKi-YdDXl03O9jA&sig2=429zNW10sWAh4YirpODhUA&bvm=bv.118443451,d.ZWU)
I really hope Western academia has not got us to the point where people are advocating for neglectful parenting because no one wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore and have finally found the dubious justification needed to
Are we really at the point where we reject nature and nurture and leave in its blank void an empty pit of disregard
Because that is a sad thing
Though really, there's more to being part of a family than having kids. If you're a married couple without kids? You're also a family.Of course there is more, but there's more to family than being a mere partnership. Family is not some innate good, it is a structure from which everyone can support each other and continue the family.
If your kids grow up 'useless', but still have a good life? Oh well. I'm sure Van Gogh seemed pretty useless at the time when he was alive too, what with having only sold one painting ever while alive (I'm also aware he didn't have a good life, hush). People are biological machines, but if your primary concern is output, or some arbitrary definition of functional, because it's functioned enough ways by now that what I thought of as it's functional meaning has been made dysfunctional, then Socrates sounds great for you.How can they live a good life whilst useless? What irresponsible parent expects a useless child to grow to be a happy adult? How on earth will they ever start a family of their own?
And do not confuse commercial success with being utterly useless, lest we define the Kardashians as the pinnacle of without uselessness (I am translating from a foreign concept into English, being without uselessness is the closest translation, with additional connotations of purpose as in "what's the use" sort of use, in addition to having ability). For example Vincent Van Gogh was a very successful art trader and made a conscious choice to abandon commercial success in the pursuit of his own artistic endeavours - resentful of how art was treated as a commodity, even though he was making more money than his father. His contraction of gonorrhea, syphilis, smoking, his cold childhood, his quarreling with his father, his rejection by his cousin, his developing alcoholism, his self harming and mutilation leading to his eventual death by suicide. A lot of wasted potential, wasted, dying alone in melancholy with no friends or family by his side, at death or before it. He is not a model to be followed, but one to be remembered.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 01, 2016, 09:43:53 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 01, 2016, 09:55:19 am
holy wall of text batman.Wall strong make good argument like well-raised infant
Tbh I think it's like natural selection when degenerates start bugchasing, there is a selection pressure against themAlso, guys? Marriage thing worked because of STDs. ... Plus some advantages to do with blahblahblah childrearing it kinda pales in the face of anything that cuts down on diseaseThat's another benefit. It's not like these things only have one reason.
Post by: TempAcc on April 01, 2016, 10:22:11 am
Granted, in that specific case, it didn't result in neglect, but you get my point.
Post by: Frumple on April 01, 2016, 10:57:02 am
Frankly, the concept is kinda' bullshit on the face of it. It's far from a perfect metric, but spending on kids has been skyrocketing over the years, not going down, or being allocated more towards parents' amusements. That trend of "neglect" is a trend of massively increased material investment, and even bloody better is that a lot of the newer generations are specifically looking for jobs and whatnot they can work around to take care of kids and family. Trend you're talkin' about ain't happenin' to any degree worth noting, daily mail is again bullshit of the highest degree.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 01, 2016, 12:00:24 pm
... weird to say that's a trend when just about everything I've personally seen shows pretty much the exact opposite. I hear (and see) a lot more these days about parents giving a shit about their kids than I do from talking to older generations, where beating the shit out of your kid and/or kicking them out of the house at 18 (or younger) with no fucking support was common enough most folks in my area, at the very least, didn't look at it much in askance. Also plenty of lovely tales of kids barely seeing or interacting their parents, because one was away from the house almost always and the other was swamped trying to take care of 4+ children. And so on, and so forth.Are we going to use personal anecdotes now? Come now Frumple, there is little use in this, lest you be interested in hearing my personal anecdotes of modern Western family units failing whilst those around the world enjoy some more successes. What you see or hear is what you sea or hear, and I am interested in how you divide the unit structure based off of generation. What unit are you ascribing to older generations and newer generations?
Frankly, the concept is kinda' bullshit on the face of it. It's far from a perfect metric, but spending on kids has been skyrocketing over the years, not going down, or being allocated more towards parents' amusements. That trend of "neglect" is a trend of massively increased material investment, and even bloody better is that a lot of the newer generations are specifically looking for jobs and whatnot they can work around to take care of kids and family. Trend you're talkin' about ain't happenin' to any degree worth noting, daily mail is again bullshit of the highest degree.What are your numbers? Are you judging this by spending to justify expenses as a viable replacement for parenting? Do you believe that rising costs and fewer children is significant of parents increasingly concerned with the welfare of their children? Do you deny that the breakup of already broken family models is not significant of dysfunction, and that the ever increasing divorce rates to 40-50%? Good signs? What of suicide rates amongst the young rising to levels unprecedented, in the UK alone it is the leading cause of death amongst young men and:
Quote
Community-Based Epidemiologic StudiesNot even going into the increased diagnoses of mental illnesses amongst children.
Few population-based, longitudinal studies have examined family and peer risk factors associated with suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts among adolescents. As such, findings from the longitudinal birth cohort study of children born in New Zealand (Christchurch Health and Development Study; CHDS) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (ADD Health) in the United States are of substantial importance.
Using CHDS data spanning a 21-year period, Fergusson, Woodward, & Horwood (2000) examined relationships between childhood circumstances (social background, family functioning, parental and child adjustment), mental health and stressful life events, and suicidal ideation and behavior in adolescence and young adulthood (15–21 years). Their analyses were based on 965 CHDS participants with data about suicidal ideation and behavior. They found that childhood sexual abuse, poor parent-child attachment, and problems of parental adjustment were associated with suicide attempts. However, several of these variables (e.g., parent-child attachment, childhood sexual abuse) did not predict suicidal behavior after adolescent stressful life events and mental health were included in models. The researchers suggest that the effects of these childhood variables were largely mediated by later occurring mental health problems and exposure to stressful life events.
Although more regional or selected in terms of sample representativeness, several other longitudinal, community-based studies have examined relations between adolescent suicidality and variables such as family support, peer support, and social integration. McKeown et al. (1998), for example, examined predictors of suicidal behaviors and 1-year transition probabilities for movement across suicidal behavior categories (attempt, plan, ideation, none) in a sample of 247 adolescents in southeastern United States. They found a negative association between family cohesion and suicide attempts. They also found that decreasing family cohesion was associated with risk for more severe suicidal behavior.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989173/
Speaking from personal observation of London's Western parents, in contrast to the Ashkenazi Jewish/East Asian/South Asian/Nigerian/BritChrist parents, where the wealthy Westerners have fewer children capable of supporting each other (I still wonder what it is like for an only child to have grown up alone, with absent parents and no siblings, can't be healthy yet that is common for Westerners), their adults in the majority choose to take pleasure in self-gratification over responsibility and work (because it is hard) and seem to think that spending money on children is a substitute for parenting. Given that the Westerners of London are a cosmopolitan bunch from everywhere across the Western world, I am inclined to think they are bringing a piece of their home values here and demonstrating what is valued - the unit of self is of prime importance. Isabella Dutton is not the only person I've seen calling children parasites, from personal experience. If it's not outright antagonism or immaturity towards having children, then it's apathy and procrastination.
Quote
"For as long as I can remember, I have wanted to have kids. But in my younger years, I foolishly assumed that unlike certain accomplishments like a career, the marriage and kids thing would just happen.
"Well, they didn't. I dated plenty of people but never even thought about making family a priority. Then, in my late 30s, a bout with ovarian cancer left me permanently infertile.
"I think about the kids I never had every day, several times a day. I have a great relationship with my nieces and nephews, and volunteer at a children's hospital on a regular basis, but it's just not the same to be around other people's kids. I would love to adopt or be a foster mother, and hopefully be in a financial and domestic situation that would make this feasible one day.
"But again, not the same. And it pisses me off when people say, "You're lucky you don't have kids, they're so much work, blah blah blah." Yes, but a lot of things in life that are worthwhile are also so much work.
"I think the mothering instinct is so strong in some women that the knowledge that one will never get a chance to give birth and raise their own child goes beyond regret. One that a bar chart cannot capture. I can deal with most of my other regrets in life but am having a hard time dealing with this one." —Caroline Zelonka
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/what-are-your-greatest-regrets-survey-unearths-heartbreaking-answers-a6797301.html
Quote
Also, guys? Marriage thing worked because of STDs. ... Plus some advantages to do with blahblahblah childrearing it kinda pales in the face of anything that cuts down on disease
Quote
"But again, not the same. And it pisses me off when people say, "You're lucky you don't have kids, they're so much work, blah blah blah." Yes, but a lot of things in life that are worthwhile are also so much work.See, this attitude that child rearing is just blahblahblah is not uncommon, and that the only thing one should fear are facing personal consequences is even moreso. Consider that despite several thousand years of practice and received wisdom and the last two hundred years of scientific endeavour determining the importance of good parenting, people maintain that parenting has no bearing on the outcomes of children.
One only has to look at Germany, specifically West Germany, where their broken units grew to be very commercially successful and accomplished, childless individuals. I'm sure they enjoyed their success well, lived happy, pleasurable lives, coasting off of the casual sex and short partnerships of the sexual revolution, and now their time is up and what do they leave in their wake?
Who do they leave in their wake?
Post by: Graknorke on April 01, 2016, 12:46:33 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 01, 2016, 01:37:20 pm
If the only thing you can hope to contribute to the world is your genetics that's pretty fucking sad m8.Lol who said fuck all about genetics, we're talking about kids
Post by: Graknorke on April 01, 2016, 02:10:48 pm
One only has to look at Germany, specifically West Germany, where their broken units grew to be very commercially successful and accomplished, childless individuals. I'm sure they enjoyed their success well, lived happy, pleasurable lives, coasting off of the casual sex and short partnerships of the sexual revolution, and now their time is up and what do they leave in their wake?in any way that isn't trying to imply the value of children as a legacy.
Who do they leave in their wake?
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 01, 2016, 03:21:09 pm
I cannot read:By that metric then you can deposit your wank at a sperm bank, sire several dozen genetic offspring and content yourself with the knowledge that you can indulge yourself in all the self-gratification you want because you've done your part lolOne only has to look at Germany, specifically West Germany, where their broken units grew to be very commercially successful and accomplished, childless individuals. I'm sure they enjoyed their success well, lived happy, pleasurable lives, coasting off of the casual sex and short partnerships of the sexual revolution, and now their time is up and what do they leave in their wake?in any way that isn't trying to imply the value of children as a legacy.
Who do they leave in their wake?
Gotta get that genetic legacy ayyyyyyy
*EDIT
Genghis Khan confirmed for most moral man in existence
- Sired countless numbers of the world's ancestors
- Strong independent Mongol that did what he wanted
- Knew how to have a good time
Post by: Rolan7 on April 01, 2016, 04:16:36 pm
Also where did morality come into it
Personally I plan to adopt someday and raise a child or two, or maybe a lot depending on how my life goes...
And I might also donate DNA but I'm not as sure about that. I might do it just to make my dad feel better, honestly. And other elderly family members... That or help my brother raise a family. I might breed directly but I doubt it.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 01, 2016, 04:21:41 pm
Immensely irresponsible, but hilarious
HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN
Also how the hell do you people equate children with genetic material
Wtf m8s
Post by: Rolan7 on April 01, 2016, 04:37:26 pm
Tbh I know I was ironically Genghis Khanning but that system of morality actually sounds hilariousHeh yeah it could be considered a moral system I guess. Pretty much any code can be, I think, if you attach enough importance to it?
Immensely irresponsible, but hilarious
HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN
Also how the hell do you people equate children with genetic materialEr
Wtf m8s
I mean I'm obviously aware that adoption is a thing and it's pretty cool, it's just... uncommon? At least in my family, both branches. I only know of exactly one adopted relative, it was kinda a big deal.
Maybe my situation's a bit unusual though... My paternal line has been shrinking, so the elders are obsessed with my brother and I continuing the line. We were pretty specifically taught that blood ties were a huge deal and that we needed to make more. I kinda resent it, but I don't think it's *that* unusual?
Post by: Teneb on April 01, 2016, 04:44:08 pm
Maybe my situation's a bit unusual though... My paternal line has been shrinking, so the elders are obsessed with my brother and I continuing the line. We were pretty specifically taught that blood ties were a huge deal and that we needed to make more. I kinda resent it, but I don't think it's *that* unusual?I think it's unusual, but that may be because I have so many cousins I have no idea how many (I swear, every year I learn of more), even though basically none of them share a last name with myself.
Anyway, Genghis Khan is totally the greatest bastion of morality there is or ever was.
Post by: TempAcc on April 01, 2016, 04:47:47 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Now, I'm not saying there's anything terribly morally wrong with any of this (after all this is one of the ways society changes, and change is good in the long run, maybe?), but this has been going on for quite a while now, and any old timey people who lives in france/germany/italy/england has prob noticed that the world they knew just kinda went mostly poof in the last 2 generations.
Anyway, here's a jesus thing:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 01, 2016, 05:09:29 pm
Maybe my situation's a bit unusual though... My paternal line has been shrinking, so the elders are obsessed with my brother and I continuing the line. We were pretty specifically taught that blood ties were a huge deal and that we needed to make more. I kinda resent it, but I don't think it's *that* unusual?My parents/relatives do the same to me, seeing as I'm the only one who'll retain the name. Which is doubly strange, because I was adopted. RIP genetic heritage.
in any way that isn't trying to imply the value of children as a legacy.No, he's talking about the decline of structured families and the implications thereof.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 01, 2016, 05:37:10 pm
Spoiler: TLDRRRRRRRRRRRR to Rolan7 (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: TLDRRRRRRRRRRRR to TempAcc (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: TSDR to OW (click to show/hide)
No, he's talking about the decline of structured families and the implications thereof.That's actually a great summary
Though I wouldn't say structured families as I'm pretty certain the majority of the world population has structured families, it's just the West that hates them and pretends it has no effect
Anyway, Genghis Khan is totally the greatest bastion of morality there is or ever was.I love his morality
Do an immoral thing on a scale so impressive, the negative morality overflow breaks and it becomes moral as fuck
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 02, 2016, 07:04:30 pm
I think have a legacy like his wouldn't be too bad.
Post by: TD1 on April 08, 2016, 11:44:04 pm
Sort of a rambling thought thing I had at quarter to six in the morning.
Post by: Putnam on April 09, 2016, 01:17:25 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 09, 2016, 01:44:18 am
Post by: Putnam on April 09, 2016, 01:47:33 am
Post by: TD1 on April 09, 2016, 08:59:42 am
It's just that we don't believe them, whereas the Bible is the font of all truth.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 09, 2016, 10:16:48 am
Post by: TD1 on April 09, 2016, 12:21:31 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 09, 2016, 12:23:13 pm
He. Brought. A. Person. Back. To. Life.Yes? EMTs do that too.
Post by: TD1 on April 09, 2016, 12:27:26 pm
I don't think that's how EMTs do it, haha.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 09, 2016, 12:34:07 pm
Post by: Descan on April 09, 2016, 01:10:29 pm
esp. because god, being god, was just as much in charge of the bad thing happening as the good
*your parents cancer goes into remission* "praise jesus!"
is just as valid as
*thousands die to a tsunami* "praise jesus!"
Post by: TD1 on April 09, 2016, 01:11:55 pm
Post by: Arx on April 09, 2016, 01:12:47 pm
It's basically like a corporate meeting. A giant corporate meeting with a couple hundred people. Also, you don't get paid to be there. Also, because (this is cultural, not a racist remark) Black churches are very big on ceremony and talking about things, every item on the agenda is dragged out way longer than necessary.
Oh, and you're not all from the same part of the company, and different parts can operate almost completely differently. Some of them don't even know other parts of the company exist.
It's also possibly surprisingly, possibly unsurprisingly, extremely political. In this case, the major point of contention was the Wesley Guild (a youth organisation) vs. the world. This included the chairman (the presiding bishop) having to shut down ad hominems more than once, and telling people they had to step very carefully because they were way out of line.
And of course, because this is church politics, the motion being debated is actually fundamentally pointless. It's half a duplicate of a previous motion, and half the type of resolution that never goes anywhere anyway. As it happened, we had 21-26-50some for-against-abstain, so nothing happened anyway.
Essentially the only really important things that happen are all the reports of district-level organisations and 'departments', like children's ministry and suchlike. This is one of the ways we check that embezzlement isn't totally rampant, or at least make sure that you actually have to put a bit of effort into it to get away with it. There are also elections for the commitees and for the delegates to the connexion conference (like the District Synod, except covering several countries) and the District Synod (which is like the Youth Synod but not Youth).
The whole thing took about thirteen hours. It could probably have been done in two or three. It's great.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 09, 2016, 01:16:38 pm
Post by: Descan on April 09, 2016, 01:18:23 pm
Post by: Arx on April 09, 2016, 01:58:12 pm
IIRC Methodist.
You do RC.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on April 09, 2016, 04:44:38 pm
(what religion am I? To quote the cliche, "it's complicated." Catholic, but more a homebrew than most people's religions, and pretty agnostic at times.)
Post by: Teneb on April 09, 2016, 05:28:55 pm
(what religion am I? To quote the cliche, "it's complicated." Catholic, but more a homebrew than most people's religions, and pretty agnostic at times.)Wouldn't that just make you Christian, rather than Catholic? Because what I snipped is literally heresy, ya heretic.
Post by: TD1 on April 09, 2016, 05:29:40 pm
Post by: Teneb on April 09, 2016, 05:32:59 pm
Suppose it depends on how much he trusts the popeI guess he could do like the Franciscan order and be sort-of-a-heresy-but-officially-not.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 09, 2016, 05:47:13 pm
Context, he's uh... vaguely Christian, I think (he's very private about it), and I'm atheist. We'd spent some time just admiring the architecture and the beautiful stained glass, whispering about the depicted stories. In other words we were very respectful and quiet, this wasn't any sort of mocking thing. I think it was more like observing and enjoying the customs of a foreign nation. Like kissing a Blarney stone, or sitting on the floor at an authentic Japanese restaurant.
I will say that I felt at ease, and in awe. Catholic church architecture is beautiful, and I loved the depictions of Bible stories in amazing stained glass. Also apparently it's the largest freestanding stonework dome in all of North America O_O
And the holy water barely burned at all, more like a subtle itch :P
Post by: Teneb on April 09, 2016, 05:56:49 pm
Bit of an honest question... My dad and I visited a Roman Catholic Basilica (of St. Lawrence) when he visited, and he cross'd my forehead with the holy water before we left. Is that... bad? Did it mean anything in particular?Doing that is pretty normal, as long as you did not feel offended (since you are atheist and all).
But the true question is: did he cross it left-to-right, or right-to-left? /s
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 09, 2016, 06:10:21 pm
Post by: TempAcc on April 09, 2016, 06:14:57 pm
Its a pretty great book if you want to know about Paul of Tarsus (easily the most interesting apostle due to the fact he was a strong persecutor of christians and never actualy knew christ in person, but ended up being the main reason to why it spread so far and strongly in the west).
As a philosopher, wether or not anyone agrees with his views (specially on religion), its pretty unquestionable that Rohden was clearly ahead of his time.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 09, 2016, 07:18:45 pm
It's basically like a corporate meeting. A giant corporate meeting with a couple hundred people.Oh yeah, I went to a RCNZ synod a year or so ago. It was basically like that. Admittedly the chair was trying to push things along, but this one guy was intent on dragging it out. It was pretty funny, he even yelled "nay" (to make up for lack of numbers) when the chair asked for a yea or nay on skipping over his objections entirely. The yeas won.
Honestly the best thing about it was how good-natured everyone was. Sure, they disagreed, and in some cases like with that one guy it almost got heated, but afterwards they'd go back to cracking jokes and ribbing off one another.
Also, it wasn't just 13 hours. It was more like 13 hours a day for over a week.
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 09, 2016, 10:49:26 pm
Well, they do probably happen all around us, but people just explain away like it was a conspiracy, or they just don't believe them, or they don't care enough to look for them.Occam's Razor, man. Much easier explanation than all the baggage that comes with 'it was God, and specifically the Abrahamic God, and not any other God, and specifically this one interpretation of the Abrahamic God, and also Mohammed was a liar, but Jesus wasn't, and..."
Saying 'you're all just conspiracy theorists' when someone says 'that probably didn't happen (that way)' is...an interesting approach. It requires Faith because it can't be proven. But before it was believed it couldn't be proven, people came up with a lot of things they believed to be proofs. I don't really care if God is real or not, because it makes no difference to my behavior. *shrug*
Post by: martinuzz on April 11, 2016, 03:18:13 am
In 1543 Luther called upon his followers to 'set fire to synagogues', and he even wrote a tractate on 'the Jews and their Lies'.
"Jews are nothing but thieves and robbers, and there isn't a crumb of their daily food, or a thread in their clothing that they did not steal from us through their accursed usury", he wrote.
Last june, the orthodox rabbi Raphael Gevers, the liberal rabbi Menno ten Brink and the Center for Information and Documentation Israel (CiDi) joined forces to ask the protestant church to publicly distance themselves from their founder's hurtful remarks.
In 2017 there will be a celebration held for the 500 year anniversary of the Reformation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation), and according to them, it would be good if the protestant church would distance themselves before that event. So now, that has happened.
Rabbi Evers responded in the Trouw newspaper, saying this is a clear, self-critical analysis. CiDi called it 'a step in the right direction'. Muller said the PKN needs to keep ensuring that Luther's antisemitism has no place in their church.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 11, 2016, 03:34:30 am
In 1543 Luther called upon his followers to 'set fire to synagogues', and he even wrote a tractate on 'the Jews and their Lies'.I can't imagine any mainstream churches would agree with Luther on this. Obviously there'll be some ultra-right-wing arseholes but no-one cares about them. "Publicly distancing" from the statements is essentially pointless, he's remembered for being an important reformer of the church, not for being a perfect person.
"Jews are nothing but thieves and robbers, and there isn't a crumb of their daily food, or a thread in their clothing that they did not steal from us through their accursed usury", he wrote.
Muller said the PKN needs to keep ensuring that Luther's antisemitism has no place in their church."Keep ensuring"? What, are protestants going to turn into antisemites if we don't keep rooting it out?
I dunno, this guy just sounds like he's trying to get offended by irrelevant nonsense.
Post by: Frumple on April 11, 2016, 09:55:18 am
Post by: Antioch on April 11, 2016, 10:11:51 am
I don't believe in physical miracles. Period. I have actually found ways to explain the Resurrection without physical miracles. (Basically, I think if anybody "saw" Jesus after his death, it was God-induced hallucination. It's not like such a thing hasn't been written about (albeit by crazies) today.) Anything special about the Resurrection (geez how could I write that phrase) came from a combination of spiritual stuff, figurative stuff, and basically showing people "this is what to do."
(what religion am I? To quote the cliche, "it's complicated." Catholic, but more a homebrew than most people's religions, and pretty agnostic at times.)
Plottwist: What if Jesus had a twin brother.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 11, 2016, 10:13:29 am
Post by: Frumple on April 11, 2016, 10:19:14 am
Bringing back someone that's been dead for a while is somewhat less possible, to state it mildly.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 11, 2016, 10:32:05 am
Post by: Egan_BW on April 11, 2016, 11:17:39 am
Of course, assuming that god didn't have the power to raise the dead, but wanted to appear to be able to.
Post by: TD1 on April 11, 2016, 01:05:33 pm
I don't believe in physical miracles. Period. I have actually found ways to explain the Resurrection without physical miracles. (Basically, I think if anybody "saw" Jesus after his death, it was God-induced hallucination. It's not like such a thing hasn't been written about (albeit by crazies) today.) Anything special about the Resurrection (geez how could I write that phrase) came from a combination of spiritual stuff, figurative stuff, and basically showing people "this is what to do."
(what religion am I? To quote the cliche, "it's complicated." Catholic, but more a homebrew than most people's religions, and pretty agnostic at times.)
Plottwist: What if Jesus had a twin brother.
I think there was some talk of a brother, James. Josephus wrote about him before some Gospels did.
Post by: i2amroy on April 11, 2016, 01:50:04 pm
What about everybody else? The ones who didn't see Jesus alive, but knew that his body had mysteriously disappeared. That was pretty much all of Jerusalem.Do you have a reference for this? I always thought it was the case where a small group of people found out that the body was gone first (the bible is pretty straightforwards about the idea that a group of women found out first, though the four different accounts vary in terms of how many women and why they were going there) and then the knowledge spread quickly throughout by basic word of mouth, not that there was some sort of superhuman revelation to all of Jerusalem where they all suddenly knew the body was gone.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 11, 2016, 03:44:22 pm
"So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) 10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying."
Every time he says "the other disciple" that is actually John talking about himself in third person. It makes this story a bit more entertaining if you know that. :P
Of course, there are the roman guardsmen themselves:
"And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.' 14"And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble."
(by the way, if the guards actually fell asleep, or were defeated by a couple of fishermen and an accountant, they probably would have killed themselves.)
Post by: Descan on April 11, 2016, 04:01:21 pm
They'd get fired or maybe executed for failure, but wouldn't kill themselves :P
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 11, 2016, 04:23:28 pm
I don't think Roman guards in some backwater province were... well, fanatic Japanese samurai.fair enough, but you get the point.
They'd get fired or maybe executed for failure, but wouldn't kill themselves :P
Post by: Teneb on April 11, 2016, 04:30:06 pm
I don't think Roman guards in some backwater province were... well, fanatic Japanese samurai.More likely they would be decimated, which is in a way even worse. (Just in case someone doesn't know, decimation involves separating those to be punished in groups of ten and then singling out one of them. The other nine had to beat that one to death.)
They'd get fired or maybe executed for failure, but wouldn't kill themselves :P
Post by: TD1 on April 11, 2016, 04:43:43 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on April 11, 2016, 04:52:25 pm
Mary Mandolin
I believe you mean Mary Magdalene.
Also, you're right, it does seem kind of weird that God would "hallucinate" (read induce hallucination) in a bunch of people rather than just DO TEH THING.
I consider myself Catholic... well, because my parents are. And I consider "heresy" more like "modding." I don't much like vanilla. Especially with its homophobia and anti-woman sentiments.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 11, 2016, 04:52:57 pm
Like, the argument seems to be "This is unlikely to have happened by mundane means, so I think it's more likely that the creator of the universe personally intervened here." I just don't get that logical jump. It's a big world with a lot of people - unlikely things happen every day.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on April 11, 2016, 04:58:29 pm
It's rather similar to the Anthropic Principle, noted for being hated by Creationists all over the world. Or the flat one, depending on their flavor.
Post by: TD1 on April 11, 2016, 05:02:34 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 11, 2016, 05:19:05 pm
Hmm, but as a folk-wisdom-saying has it, "big things have to start somewhere." Sure, it's unlikely that any given religion will turn into a world-spanning one, but... out of the thousands, since we are seeing a world-spanning religion, one had to be the one.Eh? We've got like... what, five or six world spanning religions, at least? The abrahamic three's spread around (and the big two of them are both notable in being fractured all to hell, heh), hinduism and buddhism's all over the place, more I'm forgetting. And there's enclaves of dozens more spread out all over the planet, just without a comparable bulk of population behind them. Takes a lot more than being world spanning to be the one, ha. Plenty religions have managed that, at this point. It's been a long time since that took much effort, and christianity certainly didn't manage it much earlier than anyone else did.
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 11, 2016, 09:45:28 pm
I don't think Roman guards in some backwater province were... well, fanatic Japanese samurai.Nah, Rome was big on honor. They'd probably be ordered to fall on their swords, if nothing else. They might even do it voluntarily, if they were of fairly high-up families. Or do some other penance to the state, since if they were high-up, they could probably get out of death punishments.
They'd get fired or maybe executed for failure, but wouldn't kill themselves :P
Post by: Reelya on April 12, 2016, 02:58:34 am
Still, even if someone had to screw up pretty badly for this to happen without divine intervention... so? Even if you think Christianity started without any acts of God, it's obvious that some very uncommon things happened around that time. World-spanning religions don't get started very often.
What happened was The Roman Empire. You had the empire securing trade routes, growing urban centers which were now connected, and many, many, small localized religions. As the idea of a unified "empire" solidified and different cultures mingled, the pre-existing "tribal" gods gave way to the idea of universal God(s). So there was a celestial power-vacuum.
Basically, having the Empire meant the time was ripe for a trendy new religion to spread like wildfire. A slightly exotic origin probably helped. Mithraism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism) had a similar trajectory around the same time, but lost out to Christianity.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 12, 2016, 03:11:35 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 12, 2016, 03:41:54 am
This is also what makes new religious movements so interesting, since it is only with the modern era that they started arising as a third category, essentially through all the mechanisms we think of as cult behavior.
Post by: Reelya on April 12, 2016, 04:04:08 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Dissenter
Quote
The Adamites took their name and practises from a North African Christian sect that first existed between the 2nd and 4th centuries. The Adamites that emerged in the 17th century held similar beliefs, believing that they existed in a state of grace, claiming to have regained the innocence that Adam and Eve possessed prior to the Fall.
The Adamites were said to have associated with each other in the nude, professing that a person could reattain the innocence and purity held by Adam through being unburdened by clothing.
Quote
The Familia Caritatis ("Family of Love", or the "Familists"), were a religious sect that began in continental Europe in the 16th century. Members of this religious group were devout followers of a Dutch mystic named Hendrik Niclaes. The Familists believed that Niclaes was the only person who truly knew how to achieve a state of perfection, and his texts attracted followers in Germany, France, and England.
The Familists were extremely secretive and wary of outsiders. For example, they wished death upon those outside of the Family of Love, and re-marriage after the death of a spouse could only take place between men and women of the same Familist congregation. Additionally, they would not discuss their ideas and opinions with outsiders and sought to remain undetected by ordinary members of society: they tended to be members of an established church so as not to attract suspicion and showed respect for authority.
Post by: Frumple on April 14, 2016, 09:24:59 am
One, over half a billion christians have been martyred since 0 CE. Apparently the worldwide christian murder rate has managed to average around 250k a year since the founding of the initial cults. No citations were given, of course, and the numbers were explicitly said to be possibly erroneous, but the preacherperson assured the people they were talking to that those numbers were "well studied", and some other platitudes. They apparently had graphs! They brought graphs to a sermon. TV sermon, but... still.
Some cursory googling did... not seem to really identify whose ass the guy was pulling that from. Would anyone happen to be able to explain that claim?
Two, christians in america will have their things stolen from them and will be beaten and murdered en masse within our lifetime. Not entirely sure what basis the critter had for saying it, because good gods did I not listen long past that point (and had other things to do regardless, but anyway), but... yeah. For those of you actively churching, is this a common message for y'all or is it just the south-east chunk of the US?
Post by: Telgin on April 14, 2016, 09:48:26 am
He also thinks that the pope is going to soon start spreading Islam because he's buddy-buddy with Obama who is a Muslim, who will instate Islamic law nationwide soon. That's the main reason he thinks Christians are going to start being murdered in the streets if they don't give up their beliefs and swear allegiance to Islam and Allah. I think.
If it's like that elsewhere in the country I don't know. I imagine that a lot of Christians across the nation believe that Christianity is being suppressed by the government, but I'd be surprised if many outside of these backwater south east towns believe that Obama and the pope are conspiring to replace Christianity with Islam and murder Christians everywhere. That's way more crazy conservative rhetoric than anything specifically religion related.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 14, 2016, 11:17:09 am
Post by: TempAcc on April 14, 2016, 11:39:25 am
1-Regardless of wether one is a christian or not, its pretty hard to deny that the apostles were pretty damn badass and were specifically instructed by Jesus on how to spread his ideals after he went away. The one I mentioned earlier, Paul of Tarsus (originally named Saul) didn't even meet Jesus in person during his whole life, and was actualy a really scary pharisee inquisitor and roman citizen who had special permission from the synagogues in jerusalem to hunt down the "disciples of the nazarene" (IE how the early christians were known). After stoning a very important christian preacher and then being sent to Damascus with specific documents and orders that would allow him to imprison each and every christian he found, due to what he himself described as a miracle, he changed his ways, became a christian and then basically started going around the most important parts of the world preaching about Jesus. He was so damn badass and succesful that he managed to convert many different pagan tribes and form congregations in the most important cities of the Roman empire, while basically travelling on foot most of the time. Other important apostles, such as Peter himself, travelled around and converted many people, among them pharisees, too.
2-A fair bit of caravaneers of the time ended up becoming christian due to having travelled with an apostle and/or doing trade between cities that would later become christian (such as Antioch, a very important city at the time).
3-Like mentioned above, the people of some key centers of trade in the Roman Empire ended up converting to the new christian faith. Even after being systematically persecuted by local synagogues, the heads of the temple in Jerusalem and the Roman Empire, they persevered, which eventualy culminated in the conversion Emprah Constantinus, which may have converted because, at a certain point, he started viewing the citizens of the empire as mostly christians.
Post by: smirk on April 14, 2016, 11:47:36 am
If it's like that elsewhere in the country I don't know.It's not necessarily region-specific. Upper Midwest here; my neighbor showed me a piece of junk mail they got the other week:
On the envelope, in big red letters: "IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT OBAMA AND THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS ARE FUNDING CHRISTIAN GENOCIDE!"
In smaller, italicized red letters: "Christian slaughterhouses are harvesting the blood of martyrs to sell to Jihadists. Open immediately!"
I wish I was joking. I also wish I had thought to take a picture. Point being, crazy religion gets everywhere. Especially with televangelists and radio shows that have nationwide popularity.
Post by: Telgin on April 14, 2016, 12:12:35 pm
The Pope is a Muslim now? I love it!
Yep. I'm baffled too. The funniest part is that before this he was talking about how liberal the current pope is. I couldn't help but be amused at the thought of a pope who is too liberal spreading radical Islam.
I think he just has some kind of irrational hatred for Catholicism though, since his wife was an ex-Catholic from Italy turned Protestant when she met him. I would be interested in learning more about why she decided to switch to Protestantism over Catholicism, but I just really don't want to get near that bucket of worms.
Post by: i2amroy on April 14, 2016, 03:44:06 pm
One, over half a billion christians have been martyred since 0 CE. Apparently the worldwide christian murder rate has managed to average around 250k a year since the founding of the initial cults. No citations were given, of course, and the numbers were explicitly said to be possibly erroneous, but the preacherperson assured the people they were talking to that those numbers were "well studied", and some other platitudes. They apparently had graphs! They brought graphs to a sermon. TV sermon, but... still.I think he might be erroneously conflating "people who were murdered and were Christians" with "people who were murdered because they were Christians" (which would make them martyrs). The first could very likely be true, the second one somewhat less so. Generally by the time population numbers got large enough to start to provide significant counts against the total count society had become more tolerant (or Christianity more mainstream) so people were much less likely to be killed because they were Christian. I mean, maybe if you included every Christian who died because of the crusades, and included all of the inter-Christian different denominational persecution you might come somewhat close to that number, but it would still be a bit of a longshot by my back of the envelope calculations. For comparison about 2/3rds of a billion is (very) roughly equal to the entire population of Europe throughout the entire middle ages (all 500 years of them), so the fact that populations were so much smaller back then puts a huge damper on reaching that number.
Some cursory googling did... not seem to really identify whose ass the guy was pulling that from. Would anyone happen to be able to explain that claim?
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 14, 2016, 03:54:30 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 14, 2016, 03:57:23 pm
Post by: Putnam on April 14, 2016, 04:01:28 pm
I can see how they would think christianity is being persecuted
because finally people are complaining about being stomped on by christians, yeah
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 14, 2016, 04:02:14 pm
what?I can see how they would think christianity is being persecuted
because finally people are complaining about being stomped on by christians, yeah
Post by: Frumple on April 14, 2016, 04:04:47 pm
I can see how they would think christianity is being persecuted, but I have no idea how they thought Obama and the pope were muslims.Last I checked most of that sort's entire basis for considering Obama a muslim is because of his middle name, if you're actually curious. Pretty much the whole of it, without any other supporting evidence. Though Telg didn't say the pope was muslim, mind you, just that he is buddy buddy with Obama and would aid th'pres in spreading islam and murdering christians.
That, at least, isn't much of a stretch to see a protestant say. I've heard the pope called the anti-christ more than once, heh (Mind you, I've heard a whole host of stuff called the AC at this point, sometimes contradictory things in the same sentence, but that's neither here nor there :V). There's still a fair amount of hate for catholicism in the US, at the very least, if not nearly as pronounced as it has been at times.
Post by: Putnam on April 14, 2016, 04:06:58 pm
what?I can see how they would think christianity is being persecuted
because finally people are complaining about being stomped on by christians, yeah
"Wah we can't force children to practice our religion in public schools, we're so persecuted"
"Wah people people complain when we make movies about how awful atheists are, we're so persecuted"
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 14, 2016, 04:09:42 pm
You really jump to conclusions, don't you?what?I can see how they would think christianity is being persecuted
because finally people are complaining about being stomped on by christians, yeah
"Wah we can't force children to practice our religion in public schools, we're so persecuted"
"Wah people people complain when we make movies about how awful atheists are, we're so persecuted"
No. That's not it at all. If you want an example of what I mean, try posting "I'm a christian" on a relevant youtube comment section and see what kind of reaction you get. It doesn't bother me personally, but I can see why other people might see persecution there.
Post by: Putnam on April 14, 2016, 04:16:30 pm
Holy hell christians have no idea what persecution is nowadays.
Every goddamn religion with any presence in western society is going to be yelled at on the internet. Christians suddenly aren't getting special treatment and now it's persecution.
Post by: Frumple on April 14, 2016, 04:24:02 pm
Putnam's rather poorly communicated point seems to be that a lot of the christian persecution claims are... somewhat overblown. To say the least. Stateside, at least, that's definitely accurate; christians are still overrepresented in political and business positions, still have a number of special legal/taxation privileges that largely don't extend to non-christians, so on, and so forth. Much of the complaints you see generated are from christians being treated, well. Like everyone else.
There are areas where followers are catching actual persecution, mind, it's just... not in the US, to any degree worth note. Or most places, really. Major stuff of that nature tends to be pretty localized these days for christianity.
Still, was mostly just wondering how pervasive the message is, both in other regions of the US and outside of it. I know the persecution complex is pretty intense in several denominations in the US South East, but I haven't had much direct interaction with ones outside of that, yeah.
Post by: Putnam on April 14, 2016, 04:26:58 pm
EDIT: if you can't tell, the idea of christians actually thinking they're being persecuted in the US makes me kinda mad
they are being legitimately persecuted! elsewhere in the world. not in the us.
Post by: TheDarkStar on April 14, 2016, 06:17:08 pm
i can't continue about abrahamic religions because it makes me le edgy atheist xd
EDIT: if you can't tell, the idea of christians actually thinking they're being persecuted in the US makes me kinda mad
they are being legitimately persecuted! elsewhere in the world. not in the us.
There have been instances of it in the US, but very little since about 150 years ago. Nowadays, yeah, you see violent persecution in places like Syria/Iraq or central/northern Africa.
Post by: Teneb on April 14, 2016, 06:44:34 pm
Still, was mostly just wondering how pervasive the message is, both in other regions of the US and outside of it. I know the persecution complex is pretty intense in several denominations in the US South East, but I haven't had much direct interaction with ones outside of that, yeah.There is some here in Brazil, though mostly among the evangelicals. Every now and then one of the politicians of the so-called "evangelical bloc" (loose translation, original: "bancada evangélica") will throw a tantrum over "persecution", usually right after they lose a chair in some commission because the politician in question had a website advertising "gay cure".
I do know that I certainly would face some heavy prejudice if I came out as non-abrahamic (atheists are tolerated by all but the most zealous; non-eastern pagans on the other hand...) to people outside my friends and immediate family. At the very least people would refuse to talk to me, and walking in university campus at night would be a risky proposition to say the least (people have been attacked for far less).
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 14, 2016, 08:17:56 pm
...
Anyway, yeah. The persecution complex is strong, although most of it comes from a difference in definition. Christ talked about persecution and lumped mockery and such in with it, so Christians tend to lump the two together as well.
Complaining about criticisms and mockery and so on is essentially complaining about free speech, which is kinda dumb. Unless you don't like free speech, I guess.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 14, 2016, 08:20:09 pm
That's pretty terrible
Post by: TempAcc on April 14, 2016, 08:29:32 pm
Still, was mostly just wondering how pervasive the message is, both in other regions of the US and outside of it. I know the persecution complex is pretty intense in several denominations in the US South East, but I haven't had much direct interaction with ones outside of that, yeah.There is some here in Brazil, though mostly among the evangelicals. Every now and then one of the politicians of the so-called "evangelical bloc" (loose translation, original: "bancada evangélica") will throw a tantrum over "persecution", usually right after they lose a chair in some commission because the politician in question had a website advertising "gay cure".
I do know that I certainly would face some heavy prejudice if I came out as non-abrahamic (atheists are tolerated by all but the most zealous; non-eastern pagans on the other hand...) to people outside my friends and immediate family. At the very least people would refuse to talk to me, and walking in university campus at night would be a risky proposition to say the least (people have been attacked for far less).
Well br is a big place, but I won't deny that if you walk around areas dominated by evangelicals, specially small towns, you best be on your guard if you're commonly known as a non christian around there. I come from a small town from inner São Paulo, and while most people over there were chill catholics, there's some really outspoken and quite dangerous evangelicals around there now. If they knew I turned into a spiritist later in life, they'd prob go insane and think the devil has possessed me or something, even though spiritism is pretty popular around where I live.
They're pretty much why I'm wary of evangelicals/protestant cults in general.
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 14, 2016, 09:40:37 pm
Try posting "I'm an atheist" on a relevant youtube comment section and see what kind of reaction you get.You really jump to conclusions, don't you?what?I can see how they would think christianity is being persecuted
because finally people are complaining about being stomped on by christians, yeah
"Wah we can't force children to practice our religion in public schools, we're so persecuted"
"Wah people people complain when we make movies about how awful atheists are, we're so persecuted"
No. That's not it at all. If you want an example of what I mean, try posting "I'm a christian" on a relevant youtube comment section and see what kind of reaction you get. It doesn't bother me personally, but I can see why other people might see persecution there.
Youtube comments are a dick to literally everyone. If you're saying that being Christian is unpopular, that's one thing, and people shouldn't be dicks regardless. But that is by no means persecution. Nor is 'you are obliged to perform your job duties, and if you don't want to because of your religious beliefs, quit and get a new job'.
I mean, part of the problem is that Christianity grew up as a persecuted religion, for it's very early years. And now that it's not the uberdominant religion in it's hometown anymore, it's being reminded of those days of not everyone being Christian. It's a religion with a persecution complex. The meek shall inherit the earth. You shall have rewards in heaven as you had suffering on earth. Everyone wants to believe they're a martyr. That last applies to everything, including atheism, though, so meh.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on April 14, 2016, 09:47:59 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 14, 2016, 11:45:52 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on April 20, 2016, 04:50:15 pm
Quote
1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.
2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.
4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.
5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.
I do not get these arguments at all.
1, 2, 3: These are all saying "everything has a mover, a cause, a bringer about". Well, who says that has to be God?! God "just is"? Okay, the Big Bang "just is". Done.
4. Goodness is (obviously) partial. And in addition, this seems to be a masked version of the "every atheist is immoral" argument. Because seriously, it's impossible to, without a bearded guy in the sky telling you, figure out that some things are bad.[/sarcasm]
5. Things happen. There is no overall goal. Done.
Edit: This, number 5, appears to be somewhat more challenging, actually.
Quote
The Teleological or Design Argument
This is one of the oldest and most popular and intelligible of the theistic proofs. It suggests that there is a definite analogy between the order and regularity of the cosmos and a product of human ingenuity. Voltaire put it in rather simplistic terms: "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool."
No one can deny the universe seems to be designed; instances of purposive ordering are all around us. Almost anywhere can be found features of being that show the universe to be basically friendly to life, mind, personality, and values. Life itself is a cosmic function, that is, a very complex arrangement of things both terrestrial and extraterrestrial must obtain before life can subsist. The earth must be just the right size, its rotation must be within certain limits, its tilt must be correct to cause the seasons, its land - water ratio must be a delicate balance. Our biological structure is very fragile. A little too much heat or cold and we die. We need light, but not too much ultraviolet. We need heat, but not too much infrared. We live just beneath an airscreen shielding us from millions of missiles every day. We live just ten miles above a rock screen that shields us from the terrible heat under our feet. Who created all these screens and shields that make our earthly existence possible?
Once again we are faced with a choice. Either the universe was designed or it developed all these features by chance. The cosmos is either a plan or an accident!
Most people have an innate repugnance to the notion of chance because it contradicts the way we ordinarily explain things. Chance is not an explanation but an abandonment of explanation. When a scientist explains an immediate event, he operates on the assumption that this is a regular universe where everything occurs as a result of the orderly procession of cause and effect. Yet when the naturalist comes to metaphysics, to the origin of the entire cosmos, he abandons the principle of sufficient reason and assumes that the cause of everything is an unthinkable causelessness, chance, or fate.
Suppose you were standing facing a target and you saw an arrow fired from behind you hit the bull's eye. Then you saw nine more arrows fired in rapid succession all hitting the same bull's eye. The aim is so accurate that each arrow splits the previous arrow as it hits. Now an arrow shot into the air is subject to many contrary and discordant processes, gravity, air pressure, and wind. When ten arrows reach the bull's eye, does this not rule out the possibility of mere chance? Would you not say that this was the result of an expert archer? Is this parable not analogous to our universe?
It is objected that the design argument, even if valid, does not prove a creator but only an architect, and even then only an architect intelligent enough to produce the known universe, not necessarily an omniscient being. This objection is correct. We must not try to prove more than the evidence will allow. We will not get the 100 percent Yahweh of the Bible from any evidence of natural theology. However, this universe of ours is so vast and wonderful we can safely conclude that its designer would be worthy of our worship and devotion.
Many object that the theory of evolution takes most of the wind out of the design argument. Evolution shows that the marvelous design in living organisms came about by slow adaptation to the environment, not by intelligent creation. This is a false claim. Even if admitted, evolution only introduces a longer time frame into the question of design. Proving that watches came from a completely automated factory with no human intervention would not make us give up interest in a designer, for if we thought a watch was wonderful, what must we think of a factory that produces watches? Would it not suggest a designer just as forcefully? Religious people have been overly frightened by the theory of evolution.
Even the great critics of natural theology, Hume and Kant, betrayed an admiration for the teleological argument. Hume granted it a certain limited validity. Kant went even further: "This proof will always deserve to be treated with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest and most in conformity with human reason . . . We have nothing to say against the reasonableness and utility of this line of argument, but wish, on the contrary, to commend and encourage it."
Yes, but it is not impossible to conceive of a universe where order naturally comes about as a result of the laws that govern said universe. Therefore, order can spontaneously come into being. Thus, God is not necessary.
Post by: TD1 on April 20, 2016, 04:56:40 pm
Post by: Putnam on April 20, 2016, 06:24:05 pm
4<5. Now, what's the maximum integer?
Post by: Antioch on April 20, 2016, 06:34:06 pm
Why would a phenomena that "is caused by itself" require any form of sentience, omnipotence or be anything even remotely approximating the idea of a god?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on April 20, 2016, 07:10:14 pm
Two magnets, sitting on a table. They start at rest and zoom toward each other.
Obviously, magnetism is God.
Edit: Um, the "Dozebom Lolumzalis" isn't even requiring "something reading the most recent post" to set it into motion. Sorry, Antioch. But I still think that magnetism is God, a funny concept.
Wow, number 4 is... actually completely stupid?? For one thing, there has never been a perfect movie, yet we compare movie qualities just fine. There is no need for a maximum to compare, there never has been. That makes absolutely no sense.
4<5. Now, what's the maximum integer?
Hmm. You can't actually say that there can't be a largest integer, because in some mathematics, there is. Yet it is a safe assumption that when somebody says the number "two", they are not referring to a member of a finite set of integers that comprises the cartesian product of itself - it's just a standard number.
Plus, as has oft been said, if the universe requires some goal from an "archer," then why doesn't God? If you can exempt God, why not exempt the universe instead?
God is the universe. WE ARE HIS BRAIN CELLS.
Quote
Evolutionists attack the moral argument by insisting that all morality is merely a long development from animal instincts. Men gradually work out their ethical systems by living together in social communities. But this objection is a two edged sword: if it kills morality, it also kills reason and the scientific method. The evolutionist believes that the human intellect developed from the physical brain of the primates, yet he assumes that the intellect is trustworthy. If the mind is entitled to trust, though evolved from the lower forms, why not the moral nature also?
Dafuq? We develop a system, using our intellect, of scientific methods and such. When applied, this matches with reality.
One of the biggest refutations of "there must be a god" is simply this:
There can be order emerging without a god. There can be viable things that come about without a higher force causing them to happen.
Has anyone ever actually refuted the above statement?
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 20, 2016, 07:16:37 pm
How do they even work.
(is joke, I understand magnets, sorta.)
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on April 20, 2016, 07:19:37 pm
Quote
First, Logical Reverse Reasoning
A person is certainly free to decide whether the Bible has any value or not. A central issue in that matter is usually regarding whether God "Inspired" the Bible's human authors. Consider the possibilities.
IF a person does NOT think that God Inspired the Bible, or that God doesn't even actually Exist, then the Book would seem to have very limited value, and it would certainly not deserve to be the central focus of Faith.
On the other hand, if one accepts the idea that God participated in Inspiring the Bible, it becomes an important Book. Technically, there would still be three possibilities to consider.
If God Inspired the Bible, and it is all absolutely and precisely true (at least when it was still in its Original language and the Original Manuscripts) and accurate, then we should carefully pay attention to every detail of it. Traditionally, this has always been the case for both Christians and Jews.
If God Inspired the Bible, but He is Evil, then it is likely to nearly all be untrue and deceptive. However, no accepted concept of God would see that as possible of Him.
If God Inspired the Bible, but it Originally contained both Truths and untruths, and it contained inaccuracies or distortions, this appears to be the only possible assumption of those Christians who feel they can freely select the parts of the Bible they want to obey. (Many thousands of researchers have compared the more than 20,000 existing Scribe-written Manuscripts to ensure that we accurately know the Original text.) If God is even remotely as Powerful and Considerate and Compassionate as we believe Him to be, would He intentionally include such faults in the Book He provided us as a Guide? Or, could He be so sloppy as to unintentionally include such flaws in it?
For this last matter, it seems impossible that the God we know and Worship would be either intentionally deceptive or incompetent. For, if He was, then the consistency and reliability of our Universe would be an unexpected and unintentional effort of His. When you step out the door of your house, you might fall into a bottomless pit, rather than stepping out on the sidewalk that you know is there.
For these reasons, it seems inappropriate to feel that a person could pick and choose various parts of the Bible to accept and obey. If you accept ANY of it as being valid and valuable, then you are implicitly accepting that God participated in its creation. And if God participated in the Bible being composed, that seems to necessarily imply that ALL of it was Originally precisely correct and accurate, in its Original language.
These observations do not make such claims regarding any specific modern Bible translation. Given that we see the inconsistencies between various translated Versions, we should certainly be somewhat cautious at totally accepting any one of them. Either use two or more different Bible Versions in your studies, or have a Strongs Concordance handy, or both! As long as you can get to an understanding of what the Original texts said and meant, you will have the true meaning!
The problem with this is that a book can be partially correct, having been made up by people, and still contain falsehoods. It's the same bloody circular reasoning argument all over again.
Post by: Frumple on April 20, 2016, 07:22:37 pm
Why would a phenomena that "is caused by itself" require any form of sentience, omnipotence or be anything even remotely approximating the idea of a god?The normal argument is that something greater cannot come from something lesser, iirc, though I'm definitely mangling that and probably misremembering it to some degree. You have to have the potential for the consequence in the precedent for things to function, or something along those lines. So in order for the creation of all things, whatever creates it must have the capability to do so; i.e. must have sentience to create sentience, must have sufficient power to bring forth all that is, etc., etc., etc. There's significantly more to it, of course, because they've been talking about that stuff for centuries, and pretty much every casual issue with the stance has been considered and addressed at some point, but that's a rough sketch of one of the arguments as near as I can remember it at the moment.
Honestly, for a long, long time, it made a fair amount of sense, and it still makes a relatively decent amount of sense (or at least about as much as anything else :V) if you believe in YEC or whathaveyou. It's just that we have fairly conclusive experimental proof at this point (as in, the last handful of decades) that building up to sentience or whatev' from nonsentience is entirely possible, and several of the initial premises are just kinda'... flawed.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on April 20, 2016, 07:27:13 pm
Why would a phenomena that "is caused by itself" require any form of sentience, omnipotence or be anything even remotely approximating the idea of a god?The normal argument is that something greater cannot come from something lesser, iirc, though I'm definitely mangling that and probably misremembering it to some degree. You have to have the potential for the consequence in the precedent for things to function, or something along those lines. So in order for the creation of all things, whatever creates it must have the capability to do so; i.e. must have sentience to create sentience, must have sufficient power to bring forth all that is, etc., etc., etc. There's significantly more to it, of course, because they've been talking about that stuff for centuries, and pretty much every casual issue with the stance has been considered and addressed at some point, but that's a rough sketch of one of the arguments as near as I can remember it at the moment.
Honestly, for a long, long time, it made a fair amount of sense, and it still makes a relatively decent amount of sense (or at least about as much as anything else :V) if you believe in YEC or whathaveyou. It's just that we have fairly conclusive experimental proof at this point (as in, the last handful of decades) that building up to sentience or whatev' from nonsentience is entirely possible, and several of the initial premises are just kinda'... flawed.
You're totally right.
(Addressed to the BOBI
You know what? A bunch of humans can make a supercomputer that can compute things faster than any human - than all the humans together throughout all of history! If that's not "better," AI is soon on its way. How about this: can't an evil person give birth to a saint? Wouldn't a saint be "better" than an evil person? If none of these things are "better" or "greater", then you're not using the standard definition - thus you cannot draw any conclusions.)
Spoiler: huge (click to show/hide)
How about this:
4. The Bible was inspired by God but it wasn't personally written by him with lightning bolt in hand. That's not inspired, that's authored. Inspired means he put stuff into their hearts and they tried to write it. Other people could have hijacked it - you know what? The OT is pretty much "hey, we were conquered and now we're about to be assimilated - I don't like that! Let's have all these restrictions and all this history we'll write for ourselves to make us distinct from these other guys!" But there are many parts of it that were God-inspired, and those parts should be listened to. When I'm in a believing mood, I don't believe in a bearded skyguy, so if I decided to insert a few words into the Bible in the 6th century BC, I think God wouldn't strike me down via lightning bolt.
Post by: Putnam on April 20, 2016, 07:33:41 pm
(A random number generator, of course, would be needed; perhaps include it in deity-main?)
Not if you're only running it once.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 20, 2016, 07:39:38 pm
Post by: Putnam on April 20, 2016, 07:54:53 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 20, 2016, 08:00:22 pm
Maybe I'm being overly pedantic. Dunno. I don't think you can call something a religion unless it involves spirituality (i.e. faith) in some way.
Post by: Putnam on April 20, 2016, 08:04:24 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 20, 2016, 08:21:23 pm
If you remove the faith aspect, it's basically pointless? I mean, there's the who social group/ritual thing, but that's just playing make-believe with social pressure to join in."Just". Playing make-believe is one of the most important things humans are able to do. Almost every aspect of human culture is some variation of that, and the same shtick is behind huge chunks of our scientific advancement, among great sopping heaps of other stuff. There's no "just" to make-believe, especially once people start convincing themselves it's true.
Beyond that, ritual and social group shenanigans are and have long been tremendous influences on basically everything humans do. And ritual in particular, you don't need faith at all to see benefit from that. Frankly, faith is arguably the least important part of religion -- religion can and often does function just as well with or without it.
... also, no, spirituality totally isn't equivalent to faith. It's how you address matters of, well. The spirit. Stuff that's not absolutely physical, and even then the consideration of that as being the only thing that is, is a position vis a vis spirituality. Buncha' shit tied up in that stuff, and there's not really a particular linchpin.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 20, 2016, 08:34:51 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on April 20, 2016, 09:20:35 pm
Kind of annoying, really. Mystery is not necessary for religion, IMHO. (See Frumple's post.) It's doing something you don't want to do because it (what you don't want to do) is the right thing to do while what you want to do is not the right thing to do.
...or denying that anyone else has a point while angrily screaming quote-picked bits from the Bible about how God Hates Fags but technically though he would also Hate Jewelry and Mixed Cloth Fabrics
Spoiler: kind of unrelated (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: didn't anyone get the joke? (click to show/hide)
Post by: i2amroy on April 21, 2016, 11:25:02 am
...or denying that anyone else has a point while angrily screaming quote-picked bits from the Bible about how God Hates Fags but technically though he would also Hate Jewelry and Mixed Cloth FabricsThis is a bit irreverent of the discussion (and I don't mean it as a comparison to anyone here), but all I can think of while reading this is this comic: :P
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Quartz_Mace on April 22, 2016, 01:17:27 pm
1. I was at a Catholic class (getting confirmed. I consider myself a hopeful Christian in the sense that I believe God is possible and if he is I owe him a lot, so why not work under the assumption he exists? If I'm wrong, I'm not hurting anyone. And I agree with many of Jesus' teachings about love, peace, and forgiveness. Whether or not he was God/God's son he spread good messages. I don't agree 100% with any one religion, but my family is mostly Catholic, and I certainly don't have everything figured out, so I just try to coexist.) and my teacher asked a question (something about Jesus, I don't even remember what.) and one student answered correctly, so another commented "you hit the nail on the cross!"
2. A Buddhist goes to a Christian church service with his family. He enjoys it and when it's over the priest says "You should convert."
The Buddhist replies, "Maybe next time round."
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 22, 2016, 01:19:31 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 23, 2016, 04:14:32 pm
Oh no, youtube comments!Christians are about to be extinct in their original lands because they've just been persecuted into oblivion via religious cleansing
Holy hell christians have no idea what persecution is nowadays.
Every goddamn religion with any presence in western society is going to be yelled at on the internet. Christians suddenly aren't getting special treatment and now it's persecution.
But yeah fuck em right they have no idea what persecution is lel, since when have they ever been persecuted
Post by: Rolan7 on April 23, 2016, 05:15:14 pm
I guess you mean the Middle East, IE the original lands for *every* Abrahamic religion... Which have taken turns persecuting each other and outright warring for as long as they've existed.
Post by: andrea on April 23, 2016, 05:33:18 pm
Oh no, youtube comments!Christians are about to be extinct in their original lands because they've just been persecuted into oblivion via religious cleansing
Holy hell christians have no idea what persecution is nowadays.
Every goddamn religion with any presence in western society is going to be yelled at on the internet. Christians suddenly aren't getting special treatment and now it's persecution.
But yeah fuck em right they have no idea what persecution is lel, since when have they ever been persecuted
well, yes. But 2 posts down from what you quoted, the same user clarified that he meant in the USA and acknowledged that in other parts of the worlds christians are actually persecuted. Mostly, as you say, in the middle east region.
While the wording was less complete than it should have, considering the following conversation I think Putnam should deserve a bit more credit than that,
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 23, 2016, 06:32:00 pm
I dunno what counts as "original lands"... The former Roman Empire? Faith is down in Northwestern Europe, and yeah Islamic people are moving it at a trouble rate, but there's not really religious cleansing going on. Not since the Catholic church got weak.I meant it as its place of origin, cos if we're going by original lands then that's very sketchy given how much time it had to blob over all of Eurasia and then how much it declined in the East due to surprise jihads and disapproving
I guess you mean the Middle EastNo, that's too large; if we're going by that then Eurasia is everyone's land of origin. It's not wrong, but it's a rather worthless statement.
IE the original lands for *every* Abrahamic religion... Which have taken turns persecuting each other and outright warring for as long as they've existed.Rolan why do you do this every time
Do you think Mecca and Jerusalem are one and the same? That Levant and south Arabia and Persia are one and the same? Don't be silly, I know you don't know this. Seems rather peculiar though because every time you try to conflate this as all inevitable, unavoidable and everyone's doing it so let's not take notice of Christians being made extinct in their original lands via religious cleansing e.t.c.
*!!!
I just realized you thought I was talking about Islamicization of Western Europe. Now I'm sad
No that's not religious cleansing, you're right, I don't particularly care about that as faith is already down and you can't kill something already dead, and that's all with relatively peaceful demographic change brought about by invitation. Christians have been cleansed in the ME by old fashioned killing and no one important's been willing to talk about it for fear of promoting a clash of civilizations narrative, hence why we only talk of Kurds and Yazidis, talks that have "only" provoked riots between Kurds and Turks and Yazidis in the West. These people who survived Sassanids, the Caliphates, the Mongols - will become extinct in our lifetime because they were murdered and few will even notice that they ever existed as more than artifacts
well, yes. But 2 posts down from what you quoted, the same user clarified that he meant in the USA and acknowledged that in other parts of the worlds christians are actually persecuted. Mostly, as you say, in the middle east region.Not even mostly in the ME region, just so totally in the ME that they'll be extinct. I find it unbelievable that the general reaction is "whatever"
While the wording was less complete than it should have, considering the following conversation I think Putnam should deserve a bit more credit than that,
Post by: TD1 on April 23, 2016, 06:38:03 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 23, 2016, 06:51:27 pm
The context of the conversation wasn't minority populations outside western countries, nor was it about populations centuries displaced, dead, and/or marginalized. Those were specifically noted, and noted as not being what was discussed.
Not sure why someone would consider the reaction of "whatever" to be unbelievable, though. That happens to, what, dozens of various ethnic/religious groups a year? More? Most people haven't heard of them or don't care much if they had -- it happens to many, and they've generally got no reason to consider a particular one special. Maybe it's disappointing or unfortunate, but it's not particularly unusual, and you usually can't really blame folks for it. They've got stuff to worry about closer to home, of larger overall impact, or any number of other things.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 23, 2016, 06:53:57 pm
You all realise how big the Middle East is, right? To say it's happening there, and not narrowing it down to say Turkey (big enough by itself) or some other nation should tell you that you ought to pay attention.From Med to Tigris. I wouldn't say Middle East as their existence in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia is survivable and tolerable by necessity; and it unnecessarily casts shade upon countries like Jordan and Turkey that are still ok-ish on that front. Especially credit to Jordan and Turkey who are helping so many refugees fleeing this.
I'm also just saying for example that Saudi suppression is considerably preferable to elimination on any day of the week. Destruction of all the churches and arresting of practicing members is pretty shit, but it's not elimination. I'm particularly hurt because consider for example that the Christians in Saudi Arabia are Roman Catholic migrant workers who although treated horrendously, have home countries and even the worst case scenario of catastrophic tragedy, Roman Catholics would still exist outside Arabia. Losing the oldest Christian communities in the world is a permanent destruction :/
Not sure why someone would consider the reaction of "whatever" to be unbelievable, though. That happens to, what, dozens of various ethnic/religious groups a year? More? Most people haven't heard of them or don't care much if they had -- it happens to many, and they've generally got no reason to consider a particular one special. Maybe it's disappointing or unfortunate, but it's not particularly unusual, and you usually can't really blame folks for it. They've got stuff to worry about closer to home, of larger overall impact, or any number of other things.I am a vehemently inimical to moral apathy. Have we really had dozens of ethnic and religious groups exterminated a year?
Also hah, you can't blame people for it. Yes you can.
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 23, 2016, 07:00:39 pm
Exterminated from a particular region of the world? Maybe. If you count sub-sub-religions, or ethnic groups becoming indistinct from the general population, almost certainly. If you mean persecution and the like happening to people, as I believe Frumple probably did, then it certainly also happens to a lot of people every year. Cus' Christianity isn't going to be exterminated any time soon. Not unless te=he Rapture happens or something.Not sure why someone would consider the reaction of "whatever" to be unbelievable, though. That happens to, what, dozens of various ethnic/religious groups a year? More? Most people haven't heard of them or don't care much if they had -- it happens to many, and they've generally got no reason to consider a particular one special. Maybe it's disappointing or unfortunate, but it's not particularly unusual, and you usually can't really blame folks for it. They've got stuff to worry about closer to home, of larger overall impact, or any number of other things.I am a vehemently inimical to moral apathy. Have we really had dozens of ethnic and religious groups exterminated a year?
Also hah, you can't blame people for it. Yes you can.
Post by: TD1 on April 23, 2016, 07:13:24 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 23, 2016, 07:28:32 pm
Exterminated from a particular region of the world? Maybe. If you count sub-sub-religions, or ethnic groups becoming indistinct from the general population, almost certainly. If you mean persecution and the like happening to people, as I believe Frumple probably did, then it certainly also happens to a lot of people every year.Either, really. There's only so much difference from the point of cultural death or extinction. Plenty get bred out of existence, some displaced, others get forgotten, some get just plain slaughtered. It's been something that's been happening yearly for decades, at a minimum. It's unfortunate, but so's a lot of stuff, much of it effecting a significantly larger amount of people.
And TD1, I'm pretty sure no one's saying anything along those lines. Certainly the only thing I've noted in regards to what you're speaking of is that not paying much attention to little ethnic groups dying off for whatever reason is not unusual, nor is it difficult to understand. Wouldn't even call it particularly inexcusable, myself. There's only so many resources that can be expended, and people tend to prioritize closer to home before they start expending outwards. S'not apathy or some shit, it's just prioritization.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 23, 2016, 07:41:12 pm
You all realise how big the Middle East is, right? To say it's happening there, and not narrowing it down to say Turkey (big enough by itself) or some other nation should tell you that you ought to pay attention.Turkey is officially secular. Catholicism and Protestantism are not recognised by the state as protected/permitted religions (Eastern churches are recognised, however). Overwhelmingly Muslim (97%).
Syria and Iraq are officially secular, but the governments do not actively support this. Terrorism against minorities including Christians is rampant. Muslim education is mandated in schools. Overwhelmingly Muslim (~97%).
Iran is an Islamic republic. Conversion from Islam to another religion is a crime under the state's religious laws (although punishment is technically forbidden by the constitution). Proselytising Christianity is punishable, in some cases by death. Mandated Muslim education. Overwhelmingly Muslim (98%).
Kuwait is officially secular. Minorities including Christians are protected by law but non-Muslim religious gatherings are illegal and punishable. Mandated Muslim education. Overwhelmingly Muslim (~99%).
Saudi Arabia is an Islamic kingdom. Apostasy and blasphemy are punishable by death. Mandated Muslim education. Overwhelmingly Muslim (~99%, most minorities are undocumented immigrants).
Egypt is an Islamic republic. Freedom of religion is constitutionally allowed but conversion from Islam to another religion is a crime. Proselytising is a crime. Non-Muslim religious gatherings are illegal. Non-Muslim religious texts and art are frequently censored. Mandated Muslim education. Overwhelmingly Muslim (91%), Copts are a significant minority.
Israel is a Jewish republic. Freedom of religion is constitutionally allowed. Protection of minorities including Christians is frequently ignored. Primarily Jewish (75%), with Islam a significant minority.
Jordan is an Islamic kingdom. Conversion from Islam is a crime. Proselytising is a crime. Mandated Muslim education. Overwhelmingly Muslim (92%).
Lebanon is the only place I found with actual religious freedom in the Middle-east. It is primarily Muslim (54%) and Christian (40%). Sectarian violence occurs nonetheless.
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 03:03:44 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 25, 2016, 03:29:41 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 25, 2016, 03:47:05 pm
Post by: TempAcc on April 25, 2016, 04:17:07 pm
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 04:26:44 pm
Sound like a cool idea?
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 25, 2016, 04:27:29 pm
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 04:31:33 pm
No
My genius is clearly not appreciated here.
(http://www.opengeek.net/images/ogeek/2015/02/img_29.png)
Post by: Putnam on April 25, 2016, 04:32:49 pm
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 04:34:06 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 25, 2016, 04:34:24 pm
An "Un-Holy Book" would suggest cohesion and a sharing of ideas between atheists - a form of uniformity. The only thing uniting atheists is that they don't believe in a form of divinity - any book seeking to be for atheists could only contain that one shared ideal. Anything else from morals and ethics to what foods to eat varies from person to person.
Post by: Putnam on April 25, 2016, 04:37:38 pm
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 04:53:38 pm
Basically, it ends up being that one xkcd about standards, or... actually, wait, RationalWiki vs LessWrong is an already-existing perfect example of why that's a bad idea.
No no, that's the point. I want there to be a dozen different competing books.
Indeed, in my version that would be an explicitly stated instruction - to disagree, citicise, and for extra credit write your own version.
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 25, 2016, 04:59:29 pm
I agree with LW there, actually, atheists don't need the trappings of religion. Heck, we put ourselves neatly into cults without needing to make the attempt.Tribes ain't inherently bad, you know. Sense of community, belonging, and unity.
Though we most certainly do have Holy Books. It's called a philosophy book/the internet.
Post by: Teneb on April 25, 2016, 05:10:54 pm
Besides, it'd be a pamphlet, really. All you could write is: "there are no gods or higher powers". And discordianism already has a monopoly on holy pamphlets.
Spoiler: Principia Discordia 5th edition (click to show/hide)
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 05:14:33 pm
An "Un-Holy Book" would suggest cohesion and a sharing of ideas between atheists - a form of uniformity. The only thing uniting atheists is that they don't believe in a form of divinity - any book seeking to be for atheists could only contain that one shared ideal. Anything else from morals and ethics to what foods to eat varies from person to person.
I will point out, while "Uniformity" isn't something I'd use to describe us, we DO hang out together and share ideas, and while there isn't anything we completely agree on except Atheism (And even that is very arguable) you are much likelier to find that you have things in common with other atheists than with theists. And again, the point is to help us formulate what we believe so that we can disagree on it, and thereby stimulate discussion and new ideas.
Post by: TD1 on April 25, 2016, 05:18:57 pm
I think you may be missing something :P
The main premise with a religious text is that it is truth. No atheist will believe their text is absolute truth. What you are speaking of already exists in the form of scientific journals and the like - the study of what is known, rather than the study of what is believed.
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 05:26:34 pm
"What we believe"
I think you may be missing something :P
The main premise with a religious text is that it is truth. No atheist will believe their text is absolute truth. What you are speaking of already exists in the form of scientific journals and the like - the study of what is known, rather than the study of what is believed.
Yeah, that's why we put it on github and edit it frequently. And have dissenting opinions and texts, etc.
And yeah, scientific journals are very useful, but they're not very accessible. The point here is to compile a list of current beliefs into an easily accessible format where we can argue over them, change them, make competing versions, etc, etc. I think you're getting too tied up over what a "Holy book" is, such that you're missing what it could be.
Post by: TD1 on April 25, 2016, 05:34:39 pm
Your target audience won't be very receptive. What you want is a Holy Book, not an atheistic alternative. Holy Books have many different volumes, edited and revised, split off from the main, and so on. Basically what you want this hypothetical text to do. And it is all based on belief, in the knowledge that your particular brand is the one which will beat the rival brands.
The closest an atheist could get to that is Wikipedia. And that already exists.
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 05:45:28 pm
The point here is to compile a list of current beliefs
Your target audience won't be very receptive. What you want is a Holy Book, not an atheistic alternative. Holy Books have many different volumes, edited and revised, split off from the main, and so on. Basically what you want this hypothetical text to do. And it is all based on belief, in the knowledge that your particular brand is the one which will beat the rival brands.
The closest an atheist could get to that is Wikipedia. And that already exists.
But actual holy books aren't very good at it. They don't have issues or discussion pages, and you can't split off your own version with the click of a mouse. And wikis are way too messy. And also pretty hard to split off into competing versions. Also holy books don't contain proper atheistic values, and are updated at a positively glacial pace.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 25, 2016, 05:50:48 pm
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 05:52:42 pm
I vote Richard Dawkins for atheist pope
Haha no thats fine. I think having books to argue over is perfectly sufficient.
Post by: TD1 on April 25, 2016, 06:07:52 pm
I mean, I don't think it should happen, but if we gotta choose....
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 25, 2016, 06:09:19 pm
What's your basis for that belief? Two of my past three best friends have been religious(and the third was from when we were you going to really care). Atheism is a poor flag to rally around, unless it's Richard Dawkins style militant and/or "being-a-dick" atheism.An "Un-Holy Book" would suggest cohesion and a sharing of ideas between atheists - a form of uniformity. The only thing uniting atheists is that they don't believe in a form of divinity - any book seeking to be for atheists could only contain that one shared ideal. Anything else from morals and ethics to what foods to eat varies from person to person.
I will point out, while "Uniformity" isn't something I'd use to describe us, we DO hang out together and share ideas, and while there isn't anything we completely agree on except Atheism (And even that is very arguable) you are much likelier to find that you have things in common with other atheists than with theists. And again, the point is to help us formulate what we believe so that we can disagree on it, and thereby stimulate discussion and new ideas.
Besides which, there is currently an ongoing project to make a wikipedia style database for arguments and lines of thinking.
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 06:26:48 pm
What's your basis for that belief? Two of my past three best friends have been religious(and the third was from when we were you going to really care). Atheism is a poor flag to rally around, unless it's Richard Dawkins style militant and/or "being-a-dick" atheism.An "Un-Holy Book" would suggest cohesion and a sharing of ideas between atheists - a form of uniformity. The only thing uniting atheists is that they don't believe in a form of divinity - any book seeking to be for atheists could only contain that one shared ideal. Anything else from morals and ethics to what foods to eat varies from person to person.
I will point out, while "Uniformity" isn't something I'd use to describe us, we DO hang out together and share ideas, and while there isn't anything we completely agree on except Atheism (And even that is very arguable) you are much likelier to find that you have things in common with other atheists than with theists. And again, the point is to help us formulate what we believe so that we can disagree on it, and thereby stimulate discussion and new ideas.
Besides which, there is currently an ongoing project to make a wikipedia style database for arguments and lines of thinking.
Because I've encountered plenty of different atheists both online and IRL, and we've had a fair amount in common - similar view on politics, science, philosophy, etc.
Oh, and can I get a link to that? It sounds really cool. Unless you mean arbital, which I already saw.
Post by: TD1 on April 25, 2016, 06:39:20 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 25, 2016, 06:49:00 pm
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 06:51:44 pm
I would support an atheist pope just as long as every atheist pope actually hated being atheist pope
That is absolutely guaranteed by the nature of the position.
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 06:53:27 pm
I think you're mistaken - from what I've seen, I agree/disagree with atheists as much as any theist. We just don't differ on one point, as a rule, heh.
No, I'm quite certain of my experiences. They may or may not be representative of a broader pattern, but that is what I've experienced.
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 25, 2016, 09:14:35 pm
My point is that I've met plenty of people, period, who I've had a fair amount in common with. Rarely are the religious people fundamentalists, but one of those friendships was founded on religious debate. I dislike echo chambers most of the time, and some of the atheists I know are kinda dicks about it. Which I don't really put up with because being condescending to someone about their beliefs is a shitty thing to do. Besides which, there's a lot of different possible philosophies within atheism, just like there's about a thousand or so different sects of Christianity. Some people are nihilist, some existentialist. Some are still spiritual, others very materialistic. Nature of good and what we should strive for to be good is a big one there, too. That's the type of thing you build a community around. Around the belief in debate and contesting ideas, and trying to find truth, or about doing good things. Not about 'we don't believe there's a god! Take that!'.
Because I've encountered plenty of different atheists both online and IRL, and we've had a fair amount in common - similar view on politics, science, philosophy, etc.
Oh, and can I get a link to that? It sounds really cool. Unless you mean arbital, which I already saw.
That was what I was getting at. Also, I believe DwArfY1 was saying that you are mistaken as to it being part of a broader pattern.
But yes, I meant arbital. Took me forever to find/remember the name of it.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 25, 2016, 09:37:16 pm
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 09:46:23 pm
there's a lot of different possible philosophies within atheism, just like there's about a thousand or so different sects of Christianity. Some people are nihilist, some existentialist. Some are still spiritual, others very materialistic. Nature of good and what we should strive for to be good is a big one there, too. That's the type of thing you build a community around. Around the belief in debate and contesting ideas, and trying to find truth, or about doing good things.
Yeah, thats the point. That's what I want the book for - so that we can all argue about what should be in it, write our own versions, change them, etc, etc. Christianity has, in my opinion, been significantly enriched by competition and diversity between it's sects, and I want to harness that same power for atheistic philosophy. Right now atheism is kind of an amorphous mass, and I want to organize things a bit better. So when someone says "What kind of atheist are you?" You can link them the page for your variation of the book, and maybe drop a few common keywords like "Existentialist/Nihilist/Materialist" the same way christians can say "Baptist/Catholic/Evangelical".
You see what I'm getting at, or am I still failing my speech checks? :P
Edit: I don't want a single grand religion to rule them all and in the darkness bind them, I want a boatload of competing sects with different ideas I can pick and choose between.
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 25, 2016, 09:49:18 pm
Or you can just ask "What kind of philosophy do you have?" It really doesn't need to be about atheism, is my point. There's already a lot of places and a lot of instances of such competition between philosophy, in any case. It's already there. We don't need anything new for it. It's been saturated. At most, we need something so we can avoid interminable arguments and going over the same basic stuff over and over again.there's a lot of different possible philosophies within atheism, just like there's about a thousand or so different sects of Christianity. Some people are nihilist, some existentialist. Some are still spiritual, others very materialistic. Nature of good and what we should strive for to be good is a big one there, too. That's the type of thing you build a community around. Around the belief in debate and contesting ideas, and trying to find truth, or about doing good things.
Yeah, thats the point. That's what I want the book for - so that we can all argue about what should be in it, write our own versions, change them, etc, etc. Christianity has, in my opinion, been significantly enriched by competition and diversity between it's sects, and I want to harness that same power for atheistic philosophy. Right now atheism is kind of an amorphous mass, and I want to organize things a bit better. So when someone says "What kind of atheist are you?" You can link them the page for your variation of the book, and maybe drop a few common keywords like "Existentialist/Nihilist/Materialist" the same way christians can say "Baptist/Catholic/Evangelical".
You see what I'm getting at, or am I still failing my speech checks? :P
Besides...Hundred Years War wasn't what I would call 'enriching'.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 25, 2016, 09:55:44 pm
Besides...Hundred Years War wasn't what I would call 'enriching'.Assuming you mean the Thirty Years War, that was more political than religious. Though it's hard to draw the line when church and state is so deeply intertwined.
It's more an argument for separation of the powers than it is an argument against theological discourse.
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 25, 2016, 10:04:41 pm
Also Ireland. Sectarian violence is not fun. Discourse is good, but my point is that Christianity's competitive marketplace of ideas opened whole other cans of worms in the past.Besides...Hundred Years War wasn't what I would call 'enriching'.Assuming you mean the Thirty Years War, that was more political than religious. Though it's hard to draw the line when church and state is so deeply intertwined.
It's more an argument for separation of the powers than it is an argument against theological discourse.
Post by: Angle on April 25, 2016, 10:12:30 pm
Ireland was also pretty political - it had as much to do with how the english exploited the Irish as it did with protestantism vs catholicism. That said, there were plenty of nasty fights over religious differences, and I certainly hope to avoid that. As for philosophy, most of it is too obscure and innaccessible for most people. I was hoping that these books could serve as a means of easy entry, helping give people a step up before they encountered the more difficult and inaccessible subjects.Also Ireland. Sectarian violence is not fun. Discourse is good, but my point is that Christianity's competitive marketplace of ideas opened whole other cans of worms in the past.Besides...Hundred Years War wasn't what I would call 'enriching'.Assuming you mean the Thirty Years War, that was more political than religious. Though it's hard to draw the line when church and state is so deeply intertwined.
It's more an argument for separation of the powers than it is an argument against theological discourse.
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 25, 2016, 10:43:46 pm
my point is that Christianity's competitive marketplace of ideas opened whole other cans of worms in the past.Yes, when politics is/was involved. A state church wants to maintain its temporal supremacy, etc. This stuff is not indicative of the religion itself.
Obviously the religion doesn't help, but any group that claims to be Christian but advocates violent aggression is, in my opinion, blasphemous.
As a tangent, it's an interesting parallel of enlightenment Europe and the modern Islamic world. We can see the effects of aggressive religious fundamentalism right now, and it's not pretty.
This is kind of rambly, but my point is that religion+politics=bad, fundamentalist religion+politics=horrendously bad, free speech +religion = less fundamentalism, and so on.
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 25, 2016, 11:02:07 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on April 25, 2016, 11:22:15 pm
Matthew 10:34.If I wanted to justify violence by taking passages out of context I could do it all day. I'd also need to ignore all the times Jesus explicitly endorsed non-violence, but that's exactly what I was criticising.
Whether that war is with words and memes and getting people fired, or with guns and swords and getting people on fire, is another matter.In other words, the difference between theological discourse independent of politics, and as part of politics?
Seriously, find me an example of religious violence that isn't political.
Islamic terrorism? Political. They want to dominate the infidel and enforce sharia law.
US fundamentalism? Political. They want to place God and the Bible at the head of the American government.
Ireland? Political. Supporters of the union with GB and separatists who want an independent nation.
All of these things have religious justification, but serve as an example of what happens when religion is used as a political ideology. Many are largely indistinguishable from other forms of ideological violence, like the socialist/communist revolutions in Eastern Europe.
It's easier to get more extreme when religion is involved, perhaps, but that doesn't change that the underlying factor is not the religion itself but its political/ideological involvement.
Post by: Rolepgeek on April 25, 2016, 11:32:16 pm
Bible's self-contradictory in many places, besides. If someone wants to rile up a crowd, it's not hard. If someone is already angry, it's not hard to find justification in the religion. I'm not trying to criticize Christianity for this specifically, I'm trying to say that if you want to create divides, you're gonna get some clashing. And it's not always pretty.
Post by: TD1 on April 26, 2016, 02:32:13 am
It was almost wholly political at the start. It just so happened that Unionism and Nationalism fell under broad patterns of Protestant and Catholic, and even then at the start the respective movements had representatives from both sides. But that's beside the point.Ireland was also pretty political - it had as much to do with how the english exploited the Irish as it did with protestantism vs catholicism. That said, there were plenty of nasty fights over religious differences, and I certainly hope to avoid that. As for philosophy, most of it is too obscure and innaccessible for most people. I was hoping that these books could serve as a means of easy entry, helping give people a step up before they encountered the more difficult and inaccessible subjects.Also Ireland. Sectarian violence is not fun. Discourse is good, but my point is that Christianity's competitive marketplace of ideas opened whole other cans of worms in the past.Besides...Hundred Years War wasn't what I would call 'enriching'.Assuming you mean the Thirty Years War, that was more political than religious. Though it's hard to draw the line when church and state is so deeply intertwined.
It's more an argument for separation of the powers than it is an argument against theological discourse.
Post by: TD1 on May 04, 2016, 09:59:18 am
So....he calls hell Hades? I think this probably shows a definite move on the authors to convert contemporary pagans.
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 04, 2016, 10:07:31 am
Post by: TD1 on May 04, 2016, 10:10:12 am
Either that or they saw them as one and the same. Which still raises issues.
Post by: TempAcc on May 04, 2016, 10:39:54 am
Mind you, multiple translations (translations of translations) and politics have changed the texts quite a lot through the ages, so much that only the very core of the teachings has actualy sort of survived. Pretty much every serious non-political biblical scholar, ancient or not, is against interpreting or taking bits of the bible literally.
Hell, Paul the Apostle, a once persecutor of christians, was very much against taking written words of holy texts literally, which is why he wrote his famous "For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" line. This was written in the context of Paul trying to convince the jews that the new testament was the natural sequel to the old testament, and that it isn't necessary for someone to partake in the judaic rituals (circumcision, eating only kosher stuff, etc) to achieve salvation, and that ultimately only faith, love and charity mattered.
Mind you, using terms and notions already known by pagans was a thing done by the early church to more easily attract converts. Paul himself tried to use the athenian notion of the "agnosto theo" (the unknown god) to try to convince the athenians that they had a notion of true god for a long time, which was now revealed through Jesus Christ. It didn't work that well at the time, but it worked rather nicely in other places.
As for an example of how politics has inserted erroneous facts into christian canon, there's the whole "peter as the head of the church" thing. The popular church enforced version of this says that Peter was appointed as head of the church by Christ himself, though there's basically no real evidence of this. They also say Peter led a full congregation of christians in Rome during Nero's time, of which there's zero actual evidence (in the letters Paul sent during the two times he was imprisoned in Rome, to christian congregations in the east, he mentions several other christians that are also in Rome, but never actualy mentions Peter, one of the apostles whom he personally knew, meaning that, if Peter was in Rome at the time, Paul somehow didn't know of it, despite keeping constant contact with the local congregation) and is also something that would basically be impracticable at the time, given that the christians were blamed for the fire that consumed most of Rome and used as a scapegoat by Nero, who persecuted them a fair bit. The only time Peter was actualy in Rome was during his execution.
Post by: Harry Baldman on May 04, 2016, 10:44:22 am
Surely in that case they would have used a different name for their different hell? They could have thought of something, I'm sure.
Either that or they saw them as one and the same. Which still raises issues.
Hades is the underworld. If an equivalent was the intention, it would likely be Tartarus or something like that. Hades is more like Sheol.
Besides, what name would that be? Do bear in mind that "hell", for instance, comes from "Hel", which really isn't that much better than calling it Hades to begin with.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on May 04, 2016, 02:42:32 pm
Just wondering because my home-religion-experience is very homebrew. For instance, my belief (when I'm actually feeling beliefy) is that there is no hell. Does the Vatican or stuff say "infidel! heretic! you are not a true believer" for that or something?
Post by: TheBiggerFish on May 04, 2016, 02:44:23 pm
So, sort of? God doesn't kick anybody there, but the idea of a hell is a thing.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on May 04, 2016, 02:50:18 pm
Go Catholicism - I've independently derived one of your conclusions!
That's basically what I think of hell. It's that if you hate love, to be with love would be abhorrent, so would a loving person force an abhorrent thing on someone?
But then that begs the question of would it be hell if that's what you want? Wouldn't a loving God thus do whatever would bring you the most happiness by that logic? Come to think of it, it would probably be better in the long run to be with God. Can't souls change over time? Otherwise, souls are either intrinsically good or evil - that I reject. So even that makes no sense.
aaaaaaand now I'm feeling agnostic again.
Spoiler: begs the question (click to show/hide)
Post by: TempAcc on May 04, 2016, 04:28:29 pm
Its kind of funny how lots of religious figures/scholars/priests/whatevers, after genuinely studying religion and the concept of God and afterlife for decades, always sort of gravitate towards some form of philosophical spiritualism, at which point they basically give up on rituals and other trappings to try and actualy become a better person. Huberto Rohden, for example, after being a jesuit priest for a while, went on to become one of the precursors to universal spiritualism, wrote about 65 books and taught in Princeton and the Washington DC American University.
Post by: Putnam on May 04, 2016, 05:23:43 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 04, 2016, 05:24:24 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on May 04, 2016, 06:50:16 pm
...well would you look at that.If they actually hated love (rather than just not giving a shot in particular about the Abrahamic god in particular), they would probably prefer to be treated as if you didn't love them, which means that rather than not having them with you and thus subjected to something that hate, you should do exactly that.
Go Catholicism - I've independently derived one of your conclusions!
That's basically what I think of hell. It's that if you hate love, to be with love would be abhorrent, so would a loving person force an abhorrent thing on someone?
But then that begs the question of would it be hell if that's what you want? Wouldn't a loving God thus do whatever would bring you the most happiness by that logic? Come to think of it, it would probably be better in the long run to be with God. Can't souls change over time? Otherwise, souls are either intrinsically good or evil - that I reject. So even that makes no sense.
aaaaaaand now I'm feeling agnostic again.Spoiler: begs the question (click to show/hide)
I just stick with the Misotheist's Wager anyway: if I live a good life and try to help people, and there is a God, then either I will be allowed into heaven, or God is a dick and I probably wouldn't want to be with Him anyway, so it's probably for the best. :p
But don't forget purgatory. I think I'd be alright with purgatory. I know I'm certainly not perfect after all.
Post by: Orange Wizard on May 04, 2016, 07:05:30 pm
How did you come to the conclusion that souls exist at all?The idea of souls comes from people needed some sort of eternal existence to play in with the eternalness of God. IMO this is much more easily described by saying that your body will be reassembled and not die again.
The word soul is used in the Bible, but the translation is frequently interchangeable with "heart" or "inmost being".
Most churches would consider the idea of a soul to be fairly crucial.
On the topic of hell, are Christians required to believe that there is a hell that God kicks people to if they're bad?The Vatican definitely supports the doctrine of hell. Most other denominations will also support it. The main groups that deny hell being a thing are the feel-good baptist and pentecostal churches where everything is "Jesus loves you!" and no theology to speak of.
Hell is a fairly important concept to Christianity. I wouldn't say it's required, but denying the doctrine will almost always overlap with or be indicative of some more serious heresy.
But don't forget purgatory. I think I'd be alright with purgatory. I know I'm certainly not perfect after all.Purgatory is a purely Catholic idea and doesn't have any Biblical support, although there might be something in the apocryphal books (i.e. in the Catholic Bible but not others) that I'm not aware of.
Post by: Putnam on May 04, 2016, 07:17:13 pm
Post by: TempAcc on May 04, 2016, 07:31:38 pm
How did the concept first became a thing, nobody is really sure.
Post by: Putnam on May 04, 2016, 07:36:00 pm
Post by: TempAcc on May 04, 2016, 07:45:09 pm
Post by: Putnam on May 04, 2016, 07:47:07 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on May 04, 2016, 07:49:01 pm
...How did anyone find that out?!
Post by: Frumple on May 04, 2016, 07:51:21 pm
I didn't say we know everything, not even remotely. We see that brain damage leads fundamental personality changes, which precludes some sort of fundamental personality Thing.It doesn't, actually. Folks supporting the concept of souls have noted fairly easily that brain damage leading to personality changes just means, at most, that the brain is something like a receiver, and it's the connection between body and soul that's changing rather than the soul itself. Which still exists, of course.
And they died, T. Fatal insomnia is a thing.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on May 04, 2016, 07:52:06 pm
Yikes.
Post by: Putnam on May 04, 2016, 07:55:38 pm
I didn't say we know everything, not even remotely. We see that brain damage leads fundamental personality changes, which precludes some sort of fundamental personality Thing.It doesn't, actually. Folks supporting the concept of souls have noted fairly easily that brain damage leading to personality changes just means, at most, that the brain is something like a receiver, and it's the connection between body and soul that's changing rather than the soul itself. Which still exists, of course.
But that's about the point where you can believe literally anything. If the universe looks exactly the same regardless of the existence of souls, then that's a pretty cut-and-dry case of occam's razor.
Post by: Frumple on May 04, 2016, 07:57:11 pm
Post by: Putnam on May 04, 2016, 07:59:12 pm
Post by: Frumple on May 04, 2016, 08:01:12 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on May 04, 2016, 08:03:39 pm
There are cases where it's invalid. This isn't one of them. This is a pretty clear "things are exactly the same regardless of the existence of this added feature, so it's best to assume this added feature doesn't exist" application of occam's razor.That's not how religion works
Post by: TempAcc on May 04, 2016, 08:05:55 pm
Except a lot of people seem willing to take belief as fact, not unlike certain religious fundamentalists. Two sides of the same coin, one intentionaly interpreting available incomplete evidence as absolute, other disregarding available evidence altogheder, but not fully proven wrong either, and in the end we have Stephen Fry trying to fistfight the ghost of Martin Luther, while I'm throwing popcorn at them.
What I'm saying is, we need to keep trying to learn more things while keeping our minds open to all possibilities, so we don't end up throwing away certain hypothesis away simply because it doesnt fit exactly into what little we know.
And, as we've seen time and time again, Occam's Razor is about as infallible as plastic surgery on Michael Jackson.
FAKEEDIT: ninjas
Post by: smirk on May 04, 2016, 08:07:18 pm
But that's about the point where you can believe literally anything. If the universe looks exactly the same regardless...Aww, c'mon. Are you saying you don't like P-zombies?
Also, seconding OW. In a sense, religion is believing literally anything.
Post by: Calidovi on May 04, 2016, 08:08:16 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Putnam on May 04, 2016, 08:09:01 pm
It's basically philosophical zombie bull.
But that's about the point where you can believe literally anything. If the universe looks exactly the same regardless...Aww, c'mon. Are you saying you don't like P-zombies?
Also, seconding OW. In a sense, religion is believing literally anything.
i wrote my complaint above before reading this post, for posterity
Post by: Rolepgeek on May 04, 2016, 08:18:13 pm
That was before we got hard evidence that one's entire person is stored in the brain (which the Greek philosophers naturally thought was an organ for cooling the blood), though.That is also incorrect. Feedback mechanisms in other parts of the body are very much a part of you and your personality, as is, I would personally argue, much of your physical self, particularly the spinal cord. People can go insane from having their gut bacteria being wonky. The brain is not the self. And besides that, you could quote easily see the soul as an animating force, or a manifestation of the physical aspects of mind and soul, if you're spiritually inclined. Proof that the brain is the primary determinant of personality is not the same as prior against a soul.
Also, what advice do we give people who are hot-blooded, rash, and angry all the time? Use your head.
Also, science today has metric shittons of problems with replication and non-bias, as even something as simple as what beliefs you had prior to the experiment can fuck up your results, even if both of you used the exact same procedure and continually checked in with another researcher with an opposing viewpoint. So it's really not that hard to think Occam's Razor might be wrong here. Sometimes it is.
Also, brain is just a little bit less understood than the heart. Just a little. Also only a little bit more complex.
Post by: Egan_BW on May 05, 2016, 10:30:59 am
If my brain is damaged, it can no longer soul properly.
If my brain is disassembled , it can no longer soul at all.
If my brain were then reassembled, it would presumably then be able to soul again.
The mechanism by which my brain souls is not fully understood, but this will likely.change in the future.
Are those some acceptable definitions?
Post by: Frumple on May 05, 2016, 10:45:26 am
Soul is the thing that my brain does.Not really? Souly bits are clearly not all the brain hypothetically does, nor does brain damage necessarily entail souly malfunctions. It's pretty easy (well, relatively speaking) to take a hard knock to the noggin' and just no longer be able to not piss yourself, ferex, no personality changes (save the entirely expected ones, that have nothing to do explicitly with the damage itself, caused by regularly soiling yourself) involved.
If my brain is damaged, it can no longer soul properly.
If my brain is disassembled , it can no longer soul at all.
If my brain were then reassembled, it would presumably then be able to soul again.
The mechanism by which my brain souls is not fully understood, but this will likely.change in the future.
Are those some acceptable definitions?
It'd be more like,
Soul may be a thing that my brain does.
If my brain is damaged, it's possible it will no longer soul properly.
Rest as previously, except that annoying period between likely and change is purged in fire and bloodshed and your family cursed unto the tenth generation for your sin. Gotta' keep dat shit holy text appropriate.
Post by: Egan_BW on May 05, 2016, 12:06:02 pm
Well, I feel like it's easier to just say that the ability to pee is a part of your soul, just one that you don't care about much, than to try to find a nice line between personality and not personality. We're already fudging it a bit by just talking about the brain, and not the whole nervous system, and all the inputs to the nervous system, and all of our environmental factors on out behavior, and all the factors on those factors, and generally the universe as a whole.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2016, 11:44:40 am
Mother Teresa tried to brainwash Hindus to become Christians and fuelled a violent Indian insurgency, claim BJP leaders
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/mother-teresa-tried-to-brainwash-hindus-to-become-christians-and/)
uh oh, hindi breeki
Post by: TD1 on June 22, 2016, 12:00:48 pm
Hardly seems like news.
Post by: TempAcc on June 22, 2016, 12:07:27 pm
Seriously tho, I'd be ok if someone tried really hard to convert me into noodle worship/chaos magic/subgenius/scientology after saving my life or somesuch. I'd just be like LOL SURE then run away, but run away thankfuly :v
Post by: Descan on June 22, 2016, 12:29:49 pm
Post by: Tomasque on June 22, 2016, 02:01:17 pm
Religious questions thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=158754.60;topicseen)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on June 22, 2016, 02:07:15 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on June 22, 2016, 03:40:46 pm
Mother Theresa was an asshole.
I'm curious as to what you're basing that on. One of my teachers, whom I had just a few years ago, met Mother Teresa while on a charity mission and iirc, saw some of the work she's been doing.
I also read something which said that journals recovered after her death revealed that she was having a crisis of faith basically ever since starting her work. But she kept doing it anyway. So I'd like to know where you're coming from on this.
Post by: TD1 on June 22, 2016, 05:10:59 pm
Post by: Antioch on June 22, 2016, 05:35:51 pm
Mother Theresa was an asshole.
I'm curious as to what you're basing that on. One of my teachers, whom I had just a few years ago, met Mother Teresa while on a charity mission and iirc, saw some of the work she's been doing.
I also read something which said that journals recovered after her death revealed that she was having a crisis of faith basically ever since starting her work. But she kept doing it anyway. So I'd like to know where you're coming from on this.
Stuff like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
Post by: Rolepgeek on June 22, 2016, 10:22:13 pm
The rest is explained by incompetence or being Catholic. The guilt by association and the colonialism/racism stuff seems like bullshit.
Also, Christopher Hitchens is specifically an Anti-Theist. I question his impartiality of reporting.
Post by: Descan on June 23, 2016, 10:49:36 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2016, 11:00:39 am
Given how much he's villified in media (Hah, no pun!) it feels fitting to counterweight that enormous bias by calling Hitler a saint. He's somewhere in the middle, and I personally lean more towards the "Not actually a bad person" side of that line.This is not a very logical way of calling people assholes
Post by: Rolan7 on June 23, 2016, 11:23:24 am
But, even if she didn't have this reputation, it's fair to call her an asshole for much of what she did. Doesn't sum up her entire character, obviously, but I've called people "asshole" over far less.
Her false reputation is just why it's still worth talking about so long after the fact.
Post by: Orange Wizard on June 24, 2016, 02:43:19 am
She's literally held up as a cross-denominational avatar of perfect generosityNot really sure where you're getting this, it's mostly Catholics
Post by: Frumple on June 24, 2016, 12:17:02 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on June 24, 2016, 06:46:30 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 24, 2016, 06:55:02 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on June 24, 2016, 06:56:12 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 24, 2016, 08:20:34 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on June 24, 2016, 08:44:06 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on June 24, 2016, 08:49:30 pm
Thankfully there are anonymous places on the internet.
But OW can't excommunicate anyone, he's not a Pap. Unless the Papal States absorbed New Zealand when I wasn't looking.
Post by: Frumple on June 24, 2016, 09:08:38 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 24, 2016, 09:17:44 pm
Anyways this Pope isn't even the real Pope, they're just waiting to bring back Pope classic
Post by: Rolepgeek on June 24, 2016, 09:28:24 pm
Not like it'd do much, even if he could. US is full of protestant heathens. They care more about the last crap they took than the pope's opinion of 'em. Excommunication means a lot less when there's another (five) church(es) down the street(, each) with a different denomination :VReagan can excommunicate plenty of people
Post by: Rolan7 on July 07, 2016, 09:18:18 pm
God was dissatisfied with Cain's offering of crops, compared to Abel's blood sacrifice of fat animals.
Cain didn't offer Abel as a sacrifice to God (except in Old World of Darkness game lore, interestingly). And lied about it. But still, I can kinda see the thought process.
"Fine, you want animal sacrifice? I'll give you the best damn animal sacrifice..."
Almost strange that modern "Satanists" don't follow Cain rather than Satan. Satan was mostly just jealous of humanity. They worship the ideal of opposition, which I get, but idunno seems like Cain is better there. Or honestly Eve, Adam, or even Lilith.
Since Satan is just some angel who I don't even think has free will, according to the non-biblical stories that explain his antagonism and jealousy. Or maybe he was just jealous of the attention humanity got... Really though I thought I read angels don't get free will, somewhere.
My favorite interpretation is still the Cathars, though. Where God is straight-up evil, but Jesus defied him and provided a way for people to escape reincarnation.
Not even joking, by far the most plausible interpretation of Christianity I've ever seen. It can even explain why God stopped murdering innocents and demanding wars, he was sealed away by Jesus's sacrifice (though I don't know if the actual Cathars went that far).
Post by: Arcvasti on July 07, 2016, 11:42:54 pm
Really though I thought I read angels don't get free will, somewhere.
From vague memories of Religion class, I'm almost 40% certain that Catholic doctrine has the following to say about angels:
They have free will, up to a point. But once they've chosen, they are incapable of UNchoosing. And so an angel that's "Fallen" stays fallen forever.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 07, 2016, 11:57:06 pm
Which is the same thing as not having free will, but you know, religion.
Post by: Frumple on July 07, 2016, 11:58:48 pm
Post by: Putnam on July 08, 2016, 12:02:47 am
seriously i actually love that division there
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 08, 2016, 12:06:24 am
Post by: Putnam on July 08, 2016, 12:08:32 am
Post by: Rolan7 on July 08, 2016, 12:11:00 am
let's talk miaphysitism/monophysitism/chalcedonianism (is Jesus divine and physical, divine and physical or divine and physical?)I love that there was a very long, strident, almost entirely overlooked division there.
seriously i actually love that division there
Which nobody seems eager to study now, because the question is... settled? Mostly, by the survivors of the bloody Christian on Christian wars?
And I think the third thing, paradoxically both, won?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 08, 2016, 12:17:59 am
Fucking heretics.
Post by: MarcAFK on July 08, 2016, 12:29:29 am
Edit: oh shit, I thought this was the railgun and spirituality thread, my bad.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 08, 2016, 12:31:03 am
Post by: Frumple on July 08, 2016, 12:34:45 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 08, 2016, 12:36:36 am
PTW.It is now!
Edit: oh shit, I thought this was the railgun and spirituality thread, my bad.
Post by: Egan_BW on July 08, 2016, 12:41:58 am
Where did the idea of the trinity come from, anyway?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 08, 2016, 12:43:50 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 08, 2016, 12:44:44 am
So, there's no way to describe the trinity that's not a heresy in some way? Or is "It's a paradox lol" pretty much canon?A Divine Mystery™ is the official canon, which basically means "fuck if I know"
Where did the idea of the trinity come from, anyway?St Augustine coined the term AFAIK, although the idea behind the doctrine has been floating around since the Arian heresy started to be a thing.
Post by: Teneb on July 08, 2016, 06:03:39 am
All catholics secretly arians. Heil Mary.Where did the idea of the trinity come from, anyway?St Augustine coined the term AFAIK, although the idea behind the doctrine has been floating around since the Arian heresy started to be a thing.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 08, 2016, 06:06:07 am
All catholics secretly arians. Heil Mary.I know you study history; This is for the benefit of those who don't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
[EDIT: broken quote]
Post by: MarcAFK on July 08, 2016, 07:25:35 am
The council of gauss was heresy and followers of coilgun will be expunged.
Velocitas Eradico!
But seriously this is as bad as heli-kin taking over the sexuality thead.
Post by: hops on July 08, 2016, 07:29:09 am
The holy trinity is the Capacitor, the Rail and the holy projectile, and that is cannon.That was just an #eggmode heli-kin thread.
The council of gauss was heresy and followers of coilgun will be expunged.
Velocitas Eradico!
But seriously this is as bad as heli-kin taking over the sexuality thead.
Post by: MarcAFK on July 08, 2016, 07:34:44 am
I think somebody needs a name hangs to BorkBorkLinksTheWikiAll catholics secretly arians. Heil Mary.I know you study history; This is for the benefit of those who don't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
[EDIT: broken quote]
Post by: Rolan7 on July 09, 2016, 07:48:11 pm
A deity who demands perfection but creates imperfection but then offers unconditional forgiveness, but only if said imperfect creations believe in a certain thing with no evidence?
That just seems so bizarre to me.
The fickle whims of the fey at least admit their non-rationality. Playing a fey game might offer some boon. Probably a tricky one, but that's a boon in itself right? A spice to life.
Maybe I'd feel differently if I had dependents. I'd bet with the ""sure"" religion which offered safety. But since I don't, so I'd rather have an interesting life.
And more importantly than what I'd want, fey-trickery makes infinitely more sense than some absent father-analogue creator offering forgiveness for the despicable way it made me.
Read into that all you want, but under a fair reading of judeo-christian texts I'm not actually responsible for what I am. I had no choice, and I'm suffering the quote-unquote "sin" of some ancient greatX-grandfather.
And my only chance is to circumstancially adopt a redemption belief system from the most recent 0.5% of human history?
I don't believe I *deserve* absolute salvation. I sinned against my morals, and I regret that. And if I still get infinite perfection as a reward despite my unresolved shame, if I say sorry, I guess God is someone who values apology over reasonable morality.
If there's any justice, I belong in some analogue of purgatory (at least for some finite time). But that's not how common US Christianity works. The apologetic are saved, the confused burn eternally.
If I do join any Abrahamic denomination, it will certainly be Catholicism. It resonates with me. I need some punishment for what I've done, or I cannot feel clean. Like karma.
But looking at reality, I'm more likely to keep believing in fickle, blue-green-morality aliens who play with us.
Edit: Or the Cathars, actually. In fact Catharism over Catholicism.
Post by: TD1 on July 10, 2016, 01:45:19 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2016, 02:11:38 am
I need some punishment for what I've done, or I cannot feel clean.Kinky, but we have places for that now other than churches.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on July 10, 2016, 01:28:26 pm
Unrelated to previous sentence: I've discussed religion with my formerly-agnostic father and Catholic mother. It was quite interesting.
Spoiler: story (click to show/hide)
I'm going to continue being Catholic, because a possible application of the Bible and other Catholic stuff agrees with my own ethics. It's not the Catholic God I believe in, nor the Pope, nor the church authorities. It's the ethics I derive from what I believe to be a mainly fictional book. And I only believe in them because I agree with them. Mostly.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on July 10, 2016, 06:27:38 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2016, 06:39:10 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 10, 2016, 07:35:48 pm
I don't believe I *deserve* absolute salvation. I sinned against my morals, and I regret that. And if I still get infinite perfection as a reward despite my unresolved shame, if I say sorry, I guess God is someone who values apology over reasonable morality.
?
I mean, I feel like the solution here is to resolve the shame. Which might be damn hard, but even from a purely materialistic standpoint, unless you consider all of you responsible for all the rest of you, there's so many influences on your behavior that you can't control that affect everything you do...feel bad about it if it helps you avoid a repeat, but guilt has a purpose.
I think, also, that our definitions of reasonable morality differ. For me, the fact that someone is willing to apologize and mean it is worth a lot. In fact, my objections to the concept of a Christian afterlife are basically the opposite of yours, so maybe it might not be the best idea to try and critique if we're gonna come at it from polar opposites in perspective :P
Post by: Rolan7 on July 10, 2016, 09:38:09 pm
Honest regret is a good first step, but if it just leads to despair then it's worthless. There has to be a will to fix the problem. That's infinitely more important than forgiveness, at least in my experience.
I spent too much time being forgiven, and then later on forgiving a couple of people, and observing that it doesn't help anything. Infinite forgiveness is a mistake that just hurts both parties. It's lazy idealism, ego-stroking for the forgiver.
Useful forgiveness can only come when the bad behavior is overcome, and even then it doesn't really matter except to repair a relationship with someone real.
So yeah, it's vital to address the underlying cause of the shame and fix it. Forgiveness-doctrine doesn't emphasize that at all. Many churches do address it, out of practicality rather than doctrine. The underlying message of Christianity is "We're all sinners, unavoidably. If you admit you feel bad, this blood ritual will wipe away any amount of mistakes". Feeling bad solves nothing by itself.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 11, 2016, 12:31:52 am
My point about guilt having a purpose is that you shouldn't use it when it accomplishes nothing. If you're taking actions that make you feel guilty on a regular basis, the guilt is not doing it's job, and you need to take a different approach.
I mean, as far as I know, you can get into heaven even if you get hit by a bus stepping out of the confessional, and haven't had time to fix what was wrong, but it seems clear why that might be the case.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 11, 2016, 04:44:53 am
The underlying message of Christianity is "We're all sinners, unavoidably. If you admit you feel bad, and make an honest effort to right the wrongs and change yourself, this blood ritual will wipe away any amount of mistakes". Feeling bad solves nothing by itself.FTFY
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 11, 2016, 04:50:54 am
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 11, 2016, 04:52:30 am
Can't you just punish yourself?
Unrelated to previous sentence: I've discussed religion with my formerly-agnostic father and Catholic mother. It was quite interesting.Spoiler: story (click to show/hide)
I'm going to continue being Catholic, because a possible application of the Bible and other Catholic stuff agrees with my own ethics. It's not the Catholic God I believe in, nor the Pope, nor the church authorities. It's the ethics I derive from what I believe to be a mainly fictional book. And I only believe in them because I agree with them. Mostly.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 11, 2016, 05:00:15 am
OW confirmed for works-based salvation heretic.Would you feel inclined to forgive someone who kicked you in the shin, said "it's okay if I apologise, so I'm sorry", kicked you in the shin again, saying "it's okay if I apologise"?
Of course not, you'd think he's a dick. People aren't sorry if they're not trying to do things differently afterwards.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 11, 2016, 05:03:15 am
OW confirmed for works-based salvation heretic.Would you feel inclined to forgive someone who kicked you in the shin, said "it's okay if I apologise, so I'm sorry", kicked you in the shin again, saying "it's okay if I apologise"?
Of course not, you'd think he's a dick. People aren't sorry if they're not trying to do things differently afterwards.
Quote from: Isaiah 64:6
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.Repent of your heresy, patsy of Satan. Your delicious cream filling will not save you on the day of judgement.
Post by: Grim Portent on July 11, 2016, 05:33:32 am
OW confirmed for works-based salvation heretic.Would you feel inclined to forgive someone who kicked you in the shin, said "it's okay if I apologise, so I'm sorry", kicked you in the shin again, saying "it's okay if I apologise"?
Of course not, you'd think he's a dick. People aren't sorry if they're not trying to do things differently afterwards.Quote from: Isaiah 64:6All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.Repent of your heresy, patsy of Satan. Your delicious cream filling will not save you on the day of judgement.
I could go for some Satanic Pastries about now. They're sinfully delicious. :P
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 11, 2016, 05:35:14 am
May I tempt you with some delicious devils-food cake?OW confirmed for works-based salvation heretic.Would you feel inclined to forgive someone who kicked you in the shin, said "it's okay if I apologise, so I'm sorry", kicked you in the shin again, saying "it's okay if I apologise"?
Of course not, you'd think he's a dick. People aren't sorry if they're not trying to do things differently afterwards.Quote from: Isaiah 64:6All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.Repent of your heresy, patsy of Satan. Your delicious cream filling will not save you on the day of judgement.
I could go for some Satanic Pastries about now. They're sinfully delicious. :P
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 11, 2016, 05:36:56 am
May I tempt you with some delicious devils-food cake?I'll take some Baal bread, that stuff's great.
Quote
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.It's not the works that save you, but it's hard to say someone is sorry if they don't seem, y'know, sorry.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 11, 2016, 05:40:53 am
A christian has both faith and works.May I tempt you with some delicious devils-food cake?I'll take some Baal bread, that stuff's great.Quote14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.It's not the works that save you, but it's hard to say someone is sorry if they don't seem, y'know, sorry.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 11, 2016, 05:44:39 am
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 11, 2016, 05:45:29 am
That's what I saidI am not arguing.
Post by: Teneb on July 11, 2016, 05:51:11 am
Pope Gregory the Great (later Saint Gregory), for instance, theorized in his many works that God let sin exist so people could better themselves by their own initiative, by resisting it and repenting when they didn't manage to.
Frankly, it's a better explanation than a bipolar deity, even if less amusing.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 11, 2016, 05:52:00 am
Would you feel inclined to forgive someone who kicked you in the shin, said "it's okay if I apologise, so I'm sorry", kicked you in the shin again, saying "it's okay if I apologise"?I'm up waaay too late but real quick, hope this makes sense...
Of course not, you'd think he's a dick. People aren't sorry if they're not trying to do things differently afterwards.
What if they're actually sorry, but they have a poisonous ingrained behavior (like wrath in that case, or maybe gluttony or sloth). They keep trying to reform, and are honestly sorry that their sin is hurting others.
I think what I was trying to say is that there's a huge difference between support, and enabling. Personally, if I'm slipping into one of my self-destructive behaviors, I don't want forgiveness until I manage to fight it off. Having help is important, but premature unconditional forgiveness is unhelpful... removes the incentive. Enables the behavior. Can twist a good relationship into an abusive one.
I've been an enabler, and the enabled, and maybe that's part of why I'm leery of the concept. Nothing good comes out of it.
Of course I'm sure Christians don't see it as Jesus enabling them. It just looks pretty similar to me right now.
For example, a big part of Jesus's teaching was that the magnitude of sin doesn't matter when it comes to forgiveness. Feeling any lust makes you an adulterer, feeling any hate makes you a murderer. No one can reach heaven without Jesus's forgiveness, which no one deserves.
Obviously Christians still have normal consciences which make them feel worse about heavier sins (or actually acting on it)... It's just a bit eerie to me that the NT really downplays that.
Of course a Christian needs to try not to avoid sin, or else they're not actually regretful. I just don't see any religious incentive to try hard, though, and a lot of self-described Christians don't either. A moment's doubt before the act counts as being sorry.
I'm sorry if this doesn't make any sense, or if it's unintentionally offensive. I'm just sleepy.
[6 new replies] uh oh- oh good it's fine, I just typed long. [1 new reply]
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 11, 2016, 06:07:57 am
I'm up waaay too late but real quick, hope this makes sense...Me too
What if they're actually sorry, but they have a poisonous ingrained behavior (like wrath in that case, or maybe gluttony or sloth). They keep trying to reform, and are honestly sorry that their sin is hurting others.If they're putting effort in, then that's good. Nobody's perfect, trying counts for a lot.
I think what I was trying to say is that there's a huge difference between support, and enabling. Personally, if I'm slipping into one of my self-destructive behaviors, I don't want forgiveness until I manage to fight it off. Having help is important, but premature unconditional forgiveness is unhelpful... removes the incentive. Enables the behavior. Can twist a good relationship into an abusive one.Kinda agree with you here, actually. I think the saved-by-grace people try to overemphasise the "no works" part of things to the point where it almost sounds like trying to do good is pointless, when it's really the whole point.
I've been an enabler, and the enabled, and maybe that's part of why I'm leery of the concept. Nothing good comes out of it.
Of course I'm sure Christians don't see it as Jesus enabling them. It just looks pretty similar to me right now.
For example, a big part of Jesus's teaching was that the magnitude of sin doesn't matter when it comes to forgiveness. Feeling any lust makes you an adulterer, feeling any hate makes you a murderer. No one can reach heaven without Jesus's forgiveness, which no one deserves.[/quote]
Obviously Christians still have normal consciences which make them feel worse about heavier sins (or actually acting on it)... It's just a bit eerie to me that the NT really downplays that.
Of course a Christian needs to try not to avoid sin, or else they're not actually regretful. I just don't see any religious incentive to try hard, though, and a lot of self-described Christians don't either. A moment's doubt before the act counts as being sorry.
Eh. The NT definitely doesn't downplay the punishment for sins, or their scope. Major sins are still major, require a major apology, and major effort to change things. Minor sins are minor, unless it's a habit or somesuch, in which case you'd be trying to break the habit, and so on.
For forgiveness' part, it's more that Christ's sacrifice was big enough, and less that your sin was minor enough to be forgiven.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 11, 2016, 06:42:56 am
Post by: scrdest on July 11, 2016, 06:49:16 am
The smoke from the burning children guarantees only the best of flavors!May I tempt you with some delicious devils-food cake?I'll take some Baal bread, that stuff's great.
Post by: smirk on July 11, 2016, 07:13:06 am
Post by: TempAcc on July 11, 2016, 08:13:37 am
Anyway, my view on redemption/salvation through work is basically the same as OW's. Repenting is only the first step, you have to actualy try to repair the damage you've caused with your sins. Spiritism goes a step further and says that trying is great, but isn't enough by itself either, which is why it is against things such as flagellation and other self imposed punishments like that, because punishing yourself isn't likely to do anything to repair the damage you caused, and instead just causes you to do more evil, since you're essentialy pretending to do good by doing something that doesn't affect anyone but yourself. So, if you stole something, you should prob try to either give the thing back or compensate for the person's loss if thats not possible.
Your effort and your intentions that you put into helping people still do matter a lot, though. An indigent that gives away his only piece of food to save someone from starvation while only thinking of said person's wellbeing is more worthy than a rich man who gives away half his wealth to the poor while thinking of all the great PR he'll get out of it. The rich man will get the reward he deserves (great PR, which he expected), and so will the indigent, who will be saved, since he only thought of another's wellbeing while never expecting any reward.
Salvation is kind of a effy concept in spiritism though, since there's no defined hell to be saved from :v
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 11, 2016, 10:56:59 am
Quote
A new high-tech weapon designed for the U.S. Navy could be a game changer during a conflict, but at what cost? Manufacturing the railgun electromagnetic cannon fetches a significant fee, but defense officials have said its potential benefits far outweigh the negatives, Defense News reported.Respect the bullet (http://www.ibtimes.com/us-navy-railgun-electromagnetic-cannon-cost-too-expensive-despite-drawbacks-officials-2387188)
The railgun's price tag exceeds half a billion dollars, but it can reportedly shoot faster than the speed of sound, at about 5,700 miles per hour, and hit moving targets with more precision than many existing weapons.
“The railgun is revolutionary in terms of how much it can accelerate the bullet,” said Tom Boucher, the railgun program manager for the Office of Naval Research. “Powder guns have been matured to the point where you are going to get the most out of them. Railguns are just beginning.”
Post by: Teneb on July 11, 2016, 11:21:48 am
On a somewhat related tangent, today I learned the recipe for penitence bread, which is actually not regular bread. 1/3 wheat flour, 1/3 ash, 1/3 salt and water. Remember kids: what's toxic for your body is purifying for your soul!The smoke from the burning children guarantees only the best of flavors!May I tempt you with some delicious devils-food cake?I'll take some Baal bread, that stuff's great.
Or just go to Lucifer's and order a double brimstone burger.
Post by: TempAcc on July 11, 2016, 12:48:23 pm
QuoteA new high-tech weapon designed for the U.S. Navy could be a game changer during a conflict, but at what cost? Manufacturing the railgun electromagnetic cannon fetches a significant fee, but defense officials have said its potential benefits far outweigh the negatives, Defense News reported.Respect the bullet (http://www.ibtimes.com/us-navy-railgun-electromagnetic-cannon-cost-too-expensive-despite-drawbacks-officials-2387188)
The railgun's price tag exceeds half a billion dollars, but it can reportedly shoot faster than the speed of sound, at about 5,700 miles per hour, and hit moving targets with more precision than many existing weapons.
“The railgun is revolutionary in terms of how much it can accelerate the bullet,” said Tom Boucher, the railgun program manager for the Office of Naval Research. “Powder guns have been matured to the point where you are going to get the most out of them. Railguns are just beginning.”
Didn't they recently make a breakthrough that essentialy allows a railgun to fire hundreds or so shots before the rails actualy have to be replaced? That was the main problem with it, and with that out of the way, railguns pretty much outclass any ship mounted weaponry since missiles are more expensive on a per-shot basis, lasers don't have that much range and require exotic gasses and shit and regular cannons don't come close on range and projectile speed.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 11, 2016, 01:08:37 pm
Didn't they recently make a breakthrough that essentialy allows a railgun to fire hundreds or so shots before the rails actualy have to be replaced? That was the main problem with it, and with that out of the way, railguns pretty much outclass any ship mounted weaponry since missiles are more expensive on a per-shot basis, lasers don't have that much range and require exotic gasses and shit and regular cannons don't come close on range and projectile speed.I haven't heard anything about that
The big one to look out for is getting thousands of shots with your railgun before replacement, that changes everything
Goodbye to destroyers and carriers, hello to drone carriers and battleships
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on July 11, 2016, 03:39:45 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Arcvasti on July 11, 2016, 06:48:31 pm
Holy Cthulthu, a works-or-faith discussion that hasn't erupted in flames?!
even the flames bow before the power of the most high railgun
Post by: Rolan7 on July 11, 2016, 06:49:23 pm
Discuss.
Post by: Teneb on July 11, 2016, 06:50:12 pm
Cthulhu versus railgun?Don't be silly, Cthulhu is a railgun.
Discuss.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on July 11, 2016, 07:14:45 pm
8)
church militant
YEAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Post by: Kot on July 12, 2016, 04:22:57 am
It's DEUS VULT'O CLOCK! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isxvXITTLLY)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 12, 2016, 04:46:11 am
Do you know what time it is?
It's DEUS VULT'O CLOCK! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isxvXITTLLY)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TD1 on July 14, 2016, 05:57:44 am
Post by: Arx on July 14, 2016, 06:01:07 am
Like if you nick someone's wallet, and then feel bad. But you keep the wallet instead of giving it back. Clearly you don't feel that bad.
Post by: Kot on July 14, 2016, 06:03:05 am
Post by: TD1 on July 14, 2016, 06:05:04 am
If the only thing of value is not the monetary value of the object, but the moral weight of the actions, then repenting and morally cleansing yourself makes you a-okay. Certainly, if you truly repent then you may give the wallet back. Or you might donate it to charity. The point is that it isn't needed, and is only representative of the truly valuable event - the repentance. If you kept the wallet for whatever the result would be the same.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 14, 2016, 06:10:03 am
"Yeah sorry I gave it to the Salvation Army"
"Why?"
"Because it doesn't matter what I do with it as long as I'm sorry"
Post by: Kot on July 14, 2016, 06:10:34 am
This is assuming you ascribe value to the wallet.This is assuming the person you stole from doesn't ascribe value to the wallet.
Repent as much as you want but if someone is going to starve then you're fooking evil, even if you think it's A-Okay because you feel sorry for it.
Post by: TD1 on July 14, 2016, 06:20:49 am
"Hey have you seen my wallet"
"Yeah sorry I gave it to the Salvation Army"
"Why?"
"Because it doesn't matter what I do with it as long as I'm sorry"
Pretty much. Christianity, everybody.This is assuming you ascribe value to the wallet.This is assuming the person you stole from doesn't ascribe value to the wallet.
Repent as much as you want but if someone is going to starve then you're fooking evil, even if you think it's A-Okay because you feel sorry for it.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 14, 2016, 06:22:46 am
Post by: scrdest on July 14, 2016, 06:29:18 am
It's more than a little bit disingenuous to criticize Christianity as a whole by way of theology you ascribe to them. That is, if anything, a niche belief of a niche belief of Protestantism specifically."Hey have you seen my wallet"
"Yeah sorry I gave it to the Salvation Army"
"Why?"
"Because it doesn't matter what I do with it as long as I'm sorry"Pretty much. Christianity, everybody.This is assuming you ascribe value to the wallet.This is assuming the person you stole from doesn't ascribe value to the wallet.
Repent as much as you want but if someone is going to starve then you're fooking evil, even if you think it's A-Okay because you feel sorry for it.
Post by: TD1 on July 14, 2016, 06:35:40 am
Eh, to change what I had written here (which essentially said "I know as much as any Christian, and other people say the same as I do") I would like to add "prove me wrong" :PIt's more than a little bit disingenuous to criticize Christianity as a whole by way of theology you ascribe to them. That is, if anything, a niche belief of a niche belief of Protestantism specifically."Hey have you seen my wallet"
"Yeah sorry I gave it to the Salvation Army"
"Why?"
"Because it doesn't matter what I do with it as long as I'm sorry"Pretty much. Christianity, everybody.This is assuming you ascribe value to the wallet.This is assuming the person you stole from doesn't ascribe value to the wallet.
Repent as much as you want but if someone is going to starve then you're fooking evil, even if you think it's A-Okay because you feel sorry for it.
Post by: Kot on July 14, 2016, 06:38:57 am
Anyways, I was never a great fan of Christianity as an organization and in general think a lot of it is flawed (not that any other belief is better), but if living in Catholic country where I was taught Catholic values from start taught me anything, it taught me that there is a hidden Zeroth Commandment - don't be a dick. Stick to it.
Post by: NRDL on July 14, 2016, 06:41:28 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 14, 2016, 06:45:07 am
I know as much as any Christian, and other people say the same as I doPretty sure 99% of Christians you talk to would say stealing is wrong and you should give the hypothetical wallet back, because they're not ignoring the whole "faith without works is dead" thing
FWIW 100% of the Christians in the thread are saying you're wrong, and the burden of proof lies on thyself
Yeah, but there's still the underlying question of not being a dick because you place value on the perspective and existence of the other person, or not being a dick because all of existence is based around the tenets and teachings of a theodical being beyond our comprehension, and it just so happens not being a dick kinda matches with His/Her/God's agenda."Do unto others as you would have them do to you" - Jesus
Sounds like not being a dick was in his agenda
Post by: TD1 on July 14, 2016, 06:56:13 am
For instance, to draw back to the by-now-probably-proverbial wallet it's pretty darn bad to take it from an earthly point of view. But if your God ascribes absolutely no value to it and says that repentance and development are the only important things, not whether John Smith and his children starve tonight, then it's not a bad thing. It's a meaningless means to the end of eschatological reward, which John Smith can share in too if he plays his cards right.
It's an eternal existence on a perfect plane. That one guy who stole your wallet and repented, but failed to reimburse you, isn't going to matter all that much.
Perhaps mine is a niche view, but it seems like a natural logical conclusion of what Christianity says. Actions are not important. Belief and repentance, even without accompanying action, is.
Pretty sure 99% of Christians you talk to would say stealing is wrong and you should give the hypothetical wallet back, because they're not ignoring the whole "faith without works is dead" thingWhat Christians want to believe is not what I'm describing.
FWIW 100% of the Christians in the thread are saying you're wrong, and the burden of proof lies on thyself
"Do unto others as you would have them do to you" - JesusOf course, he did sound rather dickish when he called a Canaanite a dog. This is a rather relative statement, depending upon what you'd like people to do to you. I might love BDSM, but if someone is terrified of confinement I'm not going to tie them up, despite having others do it to me. - not true story.
Sounds like not being a dick was in his agenda
Post by: NRDL on July 14, 2016, 07:00:32 am
Post by: DJ on July 14, 2016, 07:01:46 am
Perhaps mine is a niche view, but it seems like a natural logical conclusion of what Christianity says. Actions are not important. Belief and repentance, even without accompanying action, is.That's pretty much the opposite of Catholic Church's view. At least in my highschool religion class, which was taught by an actual nun, they taught us that you don't have to be a Christian to go to Heaven, you only need to be a good person.
Post by: TD1 on July 14, 2016, 07:06:21 am
I've always thought that a good God ought not bar an atheist/other religion person simply for not believing in something which, at times, is rather far fetched. Instead, they would let them in - and any God that doesn't reward actual goodness over belief isn't a good God. In my opinion, of course.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 14, 2016, 07:08:45 am
For instance, to draw back to the by-now-probably-proverbial wallet it's pretty darn bad to take it from an earthly point of view. But if your God ascribes absolutely no value to it and says that repentance and development are the only important things, not whether John Smith and his children starve tonight, then it's not a bad thing. It's a meaningless means to the end of eschatological reward, which John Smith can share in too if he plays his cards right.What? Money has value. Of course it has value. How would it not? You can buy food and give it to John Smith.
It's an eternal existence on a perfect plane. That one guy who stole your wallet and repented, but failed to reimburse you, isn't going to matter all that much.We're not on an eternal plane, actions in the present matter in the present
Perhaps mine is a niche view, but it seems like a natural logical conclusion of what Christianity says.No-one else seems to think so
Actions are not important. Belief and repentance, even without accompanying action, is.Sorry are we looking at the same Christianity? Mine has a bunch of stuff about working for the good of everyone around me, giving generously, not stealing, treating people with respect, guess that's not part of it?
What Christians want to believe is not what I'm describing.Then your entire argument is antitheistic wank and very, very wrong
Post by: DJ on July 14, 2016, 07:09:04 am
Post by: TD1 on July 14, 2016, 07:16:01 am
Yeah, the stance is pretty much that it's all about taking the path of good, and Christianity is like a map that makes it a lot easier to find and stay on that path.That sounds really good! I mean, I don't believe it, but kudos to the people teaching it!
Then your entire argument is antitheistic wank and very, very wrongMy argument is based upon the main theme in the Bible - the after life - being the most important aspect of the Bible. Guidelines for good moral behaviour (though defining good is sometimes shady in terms of issues like slavery and warfare) are included as things to show that you're following the path to Paradise, but if you do transgress then all you need is to be truly repentant for it to be cleansed. You can do a good work after if you want to, and it's certainly indicative of true repentance, but it's not essential. This is my understanding of the message. Term it a wank if you want.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 14, 2016, 07:30:55 am
Post by: TD1 on July 14, 2016, 07:35:31 am
Also, you wouldn't want to disagree with Milton, now would you? He's a blind old man!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 14, 2016, 07:38:32 am
Where does it say that?Everywhere
Quote
Matthew 25:31-46English Standard Version (ESV)
The Final Judgment
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Quote
John 13:34-35English Standard Version (ESV)
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Quote
Faith Without Works Is Dead
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Post by: Kot on July 14, 2016, 08:55:05 am
Bible, just as any other religious writing in the world is horrendously inconsistent and so are organizations based on it and in general it's very easy to bash religion due to it's flaws and you could have (and we had) wars over it, but in the end it's the general "soul" of it that matters, the things that we are told in school (be it by nun, priest or non-associated teacher) and in temples and so on - and since very long time majority of Christians subscribe to the rule of "don't be a dick" and things seem to go pretty well. The Paradise/Heaven/Whateveryoucallit is a reward, not the objective, the objective is to be a decent human bean because that is what would Jeebus want. The requirement of repentance is more like a sign that you're a decent human bean because that's something you should feel and if you feel it then you're proably going to do good work by yourself anyways, but if you somehow can't then repentance itself is okay too. Trying to cheat the system by just repenting while you can also fix your wrongdoings proably means you're not actually feeling bad and thus are shitty human bean and that's not what Jeebus wants.
To summarize:
Don't be a dick, use common sense, don't bash theists, don't bash atheists, be decent human bean.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on July 14, 2016, 09:28:43 am
Post by: TD1 on July 17, 2016, 07:07:10 pm
Quote
EverywhereJohn seems to disagree.
Quote
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.Suggesting only belief is needed.
Quote
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.Suggesting that what is important is faith. Whether or not people moralise according to the Bible seems to be a litmus test - Light and Darkness is irrelevant except in where they indicate faith in God. So they can do all "in the sight of God." This is my interpretation, though - there's probably ten thousand out there.
Quote
1 John 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.If someone sins, Jesus is the way to atonement/redemption.
I could look elsewhere to find things, but I'll stop there. The Bible is a bit dense/hard to read at times :P
@Th4DwArfY1: Being truly repentant is making reparations.Being repentant is believing you were in the wrong and saying so to God. The two are not synonyms. Being repentant often leads to reparation, but not always.
Post by: TheDarkStar on July 17, 2016, 08:54:03 pm
Belief requiring/not requiring action: Believing in Christ includes following what he says. James 2:19 (which is just before the "faith without works is dead" verse) provides an example:
Quote
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble.
There are other interpretations, but mine is that faith is worthless without accompanying actions.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 17, 2016, 09:47:55 pm
There are other interpretations, but mine is that faith is worthless without accompanying actions.Yeah, this
John seems to disagree.Saved by faith != deeds are worthless. It's your work that makes your faith valuable.
Being repentant is believing you were in the wrong and saying so to God.... and making a sincere effort to turn away from sin. Your apology is worthless if you don't try to change. Making reparations is a clear way of indicating that you're trying.
Post by: Teneb on July 17, 2016, 09:51:28 pm
But OW, you are a heretic. Everything you say is automatically wrong.There are other interpretations, but mine is that faith is worthless without accompanying actions.Yeah, thisJohn seems to disagree.Saved by faith != deeds are worthless. It's your work that makes your faith valuable.Being repentant is believing you were in the wrong and saying so to God.... and making a sincere effort to turn away from sin. Your apology is worthless if you don't try to change. Making reparations is a clear way of indicating that you're trying.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 17, 2016, 10:02:14 pm
Oh you mean this from four pages ago :P
OW confirmed for works-based salvation heretic.I actually tend to agree. I think the Catholic stance is much more reasonable, but I don't yet think it matches the Bible narrative.
Of course, the Bible's just a book. Seems like a lot of Christians agree that it's inaccurate and outdated.
Still...
NahWhere does it say that?EverywhereQuoteMatthew 25:31-46English Standard Version (ESV)
The Final Judgment
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
NahQuoteJohn 13:34-35English Standard Version (ESV)
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
This is a solid point for a Biblical argument.QuoteFaith Without Works Is Dead
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 17, 2016, 10:12:06 pm
At least, that's my interpretation.
Post by: NRDL on July 17, 2016, 10:19:36 pm
The priorities of a deity would probably be different, as only a lack of faith would be disturbing to them. Any lack of reparatory action would be irrelevant to them, as it would be impossible to wrong them anyway. The rules were made for mortals.
Post by: Teneb on July 17, 2016, 10:20:12 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 17, 2016, 10:32:36 pm
IMO, if a human were to create the rules behind faith and its relationship to action, a human would indeed emphasise, like I'm sure most do, that action is necessary, not just faith. And that's because if a human were wronged, he/she'd would want some sort of reparatory action performed to him/her, not just good intentions and a sorry.You can totally wrong God. It's just as long as you have faith, he can accept that. I believe, anyway.
The priorities of a deity would probably be different, as only a lack of faith would be disturbing to them. Any lack of reparatory action would be irrelevant to them, as it would be impossible to wrong them anyway. The rules were made for mortals.
Post by: Teneb on July 17, 2016, 10:50:27 pm
Yes. According to St Gregory and St Augstine (especially since Gregory loved to parrot Augustine), God expects people to sin. It's just that he wants them to repent whenever that happens, improving themselves in the process.IMO, if a human were to create the rules behind faith and its relationship to action, a human would indeed emphasise, like I'm sure most do, that action is necessary, not just faith. And that's because if a human were wronged, he/she'd would want some sort of reparatory action performed to him/her, not just good intentions and a sorry.You can totally wrong God. It's just as long as you have faith, he can accept that. I believe, anyway.
The priorities of a deity would probably be different, as only a lack of faith would be disturbing to them. Any lack of reparatory action would be irrelevant to them, as it would be impossible to wrong them anyway. The rules were made for mortals.
Post by: Egan_BW on July 17, 2016, 10:54:44 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 17, 2016, 11:32:33 pm
Post by: Rose on July 17, 2016, 11:53:19 pm
I also don't see why that thing would care about humans over roaches or algae.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 17, 2016, 11:56:30 pm
How can you wrong a thing when said thing is directly responsible for literally everything.He told you not to do something.
Then you did the thing.
I think it's fairly clear how.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 17, 2016, 11:58:39 pm
He designed you such that you did the thing, though.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 18, 2016, 12:01:00 am
(Under judeo-christian understanding)That's one interpretation. Deism is also a thing. As is free will, in judeo-christian understanding. You still chose to do the thing. You still have responsibility for it.
He designed you such that you did the thing, though.
Post by: TheDarkStar on July 18, 2016, 12:17:02 am
(Under judeo-christian understanding)
He designed you such that you did the thing, though.
It depends on whether you have free will or not.
PPE: and Rolepgeek beat me to it.
Post by: NRDL on July 18, 2016, 12:24:25 am
I guess it's kinda like a mouse in a maze with 3 pre-set doors, each door leading to individual unique passages. The choices are limited, and the ones who set up the maze know all pre-set choices. The difference between God and scientists in the maze scenario is that God's outside of time and all that, and can foresee/see/saw, all of your choices, not just the one you perceived yourself making.
Post by: Egan_BW on July 18, 2016, 12:40:33 am
I did do such a thing (while I might protest that I was adequately told not to beforehand, that is not the pertinent point). However, I am just a purely predictable part crafted by it, so in a way, it also did it to itself.How can you wrong a thing when said thing is directly responsible for literally everything.He told you not to do something.
Then you did the thing.
I think it's fairly clear how.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 18, 2016, 04:19:31 am
Is obedience to a thing simply because the thing requires it good?How can you wrong a thing when said thing is directly responsible for literally everything.He told you not to do something.
Then you did the thing.
I think it's fairly clear how.
Post by: Kot on July 18, 2016, 05:10:50 am
Psh. Just visit Jerusalem. That's worth 10 years of indulgence.I am fairly sure Jerusalem is worth something else. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6aPgA5549g)
Post by: TempAcc on July 18, 2016, 07:43:14 am
In this sense, a good man is truly Godlike, not due to omnipotence or anything like that, but because he chooses to do good, even when he could totally do evil, and is rewarded for it. This reward does not come from God, but from the good that results from man's own good works. This is why good is an end unto itself, and not something you do expecting some reward from some external source apart from yourself and your actions.
Post by: Harry Baldman on July 18, 2016, 11:30:11 am
Kay, if God's omniscient, and knows every possible choice we could make, and every possible parameter in which the many versions of ourself could exist, is free will still possible?
I guess it's kinda like a mouse in a maze with 3 pre-set doors, each door leading to individual unique passages. The choices are limited, and the ones who set up the maze know all pre-set choices. The difference between God and scientists in the maze scenario is that God's outside of time and all that, and can foresee/see/saw, all of your choices, not just the one you perceived yourself making.
Free will is in the eye of the beholder, the space where we have no great predictive ability. Humans have free will in relation to what humans can measure, as do all other animals. Even viruses, which aren't even organisms, can be said to have some degree of free will because a lot of their behavior is determined by random mutation and faulty replication. It's one of those things that clearly exists except in the hypothetical scenario where we are omniscient, which is physically impossible within our universe.
It is possible that God isn't omniscient and the purpose of creating reality for it is to find out something that it couldn't puzzle out a priori.
On the other hand, if God is omniscient (at least in regards to this universe), then that would imply that God already knows everything, and that reality has a different purpose than an interest in what the outcome will be. It is possible, then, that the ultimate outcome of reality doesn't really depend on any choice made. It could be that the intended purpose is to produce a known subset of individuals who made a particular choice (what that choice might be is unknown). Alternatively, it could be that no choice really matters in God's plan for reality. This isn't, say, a grand experiment that will grant God some superuniversal insight. Rather, it's just renewing a collection or baking a cake. A thing you do with fully predictable and trivial results that people with inferior perceptions read incredibly deeply into (such as the secret ingredient being God's love for His creations).
Post by: Grim Portent on July 18, 2016, 01:22:38 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 18, 2016, 02:45:07 pm
God doesn't know everything that will happen exactly, but He's big enough and powerful enough to shape the future such that He knows more or less what will happen, and prophecies will be prophecies, but He intentionally avoids 'looking' at individual futures whenever possible, so to speak, if He can 'know' everything from predictive analysis or what-have-you. From the standpoint of quantum mechanics, to observe is to set in stone. So if He observes the future, He can set in stone that it will happen, which of course destroys free will as applied to people.
Thus, God intentionally avoids looking at it, though he could, in order to allow free will. He may, in some cases, make vague predictions/use His 'peripheral vision' so to speak, when trying to reassure or inform people of their general futures, but if He were to see exactly what would happen for their entire life beforehand, He would be robbing them of their agency, so He only makes vague predictions and cryptic analyses, which has minimal effect on their ability to be free of His influence in that sense.
I don't know if any of that makes sense, but I think it would be an interesting take on it.
Also, God is Good and Good is God. There is no separation between the two in Judeo-Christianity. To do something because it is required of you if you want to be a good person is still doing something in order to be a good person.
I find myself rather annoyed at people who say that you can't be a good person, really, unless you're doing it for no other reason than to help someone else. I like helping people. But it smacks of a sort-of 'if you aren't as naturally good as us, you're not good at all'. And that's not how good works. If you're being a dick about doing something nice, that's another thing altogether, though.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2016, 02:52:50 pm
Post by: Harry Baldman on July 18, 2016, 02:57:26 pm
What is Judeo-Christianity
The Christian Faith of Judea, and perhaps also the Judean Christian Faith.
I don't know if any of that makes sense, but I think it would be an interesting take on it.
EDIT: I think setting something in stone by observing it may be one of those bits of quantum mechanics where the map is confused for the territory. Whether you observe something (with the possible exception of burglaries) or not does not really impede or affect its occurrence in the macro scale, does it? That's kind of the point of Schrodinger's Cat.
Post by: Teneb on July 18, 2016, 03:00:10 pm
I find it interesting that when people talk about the abrahamic faiths they often call them judeo-christian despite islam being there too, and a pretty big part of it.What is Judeo-ChristianityThe Christian Faith of Judea, and perhaps also the Judean Christian Faith.
Post by: Harry Baldman on July 18, 2016, 03:12:46 pm
I find it interesting that when people talk about the abrahamic faiths they often call them judeo-christian despite islam being there too, and a pretty big part of it.
Well, when you utilize Judaism to broaden your generalization (and thus appear more accurate) nobody who isn't a rabbi is going to get bent out of shape about it.
Besides, Judeo-Christian is more often applied to imagery and tradition, which makes sense in the context of Christian stuff, which is Christian and has roots in Judaism, with Islam having a minor if at all noticeable impact (we're not in the age of Chrislam yet).
Post by: TD1 on July 18, 2016, 03:21:03 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2016, 03:30:55 pm
Post by: lemon10 on July 18, 2016, 05:59:44 pm
What is Judeo-ChristianityJudo-Christianity is the style of martial arts that Jesus used. It was immensely powerful, and granted him some of his mystical abilities, like the ability to turn water into wine and walk on water. :P
I don't know if any of that makes sense, but I think it would be an interesting take on it.The idea that god is potentially all knowing, but chooses not to be to preserve free will is pretty common. I'm not the biggest fan of it, since it does rather clash with the idea of prophecy and god seeing the future, but it is logically/ideologically sound as long as you are willing to discard the word omniscient to describe him.
Post by: Descan on July 18, 2016, 06:10:35 pm
Post by: Teneb on July 18, 2016, 06:12:39 pm
That reminds me, could Jesus have walked on wine?What about salt water and other liquids?
Post by: NRDL on July 18, 2016, 06:12:53 pm
Post by: Teneb on July 18, 2016, 06:16:46 pm
How about water vapour?Clearly how he ascended to Heaven.
Post by: TD1 on July 18, 2016, 06:22:14 pm
Sounds un-theological to me.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2016, 06:27:50 pm
Post by: Kot on July 18, 2016, 06:43:10 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 18, 2016, 07:21:11 pm
I thought so too, but there's a really weird effect that makes me unsure on that point, where continually observing certain particle can basically hold it in stasis. It's really weird.What is Judeo-Christianity
The Christian Faith of Judea, and perhaps also the Judean Christian Faith.I don't know if any of that makes sense, but I think it would be an interesting take on it.
EDIT: I think setting something in stone by observing it may be one of those bits of quantum mechanics where the map is confused for the territory. Whether you observe something (with the possible exception of burglaries) or not does not really impede or affect its occurrence in the macro scale, does it? That's kind of the point of Schrodinger's Cat.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2016, 07:34:51 pm
Cheeki breeki! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha0AiIqLEss)This is best (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpVMT1_ZMSA)
Post by: TheDarkStar on July 18, 2016, 08:01:46 pm
Theological weapons, anyone?
Post by: TheBiggerFish on July 18, 2016, 08:02:31 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 18, 2016, 08:54:25 pm
Fresh railgun news: Slavs to test 6th generation space combat fighter with railguns and laser beams that melt jet fuel (http://sputniknews.com/military/20160716/1043134175/moscow-sixth-generation-fighter-railgun.html)
Quote
"In particular, the electromagnetic impulse, with which the SHF’s weapon will be hitting the targets, will be so powerful that it will be extremely difficult to protect a human, a pilot from his own weaponry,"I'm not surprised it's dangerous when the thing went through what, a dozen steel sheets? That is amazingly cool
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 19, 2016, 05:16:24 am
...I mistake this thread for the Theoretical Weapons thread half the time.Theology is a weapon.
Theological weapons, anyone?
Post by: TD1 on July 19, 2016, 05:20:28 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 19, 2016, 05:50:04 am
Ray-IL-junFresh railgun news: Slavs to test 6th generation space combat fighter with railguns and laser beams that melt jet fuel (http://sputniknews.com/military/20160716/1043134175/moscow-sixth-generation-fighter-railgun.html)Quote"In particular, the electromagnetic impulse, with which the SHF’s weapon will be hitting the targets, will be so powerful that it will be extremely difficult to protect a human, a pilot from his own weaponry,"I'm not surprised it's dangerous when the thing went through what, a dozen steel sheets? That is amazingly cool
Also sums up Slav science in a nutshell
"Oh yeah we're gonna have an awesome 6th gen space fighter with railguns. Side effects on the pilot will include death."
Post by: TempAcc on July 19, 2016, 07:29:50 am
Post by: Kot on July 19, 2016, 07:45:02 am
Also sums up Slav science in a nutshellWe have much more pilots than planes, this isin't a problem really.
"Oh yeah we're gonna have an awesome 6th gen space fighter with railguns. Side effects on the pilot will include death."
Post by: Descan on July 19, 2016, 11:17:49 am
Railgun spaceplane drones whenCan't you read? 2025. :P
Post by: TempAcc on July 19, 2016, 07:58:12 pm
This guy in the early 1960s that never played any videogame, spoke and wrote in 5 languages, wrote 100 or so books, was a ex-jesuit priest, graduated in cience, theology and philosophy in Innsbrook, Valkenburg and Napolis, taught in Princeton and the American University of Washington, and translated the bible, the bhagavad gita and the tao te ching in order to edit and sell his translations for cheap prices so poor people could easily have access to them... Essentialy came up with ideas very similar to the concept of CHIM and the tower in the TES universe :v?
WhatI mean its not like morrowind metaphysics are exactly original, but its still pretty interesting how the ideas are so similar
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 19, 2016, 08:01:03 pm
*EDIT
Apologies, NWO Buddheo-Christian Pythagoreans have the answers (http://newworldorderuniversity.com/purchase.htm)
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 19, 2016, 08:20:43 pm
Kind of a huge brainfart moment. After reading some books on Huberto Rohden's spirituality, specially his book "arrows to infinity" (no actual translation available, sorry, I just translated the title myself), a small 200 or so page philosophical-religious book on the nature of man, God, Christ, existence and the universe, I realized that some of his concepts are strangely very similar to... Morrowind metaphysics (https://fallingawkwardly.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/the-metaphysics-of-morrowind-part-3/)?They probably read his book. Or not. :-\
This guy in the early 1960s that never played any videogame, spoke and wrote in 5 languages, wrote 100 or so books, was a ex-jesuit priest, graduated in cience, theology and philosophy in Innsbrook, Valkenburg and Napolis, taught in Princeton and the American University of Washington, and translated the bible, the bhagavad gita and the tao te ching in order to edit and sell his translations for cheap prices so poor people could easily have access to them... Essentialy came up with ideas very similar to the concept of CHIM and the tower in the TES universe :v?
WhatI mean its not like morrowind metaphysics are exactly original, but its still pretty interesting how the ideas are so similar
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 19, 2016, 11:39:47 pm
*EDITI'm half-tempted to buy THE HIDDEN MASTERS WHO RULE THE WORLD just for the larfs, but I also have no money
Apologies, NWO Buddheo-Christian Pythagoreans have the answers (http://newworldorderuniversity.com/purchase.htm)
Post by: TD1 on July 20, 2016, 09:10:56 am
Post by: TempAcc on July 20, 2016, 09:14:58 am
Reminds me of that one african religion book thing about spirit wizards flying on undead dragon birds I saw some years ago :v
Post by: Rolan7 on September 02, 2016, 09:35:23 pm
I wonder how random Christians would react to someone who believes in Jesus's sacrifice, but also believes the OT God is a
Not that I'm really ready to truly accept unconditional love yet. For reasons. But theoretically... I would be accepting Christ. Heck I'd be accepting all/most of the rest of the Bible, within a bit of interpretation.
Post by: Descan on September 02, 2016, 11:20:48 pm
or bow to the many aspects of krishna
or sacrifice to your ancestors in a household shrine
or work for enlightenment
or follow the tao te ching
Post by: Rolan7 on September 02, 2016, 11:23:04 pm
If asked, I'd probably still consider myself an animist. I'm just... curious about Jesus sans Jehovah.
Post by: Descan on September 02, 2016, 11:30:33 pm
just makes more sense to write the whole thing off, embrace the null hypothesis, and hope if there is some form of continuation after life governed by an intelligent entity, it's not a Huge Dick. tho i'm not betting on that, the world wouldn't look the way it does now if any creator deity was an actual good, uh, person, for lack of a better word (not necessarily the same as the afterlife deity, tho! most polytheistic religions have them separate!)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 02, 2016, 11:33:39 pm
Post by: TD1 on September 03, 2016, 03:52:59 am
my main point was that i see no reason to pick any single religion over any other, and trying to follow all of them would be... hard. a lot of them are contradictory both in dogma and in practice (i'm pretty sure the whole "thou shalt have no other gods" thing is a biggie, and i think every day of the week would be a holy day of rest in one religion or another) and there's just so many of them that trying to fulfil each ones obligations would be a full time job at best
just makes more sense to write the whole thing off, embrace the null hypothesis, and hope if there is some form of continuation after life governed by an intelligent entity, it's not a Huge Dick. tho i'm not betting on that, the world wouldn't look the way it does now if any creator deity was an actual good, uh, person, for lack of a better word (not necessarily the same as the afterlife deity, tho! most polytheistic religions have them separate!)
Ah, but you forget the obvious! This one *stabs finger at random religion on list* is the one true one!
Post by: Frumple on September 03, 2016, 04:32:16 am
Spoiler: That one, huh (click to show/hide)
Well, you're in the right thread. Guess you'll be starting the next Church of Misaka. Have fun with that, don't forget to dodge the supersonic pennies.
Post by: Kot on September 03, 2016, 07:49:54 am
why not submit to allah, thoI propose a much better alternative - ALL HAIL THE IMMORTAL GOD-EMPEROR OF MANKIND. (http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Long+live+the+god+emperor+of+mankind_7de3ab_4867274.png)
or bow to the many aspects of krishna
or sacrifice to your ancestors in a household shrine
or work for enlightenment
or follow the tao te ching
Post by: NRDL on September 03, 2016, 06:02:54 pm
I've always always always been curious about this, the definition of faith and what constitutes it has always bothered me. For all I know, I'm setting far too unrealistic standards for belief in a higher power, by other people's standards my acceptance of the teachings of religions might already make me a believer. Personally, I think I still have a lot of doubt, and that doubt doesn't just go away from a feeling, it has to be mentally worked over, which really reinforces the idea that I've always had trouble believing in things I can't see.
Post by: TD1 on September 03, 2016, 06:07:15 pm
Post by: Kot on September 03, 2016, 06:43:08 pm
I've asked some RL people this before, and usually they say something like "it feels like I'm loved/have purpose."Technically, as an... atheist, I am not very good person (I am not sure how many people around here are actually religious, though) to answer this and it will sound... weird, ridiculous maybe, but I'd throw my half a dollar here.
As you may have noticed, I have been (shit)posting Imperial Truth around this thread and others - don't go yet, I don't belive in existence of God-Emperor and far future of tabletop wargame, I'm not that mad :P - and I... think that it makes sense. You could say that I sort of belive in it. All this Humanity Fuck Yeah shit. Somehow.
Sometimes when I lie in bed, I think of how far we have gone as a species, as a civilization, of the greatness we have achieved and I see the beauty of it. I think of how many acts of love - or hate - have must have happened for me to even get born. At those times I feel like my story isin't just the story of a young guy with shitton of problems, that it's the story of whole world. I think about my ancestors fighting in wars, about my ancestors that have lived their lives to the best of their abilities and at those times I feel... kind of a burden. I cannot let this be in vain, after all, but... it will be okay anyway. After all, even if I were to die tommorow, I proably made an impact on peoples lives and that it might just be enough to change world significantly in the long run. Maybe someone I know will do something important just because I am? Maybe, but the point is that I feel... loved and that I have a purpose. My existence is a miracle (oh, I am so modest :P) and that fills me with... pride, I guess?
Sometimes, when I walk, I feel as the whole humanity was behind me. I think that I am not alone, that everyone is related to me and I feel an... connection with them. Silly as it sounds, at those times I feel like everything is going to be all right and that I can do anything and everything... That feeling gives me strength to continue walking despite all the shit life throws at me. I have to keep going for there is more in life. At those times, I imagine how far we can go, that some day in far future some descendant of mine may walk under an alien sky, I imagine humanity soaring through space in mighty spaceships (not nescessarily space cathedrals of Wh40k :P) and I think of greatness we can achieve. That we won't be silenced and that humans shall see the beauty of whole world, and the world shall see ours. My life has purpose to help that happen. Life makes sense, for once.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 03, 2016, 08:47:03 pm
Okay, I've probably asked this question before, but I can't be bothered going through my post list to find when I posted in this thread. For any actual religious people on this forum: what does faith feel like? Is it possible to describe the feeling of belief that goes beyond the intellectual and maybe the emotional, or whatever other definition you have for faith?
I've always always always been curious about this, the definition of faith and what constitutes it has always bothered me. For all I know, I'm setting far too unrealistic standards for belief in a higher power, by other people's standards my acceptance of the teachings of religions might already make me a believer. Personally, I think I still have a lot of doubt, and that doubt doesn't just go away from a feeling, it has to be mentally worked over, which really reinforces the idea that I've always had trouble believing in things I can't see.
I have changed a lot since I first started posting here, as I have learned/grown in my faith. So I guess I'll give it a shot.
My relationship with God is the main focus of my faith. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I can feel God in my life. I can't rationalize it to anybody if you haven't felt it.
I also have given up on the Young-earth creationism spiel that I ran earlier, since I accepted that the bible was not written to explain Geology.
Post by: NRDL on September 03, 2016, 09:36:01 pm
Post by: Teneb on September 03, 2016, 09:58:01 pm
Okay, I've probably asked this question before, but I can't be bothered going through my post list to find when I posted in this thread. For any actual religious people on this forum: what does faith feel like? Is it possible to describe the feeling of belief that goes beyond the intellectual and maybe the emotional, or whatever other definition you have for faith?
I've always always always been curious about this, the definition of faith and what constitutes it has always bothered me. For all I know, I'm setting far too unrealistic standards for belief in a higher power, by other people's standards my acceptance of the teachings of religions might already make me a believer. Personally, I think I still have a lot of doubt, and that doubt doesn't just go away from a feeling, it has to be mentally worked over, which really reinforces the idea that I've always had trouble believing in things I can't see.
To me it's more of a gut feeling, of it making sense, or some sense. Could be wrong, sure, but it's a good feeling nonetheless. 'Course, Discordianism kinda runs on "I dunno" a lot more than most religions. Could be a load of crap, sure, but bullshit makes flowers grow and that's beautiful.
Post by: Frumple on September 03, 2016, 10:21:28 pm
Personally, the closest I've gotten to a religious experience -- faith more pronounced than just the idle belief that the ground isn't going to fall out from under you in normal conditions type stuff -- that wasn't easily identifiable as an outright psychotic (well, major depressive, whatever) break came initially from music (at this point I can largely induce the same thing with a shift in breathing and a little attention, but that's neither here nor there). The sensation of losing yourself to something else, of subsuming what you are into something that's patterned in a particular way, of narrowing your focus down to the sound and yourself and naught else... it's the same thing many folks feel in church or whathaveyou, by and large. Add in that good ol' ASMR for an additional physical reaction and it's a feeling of faith by any means except the claiming of it. Bit of disassociation, altered cognitive/perceptive state, bit of physical feedback and a sense of overall release/relaxation and there you go.
Other folks get different things, or identify different mindsets as ones intertwined with faith. I've talked to folks that felt they experienced faith most intensely in moments in incredible terror (or awe in the original, holy shit that mountain is on fire and falling on me, sense), usually accompanied by what they claim are visions* -- a sort of absolute knowledge that you are in the presence of something able and entirely willing but for <Reason> (usually contingent on their religious beliefs) to utterly destroy them. Others that broadly speaking don't feel anything outside of the norm, but ascribe to faith what others would call simple conscience -- that little voice in your head that tells you how to not fuck up, given metaphysical weight. Still more that claim a sense of presence and companionship as they speak with holy figures (usually in dreams, sometimes just via good ol' hallucination), or the sensation of something being with you (usually something related to their spiritual beliefs) in some sense or another.
The list just kinda' goes on... to a degree, just as you can view things as there being a different god for every individual (no two people that claim to share beliefs really interpret them the exact same way; all who hold belief can be said to actually be a member of a religion of one, that happens to share somewhat superficial similarities with certain others), there's a different faith for every believer... even another sort for all but the most incredibly insane of non-believers, too. The simple unattended confidence that the sun will rise in the east is a sort of faith, too. Different from most religion related ones, but eh.
*Perhaps unsurprisingly, I just call them hallucinations if I'm not moderating what I say to make sure they're not going to flip out and try to kill me, heh. I've had the same experiences, but don't ascribe the same interpretation. The human brain is really rather incredibly good at going haywire to one extent or another, and acknowledging that has kinda' been important for me, considering I've been hallucinating 24/7 as long as I can remember.
Post by: TD1 on September 04, 2016, 06:21:32 am
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 04, 2016, 11:37:27 am
That's cool, I can understand not being to explain where it comes from, but is it possible to describe it? Like how you'd describe colours on a flower, or the feeling of a summer's day. That's probably getting a bit poetic, but a feeling as immaterial as what I'm imagining and what you may be describing, there has to be a suitable way to express it and make it understood.The best way I can put it is how as a kid, I always knew that my parents would always be there for me. Similar to that.
Post by: Arx on September 04, 2016, 11:42:26 am
Post by: TD1 on September 04, 2016, 11:45:48 am
In what way is he necessary?
Post by: Rose on September 04, 2016, 01:00:48 pm
Post by: Arx on September 04, 2016, 01:09:55 pm
Really? Not trying to be sarcastic, but that's exactly the opposite of my thoughts, heh.
In what way is he necessary?
I suppose in a sense what you might disparagingly call God of the Gaps. Why do quarks have exactly one third the charge of an electron? Why do charges actually attract, when you get right down to it? Why is the speed of light what it is, and why is it that it can relate mass and energy so neatly? Why does anything anything?
I personally consider it the most reasonable explanation (of God, and this stuff) that He defined the way things work, more than anything else. Maybe at the beginning of the universe there was a huge quantity of energy floating around and He defined the rules that let it do stuff. Maybe there was nothing and God just pulled it all out of his hat. The explanation makes no less sense than any other. vOv
Also usually when I walk out into the rain it stops. And other more serious personal reasons.
Post by: Harry Baldman on September 04, 2016, 01:23:48 pm
Yeah, I can't figure out a way that any religion makes sense.
It depends on how your view of the world was formed - with at least one god or without one. If you didn't have one, at least not a relevant one, then no gods are necessary. If you did have one at the core, then it's integral to the whole thing.
I suspect that's why if you're nonreligious it's difficult to seriously accept the idea of any godlike being into a worldview in a way that actually does anything - you're just tacking on the idea of God onto something that functions perfectly well without it. So you'd be tempted to think that a god is superfluous to all worldviews, which isn't subjectively true at the very least.
Post by: Rose on September 04, 2016, 07:25:29 pm
I actually find the existence of some sort of creator to make sense, or at least as much sense as anything, but I don't see how any religion in the world can possibly be anything but a creation of man, with no basis in reality.
Post by: Harry Baldman on September 04, 2016, 07:30:28 pm
Post by: TD1 on September 04, 2016, 08:08:46 pm
I suppose in a sense what you might disparagingly call God of the Gaps. Why do quarks have exactly one third the charge of an electron? Why do charges actually attract, when you get right down to it? Why is the speed of light what it is, and why is it that it can relate mass and energy so neatly? Why does anything anything?It does make less sense, though. Scientists say "we don't really know why things are as they are, but they are." Rationally, that is all we know. You say "A father figure God made heaven and earth then came to earth as a man and sacrificed himself for our sins and rose to heaven, and there's also a holy spirit who influences us." That is a very specific claim to be making on the grounds of zero evidence. Even if there was an original starter, from observing the universe it would much, much more likely be a force - a cause which had an effect. You're working backwards off the original certainty that God exists, and ergo it makes sense that he created everything as it is. To me at least, that's not indicative of God existing. He is only necessary in that picture because you made him so. I understand that some people have a personal feeling of God, and that's why they believe in him, and ergo he must have created everything and so everything reflects God - it's reasonable enough in that it's logical (though the rain stopping sounds more like a Greek-style patron god rather than the Abrahamic, free will God.), but it's a house built on sand.
I personally consider it the most reasonable explanation (of God, and this stuff) that He defined the way things work, more than anything else. Maybe at the beginning of the universe there was a huge quantity of energy floating around and He defined the rules that let it do stuff. Maybe there was nothing and God just pulled it all out of his hat. The explanation makes no less sense than any other. vOv
Also usually when I walk out into the rain it stops. And other more serious personal reasons.
Post by: Rolan7 on September 04, 2016, 08:21:01 pm
The "God of the Gaps" is a fine thing to worship, in my opinion. I basically do too, though it's more "Spirits of the Gaps". Animism, fey, etc.
A faith about the spaces between can be... useful. People aren't really designed to leave questions unanswered, it can be distracting to a detrimental extent.
People should be ready to be wrong, is all. Any faith technically undermines reason, but humans are better at compartmentalization than we are at ignoring scary questions. Faith doesn't need to be a serious problem. Only potentially.
It tends to rain when I need the emotional support it represents for me. I read a lot into that, but I'm no meteorologist (;
Post by: Rose on September 04, 2016, 08:52:14 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on September 04, 2016, 08:57:49 pm
The "God of the Gaps" is a fine thing to worship, in my opinion.I really hate to rain on peoples' parades, but the "God of the Gaps" is the worst thing to worship. We're always filling in those gaps with new information and knowledge. If you want to worship an ever-decreasing pocket of ignorance, that's fine by me, but you should know exactly what you're doing when you do so.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 04, 2016, 09:13:15 pm
Most organized religion seems to me to be a way of exploiting gullible people for power and money.Speaking from christianity here, don't know much about others...
I have noticed that sometimes. But those are the really big ones that make a lot of noise. There are plenty of good churches who spend all their money on benefiting the community and the world, but they generally don't parade around that fact, so they generally go unnoticed.
You never hear random acts of kindness on the news, but you do hear corrupt scams alot.
Post by: smirk on September 04, 2016, 09:27:18 pm
Huh. That'd be an interesting idea for a cult in a game or somesuch. An organization that pursues knowledge and discovery as a means to commit deicide. "They say that God lives and moves in the spaces between facts, in the places where reason fails. We will find those places, and we will map them, and slowly but surely, we will over-write God." It would feel just a bit like that one Arthur C. Clarke story (http://downlode.org/Etext/nine_billion_names_of_god.html).The "God of the Gaps" is a fine thing to worship, in my opinion.I really hate to rain on peoples' parades, but the "God of the Gaps" is the worst thing to worship. We're always filling in those gaps with new information and knowledge. If you want to worship an ever-decreasing pocket of ignorance, that's fine by me, but you should know exactly what you're doing when you do so.
Post by: Rolan7 on September 04, 2016, 10:06:35 pm
I disagree, it's the best thing. IF you're going to worship or belief in something, which seems somewhat hardwired into the human mind, it should be something that recedes from scientific inquiry instead of getting in the way.The "God of the Gaps" is a fine thing to worship, in my opinion.I really hate to rain on peoples' parades, but the "God of the Gaps" is the worst thing to worship. We're always filling in those gaps with new information and knowledge. If you want to worship an ever-decreasing pocket of ignorance, that's fine by me, but you should know exactly what you're doing when you do so.
Eh... They do seek out controversy of course. But when there's a disaster, or a happy fluff piece, most of the time some local citizen is thanking God.Most organized religion seems to me to be a way of exploiting gullible people for power and money.Speaking from christianity here, don't know much about others...
I have noticed that sometimes. But those are the really big ones that make a lot of noise. There are plenty of good churches who spend all their money on benefiting the community and the world, but they generally don't parade around that fact, so they generally go unnoticed.
You never hear random acts of kindness on the news, but you do hear corrupt scams alot.
Makes sense since most Americans are Christian, and I know I was nervous the one time I was on the news. Humbling thanking God is a very natural reaction. Still, statistically, I'd expect to have seen some other faiths represented. Maybe they were but didn't feel inclined, or safe, to make that public on TV.
Okay okay also! I am SUPER EXCITED because I just discovered a new ancient "heresy" that inspired Catharism! But it was Orthodox!
Catharism is still by far my favorite kind of Christianity, eee... Too bad they were all murdered.
Bogomilism! Yeah ugly name, but it's Greek I guess. Someone's name.
It's somewhat gnostic and, like Catharism, says that humanity was created by The Devil! Though it seems to differ in the details. In Bogomilism, God seems to be somewhat neutral. He created Satan then helped Satan create humanity, then later created Christ who saved humanity. Satan apparently orchestrated the Crucifixion, and... well... Catholicism :/ Dualism is strange and fascinating, with my Baptist background.
Also like Catharism, it focuses on self-purification to foil Satan. Actually avoiding sin instead of accepting it as inevitable and seeking forgiveness. That is VERY interesting to me. I'm not seeing anything about the Cathar reincarnation cycle, though. Not sure what their afterlife concept was.
Mostly just sharing a bit of religious history I found fascinating. But also... Catharism makes way more sense to me than any modern Christianity, and that includes the super vague ones like Unitarianism. Though I have personal problems with infinite forgiveness, I guess.
Post by: Frumple on September 05, 2016, 12:07:52 am
And from what we know most of it we don't actually hear much about so far as news and whatnot goes -- it's kept in house, brushed under rugs, ignored or rationalized by the congregation, played well enough no one notices until the next priest comes in (that may only happen after the last one dies of old age :V) and sees the numbers off... the list just kinda' goes on. The big stuff that makes the news is barely a ping on the proverbial radar so far as organized religion related exploitation goes. It takes something particularly nasty to break down how little people are willing to suspect, or even just double check, priests or fellow members of the congregation. There's all sorts of less nasty that happily putters along with barely anyone noticing outside the specific church, if that.
... and that's not even touching all the shit related to taxes and law and whatnot. Seriously not touching, both because it pisses me seven different kinds of off and it's been a year or three since I brushed up on the current state of things.
*Forget the numbers for the US specifically, but I've seen estimates upwards 50 billion annually lost to internal crime in churches worldwide... and even the lower bounds are tens of billions, just less tens (mid to upper 30s instead of 50 or up). The kicker to notice there is that's more than churches worldwide spend on missionary work. Religions may not primarily be there to exploit people for power and money but it's a really damn good environment to do so.
Post by: saigo on September 05, 2016, 12:14:32 am
Catharism is still by far my favorite kind of Christianity, eee... Too bad they were all murdered.The modern incarnation of it is called Calvinism, if I recall.
Post by: Arx on September 05, 2016, 12:38:12 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 05, 2016, 12:39:26 am
Post by: Rolan7 on September 05, 2016, 12:51:36 am
Calvinists believe in predestination, so God is kinda directly responsible for everything. But they still seek his forgiveness, and he'll grant it if asked. But some people are never going to be saved. Otherwise it's pretty standard Christianity.
Cathars believe that the Gods of the two Testaments are different entities. The Old one, aka Satan, created the world and that's why life sucks. The New one created Heaven and wants to help people get there. But they're weighed down by sin, so they'll keep *reincarnating* here in Satan's world... Hell. To break free, they need to make a strict pledge of purity and then keep it until death. This can be done on a deathbed, but some people lived this way for years - these so-called "Perfects" were basically priests, and they were both men and women who remained pure.
I just think it does a good job of explaining why the Old Testament God acts so... different from the New. I don't think the Cathars agreed with the Catholic Church about which books belong in the Bible, though. It doesn't quite work from a literal reading of the KJV.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 05, 2016, 01:02:06 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 08, 2016, 06:34:29 pm
Post by: saigo on September 08, 2016, 07:17:14 pm
Not even remotely similar.I think I got that idea from reading Wikipedia too quickly. Having similar names does not help.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 08, 2016, 07:18:14 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 30, 2016, 04:25:51 pm
Post by: sprinkled chariot on October 30, 2016, 04:44:36 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 30, 2016, 04:45:37 pm
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2016, 04:48:00 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on October 30, 2016, 05:38:45 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on October 30, 2016, 05:45:58 pm
Post by: TD1 on October 30, 2016, 07:19:39 pm
Post by: Kot on October 30, 2016, 07:31:54 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on October 30, 2016, 07:40:42 pm
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2016, 07:42:08 pm
Comparative holiness in firearms is a tricky subject, is what I'm saying. Ultimately irrelevant, for we all bow our erogenous zones to the unsurpassed majesty of the Over Dakka, but full of areas to quibble within nonetheless.
Post by: Kot on October 30, 2016, 07:54:16 pm
Getting nailed makes you a God.
Post by: Egan_BW on October 30, 2016, 08:25:25 pm
Getting nailed makes you a God.not that any of us here would know
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2016, 10:05:44 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on October 30, 2016, 10:14:22 pm
Anyone who wants to get nailed, raise your hand.
Post by: tonnot98 on October 31, 2016, 12:26:38 am
So for boyscouts, you need to believe in a higher being. I don't exactly believe in a higher being, but I still wish to be a part of this fucked up community for various reasons. I was wondering if anyone knew if I could just pass off my belief as me worshiping the sun, and I can pull some good arguments for that, too. I will lie and say I'm a good christian boy if necessary, but being able to openly say I worship the sun, as it really is what I'd be most comfortable with, would probably be the most bearable during the whole "boyscouts experience."
Another question,
Are boy scouts even good for getting jobs anymore?
Post by: TheDarkStar on October 31, 2016, 01:17:07 am
2. Being an Eagle Scout looks good on college applications because it shows that you can lead other people, that you've done a lot of service, and that you can follow a code of conduct (basically, you're a conventionally moral person to some degree or another - you have integrity, don't steal, are nice to others, etc.). As you get further down the line in life, I suspect it gets less important, but it I have heard stories of people getting hired because they were an Eagle Scout and it established their moral character.
Post by: Arx on October 31, 2016, 02:35:25 am
If you seriously say you worship the sun, you may get some teasing/mocking. Bear that in mind. However, if you want to say that that's the higher power you believe in, there's not really anything they can do.
Praise the Sun.
Post by: TempAcc on October 31, 2016, 06:09:21 am
Post by: Arx on October 31, 2016, 06:45:42 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 31, 2016, 07:35:20 am
Post by: TempAcc on October 31, 2016, 07:53:49 am
Thats true for DeMolays, at least.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 31, 2016, 08:04:26 am
Apparently they only started allowing gay scouts in *2014* but I didn't know that about myself. What an odd group. They teach a lot about survival, cooperation, and integrity... but they're inherently pretty conservative. I don't regret the experience.
Post by: Telgin on October 31, 2016, 09:47:07 am
Incidentally, the large population of former scouts also means I got to hear a fair bit about the gay scout ban thing a few years ago. I was quite surprised to hear about it at the time since I didn't realize the boy scouts were such a conservative organization. It probably shouldn't have come as a surprise since it's all about old fashioned morals and everything.
Still, at least I could avoid the conversations since I wasn't ever a member.
Mind you, in order to become a mason, you're required to believe in god in a way or another, though not any god in specific. So ye, they prob do take in cthulhu cultists, but not atheists :v
Thats true for DeMolays, at least.
This is true, but in practice you'd probably be "blackballed" if you tried to join most chapters as anything other than a Christian. I'm not a Mason, but my father is, and he described the process as effectively being an informal background check where a committee of people get together and investigate potential newcomers. At the end of the process they anonymously stick a bunch of colored marbles in a bag, and if anyone doesn't want you to join they stick a black one in. If any black marbles are in the bag, you don't get in, no questions asked. As a result, you pretty much have to match status quo in the area, which is unlikely to contain many Cthulhu sympathizers.
I'm sure it varies by chapter though, and while the local chapter is predictably Christian and includes Bible readings in their meetings, there are probably less strict varieties.
Apparently the Masons can't ever directly ask you to join either, which is something I'm thankful for. It was clear that my dad wanted me to join, but since the Masons do require the belief in a higher power thing I couldn't in good conscience join it and really didn't want to fake it.
Post by: Teneb on October 31, 2016, 12:15:02 pm
Post by: hops on November 04, 2016, 02:25:27 am
Okay, I've probably asked this question before, but I can't be bothered going through my post list to find when I posted in this thread. For any actual religious people on this forum: what does faith feel like? Is it possible to describe the feeling of belief that goes beyond the intellectual and maybe the emotional, or whatever other definition you have for faith?I practice some occult, and for me faith is just not bothering to fact check things because it makes me feel better and it's not hurting anyone.
I've always always always been curious about this, the definition of faith and what constitutes it has always bothered me. For all I know, I'm setting far too unrealistic standards for belief in a higher power, by other people's standards my acceptance of the teachings of religions might already make me a believer. Personally, I think I still have a lot of doubt, and that doubt doesn't just go away from a feeling, it has to be mentally worked over, which really reinforces the idea that I've always had trouble believing in things I can't see.
Post by: The Beast on November 04, 2016, 02:38:02 am
The new thread, while filled with nonsense has an owner that is quite active.
Let this beauty die and fill the new one with interesting conflicting content.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 04, 2016, 02:40:10 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 04, 2016, 02:48:43 am
The St. OrangeWizard Threadchapel.
Post by: The Beast on November 04, 2016, 02:53:40 am
He just reformed, like the D&D reincarnation spell, in another body.
Post by: Kot on November 04, 2016, 07:41:27 am
Post by: TD1 on November 04, 2016, 08:12:31 am
Yeah but hes not gone gone...You mean....he resurrected. So he's Jesus?
He just reformed, like the D&D reincarnation spell, in another body.
We all know OrangeWizard was just Pathos anyway.
So.... Jesus was Pathos?
My life-time religion has just solidified, brb going to write Holy Book.
Post by: JimboM12 on November 04, 2016, 08:20:36 am
Saw this thread and realize I have very odd ideas about religion.
I'm a Christian Norseman. What this means is God and Jesus are part of the Nordic pantheon. God intervened during Ragnarok to save the Norse pantheon who would die and accepted them into His Heaven. God is above Odin and Jesus and Thor wrestle every Thursday, hence why it was once called Thor's day and why it was absorbed into modern English from its Germanic roots, out of respect for Thor's 2 out of 3 during Jesus's 100th birthday celebration.
Angels and the honored dead wrestle and feast in Odin's hall and God's mead hall awaiting the Armageddon, upon which they will descend upon the earth to fight demons and ice trolls for the glory of Heaven and the safety of the remaining humans who were not selected for the Rapture. There are many myths and prophecies that will come true during the great battle.
Jesus will slap Beelzebub in the chops and Thor will come up behind him while he is stunned and perform a great German Suplex. Dogs will transform into great wolves of white and will fight the hell beasts and chase Earth's remaining tennis balls. Freddie Mercury will return to earth from Heaven's hall and sing the greatest version of Bohemian Rhapsody that will ever be sung as fighting music for the great host of Heaven. The Macho Man will perform a great flying double axe handle upon Jormungand, the great sea serpent.
But do not fret, if you weren't selected but fight alongside the great host of Heaven when they arrive and die honorably in combat, the Valkyries will bring you to Heaven to join alongside the second wave to fight once more until Heaven overcomes Hell, then the faithful and the survivors descend upon Earth and it transmogrifies into Skyrim.
The Thalmor were right all along.
Post by: Adragis on November 06, 2016, 05:09:36 pm
Yeah but hes not gone gone...You mean....he resurrected. So he's Jesus?
He just reformed, like the D&D reincarnation spell, in another body.We all know OrangeWizard was just Pathos anyway.
So.... Jesus was Pathos?
My life-time religion has just solidified, brb going to write Holy Book.
g r i s h a 5
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 23, 2016, 11:16:38 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 23, 2016, 11:20:15 am
Hey guys, so apparently Pope Francis is an ANTIPOPE HERETIC. I like him even more now!This I have to see to believe.
Post by: TD1 on November 23, 2016, 11:33:58 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 23, 2016, 11:35:45 am
If the conservative Catholics hate him, he can't be that bad. :P
Post by: Frumple on November 23, 2016, 12:01:36 pm
Post by: Kot on November 23, 2016, 12:02:26 pm
Fanatic (since Orthodox is taken) Catholic Church of America when?
Post by: TempAcc on November 23, 2016, 12:04:00 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 23, 2016, 12:07:07 pm
And antichrist is always, everywhere. Now, tomorrow, yesterday. All over, no escape, unfortunately no svelte competence leading the world to an era of apparent peace either. Wish that would hurry up if it's comin', because this watered down antichrist crap got old years ago, probably even before I was born.
Post by: Kot on November 23, 2016, 02:05:43 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on November 23, 2016, 03:32:45 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 23, 2016, 03:36:33 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/zGjQeUU.jpg)
Post by: TD1 on November 23, 2016, 03:38:15 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 23, 2016, 03:40:07 pm
Oh. That? Well, SA's a different question but stateside the schism was... decades ago. Or about as much as you're going to see, anyway. US catholics have been rejecting the authority of the pope and vatican for a long while now, to varying degrees based on specific denomination/region/congregation/etc.Yeah, there's incipient breakaways both ways.
And antichrist is always, everywhere. Now, tomorrow, yesterday. All over, no escape, unfortunately no svelte competence leading the world to an era of apparent peace either. Wish that would hurry up if it's comin', because this watered down antichrist crap got old years ago, probably even before I was born.
Post by: Descan on November 23, 2016, 08:48:23 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on November 23, 2016, 09:00:07 pm
Ahywho, might as well get a list post into the big three tonight eh?
Read an interesting take on the death of Jesus on the cross, absolving us of following the old ways of Leviticus and allowing Christians to practice freely so long they gave themselves to God. I liked that interpretation because it means it's wrong to hate gays and also lets Christians eat the "unclean" meats.
Post by: Telgin on November 23, 2016, 10:04:36 pm
Interestingly, I've since come to understand that the whole notion of being predisposed to sin has plenty of basis in Christianity already, so it wasn't much of an excuse. After all, if God is willing to make someone an alcoholic then that's making someone predisposed to a sinful lifestyle that they arguably have little control over. It's not quite the same thing, but generally the same idea.
I am kind of curious what it would mean to practice Christianity freely in that sense though. Clearly you'd have to follow at least some of the rules.
Post by: Frumple on November 23, 2016, 10:16:49 pm
That said, hating other humans has pretty much always been explicitly contrary to the word of the new testament. Forget where but there's scripture quoted more than once in the thread. Lotta' folks can't really wrap their head around loving even the sinner, heh.
And sure, telg, you have to follow some of the rules but there's only two or three big ones and pretty much all of the minutia is of questionable relevance to 'em. Tends to be how folks not terribly interested in the shitty parts of the text rolls with things. One of the more fun interpretations I've seen occasionally is that much/most of the stuff in the texts themselves is a test. Stuff that's contrary or interferes with the big message (which basically boils down to love god, love your fellow man, treat both well) littered throughout and there to more or less see how well the people claiming to be faithful are actually paying attention. So hate gays, test to see if the message love got through. Stone XYZ, treat well. OT God, hell, maybe even that's a test to see whether you love god and its message enough to reject a presentation that's obviously against its loving nature. So on, so forth. Fun stuff. Heretical revisionist bullshit, more than anything, but the best kind of heretical revisionist bullshit, that's fun and seems to tend to produce some pretty decent folks.
Post by: redwallzyl on November 23, 2016, 11:26:57 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on November 24, 2016, 03:12:10 pm
We know how things work? Great. Why do they work -that- way? Oh, we don't know and can't find out from experimentation? Let's look inward. I believe that religion is about introspection, and personally answering the whys for yourself. It's not so much about "how did the universe start?" That's almost irrelevant when you ask why, and why it's so big but we can only live on one planet (for now; we're about to transcend one-planet-ness). Religion, for me, really helps frame the universe and humanity together. Maybe that's why I'm a pagan; I like to know that there isn't one all-powerful and always-right diety. I like the idea that we're all under a group of personally flawed, but altogether whole group of beings that care for us and want to see us succeed and prosper.
Post by: Frumple on November 24, 2016, 03:30:35 pm
We can find out well enough to get by through experimentation, and work out something near enough to knowing to keep things moving, and that's all you really need when it comes down to it. If even that much.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 24, 2016, 03:35:17 pm
Quote
We're always going to need a "why" alongside the "how".
We know how things work? Great. Why do they work -that- way? Oh, we don't know and can't find out from experimentation?
Let's look inward. I believe that religion is about introspection, and personally answering the whys for yourself. It's not so much about "how did the universe start?" That's almost irrelevant when you ask why, and why it's so big but we can only live on one planet (for now; we're about to transcend one-planet-ness). Religion, for me, really helps frame the universe and humanity together. Maybe that's why I'm a pagan; I like to know that there isn't one all-powerful and always-right diety. I like the idea that we're all under a group of personally flawed, but altogether whole group of beings that care for us and want to see us succeed and prosper.
One scientific theory to explain why things work -that- way is Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics - aka the "many worlds" interpretation. There's nobody thinking these thoughts in the universes that don't produce intelligence, and we're all obviously in a single universe and can't see the others. That wouldn't explain where the multiverse came from, though.
Post by: TD1 on November 24, 2016, 03:40:30 pm
We're always going to need a "why" alongside the "how".'Pagan' is a very general term, though, isn't it? Unless this is some new age definition or something, where a religion calling itself that has sprung up.
We know how things work? Great. Why do they work -that- way? Oh, we don't know and can't find out from experimentation? Let's look inward. I believe that religion is about introspection, and personally answering the whys for yourself. It's not so much about "how did the universe start?" That's almost irrelevant when you ask why, and why it's so big but we can only live on one planet (for now; we're about to transcend one-planet-ness). Religion, for me, really helps frame the universe and humanity together. Maybe that's why I'm a pagan; I like to know that there isn't one all-powerful and always-right diety. I like the idea that we're all under a group of personally flawed, but altogether whole group of beings that care for us and want to see us succeed and prosper.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on November 24, 2016, 03:44:43 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 24, 2016, 03:46:15 pm
All that saying "pagan" means, to me, is "religious but not Christian."
Post by: Gentlefish on November 24, 2016, 03:51:25 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 24, 2016, 03:55:23 pm
Quote
Religion, for me, really helps frame the universe and humanity together. Maybe that's why I'm a pagan; I like to know that there isn't one all-powerful and always-right diety. I like the idea that we're all under a group of personally flawed, but altogether whole group of beings that care for us and want to see us succeed and prosper.Given your more casual approach, does the above mean you view religion as a tool to be used, even by yourself, to frame humanity and the universe together, but not necessarily the ultimate truth touted by Christians?
Post by: Gentlefish on November 24, 2016, 04:05:25 pm
Quote
Given your more casual approach, does the above mean you view religion as a tool to be used, even by yourself, to frame humanity and the universe together, but not necessarily the ultimate truth touted by Christians?
Religion as a tool is an interesting idea, and I used to think about it that way. I don't think there is an Ultimate Truth, a la Christianity, rather the idea that "All paths lead to (god/truth/goodness)". Which I guess maybe implies one? But there at least isn't just one path.
But I see religion more as a guide or guru; It's supposed to help you make the right choices and allow you make better choices in the future. Less of a tool, more of a person(?) in the way that you communicate with and receive feedback from it/them/Him, and gives you a sense of purpose, and something/one/One to look up to and look to make proud.
Post by: Frumple on November 24, 2016, 04:06:53 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 24, 2016, 04:16:42 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on November 24, 2016, 04:25:46 pm
The lazy (and/or insane, if conversations are actually involved) person's existentialism, you seem to be saying >_>
Now now, I'm not saying I'm insane. the "conversations" are one sided, for the most part. A good example is prayer followed by a feeling you should do something. And of course it's got a little bit of existentialism in the sense that we don't exist for one absolute goal beyond doing good.
So....religion itself as the deity, almost? 0_o
Er... Maybe? I just tried framing the response in a way that accounted for most religions. The it/they/Him was speaking more of the diety/ies involved in whatever form of religion, rather than the religion itself. The dieties are the guides and figures, rather than the religion.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 24, 2016, 04:30:59 pm
Post by: Kot on November 24, 2016, 04:49:02 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on November 24, 2016, 05:19:56 pm
Meanwhile, I know christians who think that "God" talks to them, and have made decisions based on what "God" has said to them.
I'm pretty sure most Christians do this.
Post by: Telgin on November 24, 2016, 05:28:01 pm
Believing that you can directly converse with God is a very common belief in the southeast U.S. among Protestants at least. As I've related before, I know a preacher that believes he was directly told by God while in the hospital that He'd kill him and his kids if he didn't get saved after he got out of the hospital.
The belief that you can directly talk to God is yet another thing that really hurt my faith. I was always very upset that God never talked to me, no matter how much I asked, and despite God presumably knowing that it was hurting my faith.
Post by: Egan_BW on November 24, 2016, 05:28:15 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 24, 2016, 06:17:28 pm
New covenant, yadda yadda. Homosexuality isn't necessarily in good shape from nixing the Leviticus et al stuff, since there's crap in the NT, too, but it's arguably better.Fuck Paul, he's basically the only reason that the NT says anything about homosexuality. He also says that "feminine men" are sinful, yeah fuck you too bro. I just ignore pretty much everything he said.
The difference between the NT and the OT with respect to homosexuality is that in the NT, it's not okay to stone gays to death. Which is an improvement I guess?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 24, 2016, 06:18:33 pm
THE STRONG ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE REMOVES THE NEED FOR A GODQuoteWe're always going to need a "why" alongside the "how".
We know how things work? Great. Why do they work -that- way? Oh, we don't know and can't find out from experimentation?
Let's look inward. I believe that religion is about introspection, and personally answering the whys for yourself. It's not so much about "how did the universe start?" That's almost irrelevant when you ask why, and why it's so big but we can only live on one planet (for now; we're about to transcend one-planet-ness). Religion, for me, really helps frame the universe and humanity together. Maybe that's why I'm a pagan; I like to know that there isn't one all-powerful and always-right diety. I like the idea that we're all under a group of personally flawed, but altogether whole group of beings that care for us and want to see us succeed and prosper.
One scientific theory to explain why things work -that- way is Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics - aka the "many worlds" interpretation. There's nobody thinking these thoughts in the universes that don't produce intelligence, and we're all obviously in a single universe and can't see the others. That wouldn't explain where the multiverse came from, though.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 24, 2016, 06:19:46 pm
Not sure about "most", but there does seem to be an ample supply of christians who think that god has a direct line to everyone's head, and if you can't hear it that just means you're ignoring the little Jesus inside you. It's a little disturbing.WHAT DO YOU MEAN, ATHEIST
NOBODY IS AN ATHEIST
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO LOVE GOD AND PEOPLE WHO HATE GOD
WHICH ONE ARE YOU
Post by: TD1 on November 24, 2016, 06:31:03 pm
I gather that it's a more Protestant thing than anything and remember reading that some Catholics thought that Protestantism was a little "too holy" in that way.Funny, I've always thought of it as a Catholic thing. I mean, I do hear a lot of blather about God moving people to do stuff, but it seems to be a feeling rather than actual speech. Catholicism is sort of seen as the more superstitious branch of Christianity, with stuff like talking to angels and gods (including Jesus, God, Mary and the Saints).
Although, if I understand it correctly the American Protestants are different. We're heavily influenced by the Anglican church here, and I'd say it has less emphasis on the mystical.
Post by: TempAcc on November 24, 2016, 06:40:45 pm
Lemme go add it to the list of wankery.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 24, 2016, 06:45:05 pm
Not sure about "most", but there does seem to be an ample supply of christians who think that god has a direct line to everyone's head, and if you can't hear it that just means you're ignoring the little Jesus inside you. It's a little disturbing.WHAT DO YOU MEAN, ATHEIST
NOBODY IS AN ATHEIST
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO LOVE GOD AND PEOPLE WHO HATE GOD
WHICH ONE ARE YOU
God is dead
Post by: TD1 on November 24, 2016, 06:46:30 pm
Oh look, its this again.
Lemme go add it to the list of wankery.
....I fail to see how you saying that exists for any purpose other than to exacerbate matters....
No he's not. He's alive in all of us ;)Not sure about "most", but there does seem to be an ample supply of christians who think that god has a direct line to everyone's head, and if you can't hear it that just means you're ignoring the little Jesus inside you. It's a little disturbing.WHAT DO YOU MEAN, ATHEIST
NOBODY IS AN ATHEIST
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO LOVE GOD AND PEOPLE WHO HATE GOD
WHICH ONE ARE YOU
God is dead
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 24, 2016, 07:14:07 pm
GOD IS A PARASITEOh look, its this again.
Lemme go add it to the list of wankery.
....I fail to see how you saying that exists for any purpose other than to exacerbate matters....No he's not. He's alive in all of us ;)Not sure about "most", but there does seem to be an ample supply of christians who think that god has a direct line to everyone's head, and if you can't hear it that just means you're ignoring the little Jesus inside you. It's a little disturbing.WHAT DO YOU MEAN, ATHEIST
NOBODY IS AN ATHEIST
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO LOVE GOD AND PEOPLE WHO HATE GOD
WHICH ONE ARE YOU
God is dead
EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE
THE DALEK WAR ON GOD
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 24, 2016, 07:23:38 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on November 24, 2016, 10:14:16 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 24, 2016, 10:19:59 pm
Post by: Teneb on November 24, 2016, 10:29:34 pm
Post by: Arx on November 25, 2016, 12:39:24 am
Is... Is this normal for the religion thread? I need my blanket.
Not really. People usually manage to approximate maturity here.
Post by: Rose on November 25, 2016, 12:34:25 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 25, 2016, 01:00:27 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Kot on November 25, 2016, 01:08:57 pm
Post by: TempAcc on November 25, 2016, 01:12:26 pm
Post by: Teneb on November 25, 2016, 01:25:13 pm
fnord
Post by: TD1 on November 25, 2016, 01:32:32 pm
Post by: Kot on November 25, 2016, 01:33:51 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 25, 2016, 01:39:38 pm
Quod est inferius est sicut quod est superius, et quod est superius est sicut quod est inferius - As below, so above and as above, so below.
Post by: TempAcc on November 25, 2016, 01:42:36 pm
Post by: Kot on November 25, 2016, 01:44:13 pm
As below, so above and as above, so below.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 25, 2016, 01:51:24 pm
Wizards may have no sense of right and wrong (http://gunshowcomic.com/30), but they've got above and below down!
Post by: Silverthrone on November 25, 2016, 02:14:04 pm
'me and mah bois of chargings the heretics yolo #kurwa'
I Jesu namn, vårt hopp är visst, att de Gudlösas våld och list, ej oss men sig förstörer. Till hån och spott de skola bli, med oss är Gud, med Honom vi, och Segern oss Tillhörer!
(I can't quite tell, but I will assume this is a 'Share your favourite hymns in teeny tiny letters'-moment. I want it to be one, at least)
Post by: Kot on November 25, 2016, 02:22:28 pm
That is a very, very nice painting. I adore it. Unfortunately, I cannot un-imagine the centre Hussar's lance being a selfie-stick.The selfie-sticks these days aren't what they used to be. :/
Post by: Silverthrone on November 25, 2016, 02:28:37 pm
That is a very, very nice painting. I adore it. Unfortunately, I cannot un-imagine the centre Hussar's lance being a selfie-stick.The selfie-sticks these days aren't what they used to be. :/
Sadly. Very practical and multi-use, they were.
Hah. That would be rather fun, designing mobile-cases with different historical themes like that. A Winged Hussar phone, a Hessian phone, Spartan phone, Carolean phone, Streltsy phone... I think that might earn a quid or two.
Post by: Kot on November 25, 2016, 02:38:57 pm
Post by: Silverthrone on November 25, 2016, 02:50:24 pm
...and then Games Workshop's lawyers grabs me in the middle of the night and I get a neckshot in the courtyard.
Post by: TD1 on November 25, 2016, 02:56:02 pm
If any ol' blood will do, that's fine. I've got a few cows that the Tech Gods could have.
Post by: Silverthrone on November 25, 2016, 03:03:46 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 25, 2016, 03:10:33 pm
What if I...ahhh...happened to have a vial of God's blood from that one time I killed him?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 25, 2016, 03:12:26 pm
Post by: Teneb on November 25, 2016, 03:34:05 pm
His works were made to brag about the fact.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 25, 2016, 03:37:11 pm
Hmmm, interesting.
What if I...ahhh...happened to have a vial of God's blood from that one time I killed him?
Fool! It is well known that it was Nietzsche who killed God. Sure, he willed himself back to life afterwards, but not before Nietzsche took a vial.Th4DwArfY1 confirmed Nietzsche.
His works were made to brag about the fact.
Post by: Silverthrone on November 25, 2016, 03:48:09 pm
Post by: nenjin on November 25, 2016, 06:05:58 pm
Post by: TempAcc on November 25, 2016, 06:09:00 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 25, 2016, 06:09:39 pm
You have to do 5836 dailies though where you go around and irritate all your friends by telling them everything is pointless. Then you've got the right rep level.(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/336xn/p012hjyh.jpg)
Post by: TD1 on November 26, 2016, 11:22:28 am
Post by: Kot on November 26, 2016, 12:40:03 pm
Though there is this reward thing that seems to be in majority of big religions.
For instance, abrahamic God tells you that you are sinful and horrible man even before you really do anything because of the original sin and whatnot, and says that if you worship him and be obedient you get rewarded in afterlife because he "forgiving".
Hindus and Buddhists say that world is shit, you have karma that makes your life less shit if you're good and worse if you're bad, but ultimately the main reason to live is to achieve a higher state of mind which is literally not existing... and you do that by abandoning all the hope, desires and other stuff.
Vikings had Valhalla to which you go if you are coolio bearded warrior. Cool.
THEN THERE IS GLORIOUS EMPEROR OF MANKIND, WHO TELLS YOU YOU ARE GREAT AMAZING GOOD NICE AWESOME HUMAN PERFECT GREAT AND YOU SHOULD KEEP GOING BECAUSE BEING HUMAN IS BEST THING THERE IS AND YOUR REWARD WILL BE WHAT YOU TEAR OUT OF XENOS JAWS, WHICH IS THE WHOLE GALAXY AWW YEAHAHHHHH VOTE GOD EMPEROR 30000!
Post by: TD1 on November 26, 2016, 01:33:48 pm
Spoiler: random+stupid thoughts (click to show/hide)
Post by: Shadowlord on November 26, 2016, 01:51:40 pm
Post by: Vilanat on November 26, 2016, 01:58:19 pm
For instance, abrahamic God tells you that you are sinful and horrible man even before you really do anything because of the original sin and whatnot, and says that if you worship him and be obedient you get rewarded in afterlife because he "forgiving".
Small correction: the Christians says the abrahamic god says so.
Post by: Arx on November 26, 2016, 02:18:24 pm
For instance, abrahamic God tells you that you are sinful and horrible man even before you really do anything because of the original sin and whatnot, and says that if you worship him and be obedient you get rewarded in afterlife because he "forgiving".
Small correction: the Christians says the abrahamic god says so.
Not really. The prophet Isaiah spoke of every person being a sinner, and I think it's quite safe to say he wasn't a Christian.
Spoiler: random+stupid thoughts (click to show/hide)
This kind of thing is why it's a bit silly to take it literally. I mean, doing so also kind of implies God is somehow every skin colour, has hair of all lengths, simultaneously does and does not have a beard... :P I've mentioned it before, but the most sensible interpretation is that the human soul is in the image of God. Although, in the absence of vast knowledge, just the tiniest smidgen more prone to doing things wrong. :P
A question I've always sort of wondered about: What makes a being deserving of worship? Is it power? Loving nature? Or simply a desire to worship something.
Why not all three? And other things, to boot? And I mean, what constitutes worship is its own question.
Post by: TD1 on November 26, 2016, 02:30:43 pm
Hey, he's a Prophet, isn't he? Who're you to say he didn't follow Christian doctrine :PFor instance, abrahamic God tells you that you are sinful and horrible man even before you really do anything because of the original sin and whatnot, and says that if you worship him and be obedient you get rewarded in afterlife because he "forgiving".
Small correction: the Christians says the abrahamic god says so.
Not really. The prophet Isaiah spoke of every person being a sinner, and I think it's quite safe to say he wasn't a Christian.
Quote
This kind of thing is why it's a bit silly to take it literally. I mean, doing so also kind of implies God is somehow every skin colour, has hair of all lengths, simultaneously does and does not have a beard... :P I've mentioned it before, but the most sensible interpretation is that the human soul is in the image of God. Although, in the absence of vast knowledge, just the tiniest smidgen more prone to doing things wrong.Yea, pretty much. I know that's a common interpretation, but it still seems to be fairly common that people think we literally look like God, Sistine Chapel style.
Quote
Why not all three? And other things, to boot? And I mean, what constitutes worship is its own question.Thing is, I see absolutely nothing as deserving of worship (which, in my personal definition, includes placing something on a pedestal higher than oneself and throwing praise at it). I mean, it's all perspective. Compared to monkeys, we have what could be conceived of as conceptually similar to unlimited power. But I wouldn't want a monkey to worship me. If I met a being three times as powerful, or even as kind, as I am, I would not want to worship it and would be insulted were it to suggest I do so.
God combines vast power with supposedly infinite goodness (though there have been challenges to that last). That he expects me to worship him before he gives me my treat, even if he were to exist, would make a rebel of me.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 26, 2016, 02:36:08 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on November 26, 2016, 02:36:36 pm
This kind of thing is why it's a bit silly to take it literally. I mean, doing so also kind of implies God is somehow every skin colour, has hair of all lengths, simultaneously does and does not have a beard... :P I've mentioned it before, but the most sensible interpretation is that the human soul is in the image of God. Although, in the absence of vast knowledge, just the tiniest smidgen more prone to doing things wrong. :P
In my religion, the usual interpretation is that it implies that God (the Father) and Christ (the Son) have bodies that look human, or rather, people have bodies modeled after theirs. It's kind of similar to how a human son might look similar to his human father - they aren't identical, but they both have the same general body structure plus some specific resemblances.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 26, 2016, 02:45:57 pm
Post by: Arx on November 26, 2016, 02:58:14 pm
If God really existed the way many conservative/fundamentalist Christians portray him, I'd be an anarchist anti-God rebel, channeling Nietzsche as I lead the assault on God. God is dead, and I should know because I just killed him. :P NO GODS NO MASTERS
Don't cut yourself on all that edge you have there.
Hey, he's a Prophet, isn't he? Who're you to say he didn't follow Christian doctrine :PFor instance, abrahamic God tells you that you are sinful and horrible man even before you really do anything because of the original sin and whatnot, and says that if you worship him and be obedient you get rewarded in afterlife because he "forgiving".
Small correction: the Christians says the abrahamic god says so.
Not really. The prophet Isaiah spoke of every person being a sinner, and I think it's quite safe to say he wasn't a Christian.
The fact that he predated Jesus by a few centuries kind of rules out the idea of original sin being a Christian Fabrication. :P
Quote
Thing is, I see absolutely nothing as deserving of worship (which, in my personal definition, includes placing something on a pedestal higher than oneself and throwing praise at it). I mean, it's all perspective. Compared to monkeys, we have what could be conceived of as conceptually similar to unlimited power. But I wouldn't want a monkey to worship me. If I met a being three times as powerful, or even as kind, as I am, I would not want to worship it and would be insulted were it to suggest I do so.
God combines vast power with supposedly infinite goodness (though there have been challenges to that last). That he expects me to worship him before he gives me my treat, even if he were to exist, would make a rebel of me.
See, I would hesitate to say I 'worship' God in this sense. I have immense respect for Him, but most of what might be called worship from me is just things like thanking Him for something that I would say He did (although I'm sure you'd disagree on that point...). I'm sure that if you met a being three times as powerful as you that was generally benevolent, you wouldn't object to respecting it. And if you would, that seems really childish to me, I guess.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 26, 2016, 03:04:23 pm
I respect a being who is generally benevolent regardless of their power, as long as they truly are benevolent.
The abrahamic god as described in the old testament and portrayed in the new is not, to my eyes and reasoning, benevolent, no matter how many times they say he is. Actions speak louder than words.
Post by: TD1 on November 26, 2016, 03:15:22 pm
It is the expectation I have issue with. If I don't, he punishes me. If I do, he rewards me. The value he/those beings place on respect/worship is in itself something most emphatically not to respect.QuoteGod combines vast power with supposedly infinite goodness (though there have been challenges to that last). That he expects me to worship him before he gives me my treat, even if he were to exist, would make a rebel of me.
See, I would hesitate to say I 'worship' God in this sense. I have immense respect for Him, but most of what might be called worship from me is just things like thanking Him for something that I would say He did (although I'm sure you'd disagree on that point...). I'm sure that if you met a being three times as powerful as you that was generally benevolent, you wouldn't object to respecting it. And if you would, that seems really childish to me, I guess.
Out of curiosity, who do you 'thank' when things don't go well? Where is the cut off between what he did/ordained and what some other force/being did/ordained (presumably humanity/satan.)
Post by: Kot on November 26, 2016, 03:30:35 pm
Christians are usually really good and cool people.If God really existed the way many conservative/fundamentalist Christians portray him, I'd be an anarchist anti-God rebel, channeling Nietzsche as I lead the assault on God. God is dead, and I should know because I just killed him. :P NO GODS NO MASTERS
Don't cut yourself on all that edge you have there.
God is not. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo)
Post by: Shadowlord on November 26, 2016, 03:31:31 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 26, 2016, 03:33:38 pm
Edit: Except the last bit about banishing him making your life purer. I don't think it would, necessarily, but it would certainly seem more true to reality.
Post by: Kot on November 26, 2016, 03:36:27 pm
The ones in my family voted for Trump.../usually/
Post by: TD1 on November 26, 2016, 04:04:08 pm
This one's interesting. Basically "Stephen Fry Vs. Catholic Church."
Post by: Descan on November 26, 2016, 04:45:19 pm
I like the interviewers face at points in that. It's like ":I! okay just let him talk"Christians are usually really good and cool people.If God really existed the way many conservative/fundamentalist Christians portray him, I'd be an anarchist anti-God rebel, channeling Nietzsche as I lead the assault on God. God is dead, and I should know because I just killed him. :P NO GODS NO MASTERS
Don't cut yourself on all that edge you have there.
God is not. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo)
Post by: Silverthrone on November 26, 2016, 05:52:24 pm
If God really existed the way many conservative/fundamentalist Christians portray him, I'd be an anarchist anti-God rebel, channeling Nietzsche as I lead the assault on God. God is dead, and I should know because I just killed him. :P NO GODS NO MASTERS
I do consider myself as playing on Team Jesus (Well, to a degree, evolution clearly happens, and I doubt proc-gen is somehow beyond God's grasp), and I would probably be on the same page, too, if that were the case. That particular brand of God is one that it would be quite easy to live without.
Post by: TD1 on November 26, 2016, 05:58:34 pm
Post by: Silverthrone on November 26, 2016, 06:21:47 pm
Of course, if one even wants to. I believe there are many roads to heaven (or what else that destination might be called), which is probably another reason as to why I do feel like a natural enemy to the letter-followers.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 26, 2016, 06:22:25 pm
Jesus in the NT is usually pretty cool. I'd understand people writing off his darker moments as errors (though literally canon :P)
I don't get how people even try, for OT God. Cathars decided he was literally Satan and Jesus would save them... Most internally consistent explanation I've heard.
I'm only in season 5 of Supernatural though so who knows, it might win out. So far very promising!
Post by: Kot on November 26, 2016, 06:33:10 pm
I think that's one of his better moments though.
Post by: Cthulhu on November 26, 2016, 06:34:20 pm
But mainly that first one. Describing him as a prophet or a nice guy or whatever doesn't really work. If he wasn't what he said he was, he was a blasphemer and a crazy guy. The Romans were crucifying messiahs every other day back then, which is why no Roman contemporaries bothered to write about him.
Post by: Silverthrone on November 26, 2016, 06:39:20 pm
When I was a child, I always assumed that the Old Testament God was either having a very bad time, or was still new and inexperienced at the whole divinity business, or just a different sort of God. Younger, much more rough and sensitive, and far more liable to interfere directly in things. Spending part of Himself as Jesus, getting closer to mankind and the world, I imagined was part of His maturity. I was always a little heretic, no doubt, but still. I liked the stories in the Old Testament, but the New Testament felt like the more relevant part.
As another exorcise in childhood heresy, I was also quite sure that, whenever there was a thunderstorm, it was Tor making his rounds. I imagined God keeping and employing the old staff, as it where, when the north became Christian. It made sense to me. There can't have been many ice giants in Egypt or Israel or Babylon, and one could probably count on God being clever enough to employ local talent.
Post by: TD1 on November 26, 2016, 06:43:07 pm
Depends on your perspective whether one messiah of many had to be remembered, or the one true messiah was remembered. Whether people made their saviour, or whether a saviour was sent.
Post by: Silverthrone on November 26, 2016, 06:53:33 pm
While I cannot be sure, reforming and fulfilling the old law does not strike me as entirely unreasonable to have wanted, for the time. After all, that was the struggle of the day, and reforming the old faith, giving it a human face, must have seemed a far more likely plan than forming a new faith based on his own death. It must have been a frightfully interesting time, with all sorts of directions, old and new, rubbing shoulder at a very volatile place during a very volatile time. On balance, however, I'm happy I was not there.
Post by: TD1 on November 26, 2016, 06:56:32 pm
Said emperor very kindly decided to resolve the dispute by dying, IIRC :P
Post by: TheDarkStar on November 26, 2016, 07:27:03 pm
Christ (a God but separate from the Father) was the same in both testaments. In both, bad things tend to happen to disobedient/sinful people as a reminder that God is actually there and to prevent the spread of further sin. Also, God pretty much always tries to get the wayward wicked people to listen to him and only sends punishment afterwards - in the Old Testament, prophet after prophet tries to get the Israelites to stop being dumb but no one listens. Even Moses has to lead the Israelites for forty years (or at least a long time, depending on how literally you interpret "forty") because they were bad. In the New Testament, Christ tries to help the Jews understand that they're following the letter of the law more than the spirit of the law and the Jews respond by killing him and, in Acts, persecuting the apostles. Basically, God says: Don't do this or bad things happen, then the Israelites go do the thing, and then God says, I warned you, now I have to follow through.
Post by: wierd on November 26, 2016, 08:09:53 pm
I have some different takes than the person interviewed in that video.
Assuming the christian god is real---
The apparent modus operandi for this entity is not exactly "maniacal", any more than a math teacher presenting his students with really hard calculus homework, assigned as a group project.
EG, seeing said kids with eyeworms, who are sure to go blind without treatment, SHOULD compel you to action to save the child's sight. Without the presence of the eyeworms, or any other adversity, there would be no motivation to be altruistic.
The christian god does not want robotic worship-slaves, it wants free minded adherents who want to learn the spiritual mysteries of the universe, into which he can safely impart said mysteries.
Parables, such as "he who can be trusted with little can be trusted with much" apply very keenly in this interpretation, as does the promise of what it means to be in heaven in Revelation. ("We shall know him, for we shall be like him", implying that the goal is to become little gods ourselves.) The idea is to present smaller, solvable problems, for humanity to solve, so that people understand adversity in a real sense, so that they are willing to prevent it in others.
I very much reject the "God should pamper my pitiful mortal butt-- He would give me everything I want, and never punish me at all, IF HE REALLY LOVED ME!" line of thinking when it comes to approaching the hypothetical of the christian god existing. Amusingly, that seems to be the tact used by the person being interviewed-- "Why did you make eyeworms?" "To test you, to see if you would pluck them out, before I give you the power to make worse things yourself." (with the unspoken truism, that since you are here, AFTER having freaking DIED, those eyeworms were not a permanent thing anyway, and your accusations of capriciousness fall flat because of that. The bible states emphatically that the mortal, fleshy existence is temporary, like the training wheels on your bike, or like being "it" when you play tag. The christian god does not smite eternally until AFTER your testing, and then the smiting is to remove people who would abuse the powers of imortality and pseudo-godhood for flagrantly selfish and wicked purposes. He introduces small evils into a testing chamber (mortal existence) to see if you will love wickedness, or love altruistic goodness instead.)
Granted, that is entirely hypothetical.
My personal take is that if a god exists, it does not interact with the world, and it is running on pure cause-effect feedback. There are nutrients in eyeballs, the tissue is soft and moist, and it makes sense for parasites to evolve to exploit that. God created the framework, the lifeforms created themselves. There would be pretty compelling evidence of tampering if such a being did actively meddle with the world. Evidence that is curiously missing. So, I think it more likely that if a god exists, it is an absent one; it does not interact with us, except maybe to watch us, like a scientist does.
Post by: Kot on November 26, 2016, 08:16:30 pm
>Well there's also heaven where people still have free will and whatnot and it's perfect and there is no evil there but you need to suck my hypothetical prayer cock to get there so better get on your knees bby
Post by: wierd on November 26, 2016, 08:23:24 pm
A world with no adversity in it, is not a good teaching aid. That's like trying to teach math with eternal recess. You learn math through doing the hard homework assignments, and learning about its rules.
Providing a limited (since mortal existence is temporary) experience with genuine adversities, that feels genuinely real, teaches you to recognize adversity, and assist others in overcoming it, and teaches you first hand why you should not subject others to it.
Without that training, ascended humans would be the worst possible gods there could possibly be. See for instance, people who knowingly operate sweatshops with child labor to make personal profit. What would they do with divine powers?
It is wrong headed to see it in the scope of "OBEY ME! I AM GOD ETERNAL, AND I LIKE MAKING HUMANS SUFFER! MUAHAHAHAHA." It is more apt to see it as "I SAW WHAT YOU DID IN THE TEST CHAMBER, YOU DO NOT GET SUPER GOD POWERS, BECAUSE YOU ENJOY HURTING OTHERS."
Post by: Kot on November 26, 2016, 08:38:40 pm
>ate a fruit to actually realize what is wrong and what is right
Yes. Very much horrible of us to know if what God does is good or not.
Post by: Cthulhu on November 26, 2016, 08:40:28 pm
If there's any possibility that you chose to be good for the sake of reward, the test is ruined. Someone who was good to get a reward or avoid punishment can't be trusted to be good for all eternity.
That makes a lot of sense when you consider the character of God. The most difficult one to stomach for me will always be the divinely mandated genocide and genocidal rape of the Midianites. Men and married women were exterminated, virgins were taken as slaves, by God's will.
If God is testing people with the world, then the obvious explanation for things like that is that the gods we see in the world were planted by the real god to filter out people who aren't actually good.
Post by: TempAcc on November 26, 2016, 08:46:17 pm
Welp, good job, you people just described spiritism, kinda (the LOL YOU GET GODPOWERS part is never expressively talked about). Worlds are organized according to the general moral and intellectual level of its inhabitants, and material existence works as a kind of school in which you go through different levels and face different challenges in order to better yourself overall, with greater intervals of spiritual life between incarnations as you advance.
There isn't any reward involved, at least not specifically so. The journey and the knowledge you get from it is its own reward. You don't go to school to be "rewarded" with entry in the next level classes, you go to school to get the knowledge you need to actualy move on to harder challenges.
In short, under this view, God does love everyone, but just giving everyone some sort of heavenly existence would be like pampering a baby and and never actualy teaching it anything because there would be hardships and discomfort involved. You can't learn without suffering and hardship because you need to learn about suffering and hardship also, and God can't just give you every knowledge ever because its simply not possible and would violate your free will (ye, some things are simply not quite possible, under this view at least, even for God).
Also you aren't required to worship or even believe in God :U
Post by: Kot on November 26, 2016, 08:47:40 pm
Also you aren't required to worship or even believe in God :UHow can I kill God if I don't belive in him?
WITH EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES, THAT'S HOW!
Post by: TD1 on November 26, 2016, 08:49:32 pm
^Addressed to wierd.
I'm gonna get some sleep, so don't expect a reply any time soon.
Post by: TempAcc on November 26, 2016, 08:52:47 pm
Earth in specific is described as a backwater world for dweebs who aren't completely shitty, but not that great either, think a 3 on a 1 to 10 scale.
Post by: wierd on November 26, 2016, 08:59:16 pm
There are surmountable issues to build character and show nature. Then there are natural disasters and painful, destructive diseases. There is dementia, which enables someone to look at their daughter and not recognise them. There are constructive pains, used as "God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world" (C.S. Lewis), and then there are pains which do not rouse. They crush, and if there is a hand behind it then I am going to call that hand malevolent, for no good being could design, or perhaps even conceive, of such circumstances - not to mention actually put them in action.
^Addressed to wierd.
I'm gonna get some sleep, so don't expect a reply any time soon.
Natural disasters: We humans get better at predicting them every day. Eventually, we will be able to predict them perfectly.
Dementia: The causes of dementia are better understood each day as well. Progress is slow, but methods of treatment and eventual reversal are on the horizon. This is not an insurmountable task, just a very hard one. (protip: do not try to engage me on the subject of dementia. I have seen it in many forms, and work with it frequently, as I work at a nursing home. I have seen family of residents literally use the system to kill their demented relatives via denial of care to get at the inheritance.)
Diseases: Likewise.
And again, if we take the christian god as being real, the physical existence is temporary. Your grandpa will remember you after he dies, and the diseased body releases its poisoned grip on his consciousness. How you treat your grandpa when he has forgotten you is a test in and of itself. Do you ever stop loving him, just because he cant think clearly, rants, and raves? Do we give up on our searching for ways to treat people with horrible diseases, because of how horrible and resistant to our efforts those diseases are?
Post by: Silverthrone on November 26, 2016, 09:03:23 pm
Post by: x2yzh9 on November 26, 2016, 09:09:17 pm
Personally, as far as the apocrypha and apocalypse type scenarios goes, yes, it was propagandized, but the very reason for that (I believe) is the fact that it was sent as a warning, and not something that was set in stone. Even as I was talking to one very old wise person of my family who's hospitalized, she simply said that when it comes time we will transcend our mortal bodies-Most take this as dying and going to heaven. What I take it as is this-Space age technology, doing away with disease, illness, making our lifespans insanely high, and among other things.
This leads me to my topic: Starchildren, and whether or not you guys believe in it or not. I'm not here to preach even if it sounds like that, I'm just sending a message here. In the bible itself it says that the stars sing to eachother; as has been proven we are all made of 'stardust' and 'starstuff', so is there not and impermeable energy force communicating through our universe itself in that sense? If any of you have read up on starchildren, I would do it now preferably. The truth is the environment they grow up in and the trials they go through are tests to see between good and evil, and they hold great spiritual powers. That's my whole stance on spirituality and such. Take it with a grain of salt, if you'd like.
Edit: Here's a link, if you'd like to take the time to read through it. http://www.crystalinks.com/childrensic.html
Post by: Cthulhu on November 27, 2016, 10:56:39 pm
Quote
as has been proven we are all made of 'stardust' and 'starstuff', so is there not and impermeable energy force communicating through our universe itself in that sense?
No, there isn't. Or well, there is energy, but energy is a system's potential to do work.
Some of the atoms in your body were probably once in a dinosaur's ass too, if we're applying some kind of significance to what our atoms used to be.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 27, 2016, 11:13:56 pm
And there's definitely no such thing as starchildren, for nearly countless reasons.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 28, 2016, 01:33:50 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 28, 2016, 01:44:43 am
The divide between literalism and symbolism is also not very meaningful. Literal texts also contain contradictions and are long enough to put emphasis on the elements you desire, and thus are as self-serving as symbolic beliefs.
What we want to be true is meaningless.
Post by: Neonivek on November 28, 2016, 01:47:48 am
Ignoring truth is never nonthreatening.
Wait... are we talking about someone being "presented with the truth" and ignoring it?
Or are we talking about someone KNOWING something is the truth... and ignoring it?
Because those are two really different things.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 28, 2016, 01:55:57 am
Maybe it depends. When it infringes on our survival as a species, like creationism does, it is meaningless and harmless. But when it's conjecture that will probably never be substantiated or disproven...
There's still a little harm, but it's so tiny and rare compared to the main religions (and their secular, mostly disinterested followers... zealots once shit goes down. Easter Christians as I call them)
Honestly I think these odd spinoffs are good, because they encourage or even require independent thought. Which is the most important thing, really
Post by: Rolan7 on December 05, 2016, 12:38:57 am
Jesus is just as much a secular addition to Abrahamic religions :Pe, ironically."
Did I mention that the DMV had a big ol Christmas tree when I visited - in mid November? Fortunately they were really nice, so I ended up feeling welcome anyway, but in my opinion it's not appropriate.
Christmas trees aren't Christian symbolism however. Since it is a secular addition to the holiday it doesn't count.
Well, 2000 years rather than ~1000 years, but... yeah.
I suppose we should also celebrate Easter because it also borrowed from pagan rituals?
...which makes it okay, for some reason??
There's people who would seriously argue that any connection to Christmas, no matter how tenuous is unacceptable.A lot of Christians aren't happy that the birth of their savior is literally being declared secular, and turned into a commercial extravaganza. I don't want to celebrate their holiday, and I don't want to corrupt their holiday.
It's like if Thanksgiving took place at the end of Ramadan, and was an excuse to eat a whole lot, and was eagerly celebrated by Christians and atheists who still called it Ramadan but denied that it had anything to do with Islam anymore. Wouldn't that be kinda fucked?
And Christmas is soooo much bigger than Thanksgiving... Literal praise music all over the airwaves. I'm sure some individuals celebrate it secularly, but Christ is so obviously "the reason for the season".
Post by: Rolan7 on December 05, 2016, 06:06:42 pm
Quote
No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD.And people say the shellfish thing is crazy. Now *this* is victim blaming.
Of course, it's eventually wiped away by Jesus's perfect sacrifice and all that, yadda yadda... It's still a kick in the genitals, and makes me really angry. Even with the forgiveness, it's saying that I and my descendants have that sin on me - and it's bad enough that even blood sacrifices can't remove it.
I feel bad enough about it without some punks saying it's a dectuple mortal sin, fuck! Especially since it is literally not my fault, much less my descendants'... Fuck you, Old Testament God. That's not "mysterious ways", it's bullshit.
Like the Cathars said, before they were slaughtered by the Church, OT God is a monster and Jesus is pretty cool. (They would say perfect, and maybe they were right. The Bible was assembled by mortals, after all, maybe His hissy-fits were false canon)
Post by: Shadowlord on December 05, 2016, 07:00:00 pm
Okay, on another topic... http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/23-2.htmQuoteNo one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD.And people say the shellfish thing is crazy. Now *this* is victim blaming.
Of course, it's eventually wiped away by Jesus's perfect sacrifice and all that, yadda yadda... It's still a kick in the genitals, and makes me really angry. Even with the forgiveness, it's saying that I and my descendants have that sin on me - and it's bad enough that even blood sacrifices can't remove it.
I feel bad enough about it without some punks saying it's a dectuple mortal sin, fuck! Especially since it is literally not my fault, much less my descendants'... Fuck you, Old Testament God. That's not "mysterious ways", it's bullshit.
Like the Cathars said, before they were slaughtered by the Church, OT God is a monster and Jesus is pretty cool. (They would say perfect, and maybe they were right. The Bible was assembled by mortals, after all, maybe His hissy-fits were false canon)
According to What The Preacher Said That One Time I Attended An Evangelical Church, you have to accept Jesus as your personal savior and surrender your will to him in order to be "saved." That may sound ezpz, if you don't value thinking for yourself or whatever, but it's actually still pretty awful:
NT God would be snubbing his nose at anyone meeting any of these criteria:
1. Born, lived, and died before Jesus was born,
2. Born, lived, and died anywhere where Jesus was unknown,
3. Heard of Jesus but did not convert because they grew up in some other religion,
4. Maybe also Jews who don't think Jesus was the prophesied savior,
5. People who read the bible and say "there sure are a lot of lies, starting at the very beginning, in this supposedly holy book that my religious relatives say was written by god",
and so on
#1 and #2 are the most problematic. Imagine some sky-god after jesus was crucified saying "You know, those mayans, fuck those guys, I never liked them anyways. They can all burn for eternity for all I care. If they really wanted to be saved, they medamned well ought to have been born omniscient."
Post by: Rolan7 on December 05, 2016, 07:11:06 pm
Then the NT rolls in saying "Literally everyone is sinners and thus needs this new gospel, fortunately you only have to join us to be forgiven of everything. None of those old rules actually mattered."
Pretty sure I could come up with a more convincing cult. Most people with a modern high school degree probably could...
Post by: McTraveller on December 05, 2016, 08:06:00 pm
NT God would be snubbing his nose at anyone meeting any of these criteria:You do realize that #1 and #2 are actually covered, and explain how people in those situations are credited with righteousness? There are a couple books in the New Testament that cover it in pretty elaborate detail.
1. Born, lived, and died before Jesus was born,
2. Born, lived, and died anywhere where Jesus was unknown,
3. Heard of Jesus but did not convert because they grew up in some other religion,
4. Maybe also Jews who don't think Jesus was the prophesied savior,
5. People who read the bible and say "there sure are a lot of lies, starting at the very beginning, in this supposedly holy book that my religious relatives say was written by god",
and so on
#1 and #2 are the most problematic. Imagine some sky-god after jesus was crucified saying "You know, those mayans, fuck those guys, I never liked them anyways. They can all burn for eternity for all I care. If they really wanted to be saved, they medamned well ought to have been born omniscient."
And in general, based on my recent reading of some of this thread: Suffice it to say that it's quite likely that the image most people have about "gotta be saved!" comes from media coverage of extremely dogmatic, traditionally not very accountable churches that are overly focused on "personal salvation" - which is actually a relatively new concept (ca mid 1900s) ideas. If you read Acts, a lot of what went on immediately after Jesus' ascension was focused on addressing most of the complaints about Christianity that I see show up in this and other discussions. And those early days were about the corporate effects of following Christ, about how people were trying to get everyone to follow rules and the apostles were all like "yo people, stop trying to force people into what you think are the necessary rituals for following Jesus. That's not what it's about! Didn't you hear anything he taught?"
I think people keep perpetuating the idea that Christianity is about following some rules because it is so difficult to understand grace and how it's not based on earning. Really the entire point of the focus on rules in the Bible is to show humanity that it's impossible to follow rules! So rules can't be the source of "salvation" - which is why Christ was both necessary and so amazing. There's a lot to be said but consider Jesus is quoted as both saying stuff like "I don't condemn you either (after sending away all the people who were going to legally throw stones)" to a woman caught in adultery about to be stoned and also saying "I didn't come to abolish the law but fulfill it". But wait that's a contradiction you say?
There's an actual astonishing amount of academic rigor when it comes to reading the Bible in some circles of Christianity (it makes me sad to be lumped in with the circles of Christianity that are more dogmatic and not rigorous) - and it even includes stuff like looking at the literary style of each individual book (people who take a direct literal approach are missing a beat, I think), and most importantly looking at the collection as a whole rather than looking at each piece as a sub-whole and then saying various pieces contradict.
It's like trying to understand an automobile only by looking at its subsystems and saying it has contradictions because one system makes it go while another one makes it stop - you've missed the point of the vehicle entirely.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 05, 2016, 11:43:53 pm
Post by: Arx on December 06, 2016, 01:58:38 am
Then the NT rolls in saying "Literally everyone is sinners and thus needs this new gospel, fortunately you only have to join us to be forgiven of everything. None of those old rules actually mattered."
Not a NT innovation, Isaiah plotted out basically the entire Jesus thing well in advance, specifically relevant here is including the 'literally everyone is sinners and Jesus can fix it' part. Side note: that's the second time this has come up in the last little while, odd.
Still seems right dickish to stick Jesus in a place where people in the americas wouldn't hear about him for over 1000 years, and then after enough time that christians had decided that killing non believers was super cool.
The Roman Empire is probably about the best possible place to put someone in that period, wouldn't you say?
Thing is, I see absolutely nothing as deserving of worship (which, in my personal definition, includes placing something on a pedestal higher than oneself and throwing praise at it). I mean, it's all perspective. Compared to monkeys, we have what could be conceived of as conceptually similar to unlimited power. But I wouldn't want a monkey to worship me. If I met a being three times as powerful, or even as kind, as I am, I would not want to worship it and would be insulted were it to suggest I do so.
Yeah, this is a question of culture and context. Modern, Western, culture is individualistic to a slightly stupid extent. It makes 'worship' a bit of a loaded word. For context, in the isiZulu language, the word for 'thank you' is 'ngiyabonga', which literally means 'I praise you'. The idea of praising people's achievements in a slightly over-the-top way is something that was definitely strongly accepted in Classical culture, but in the modern culture of self-effacement, less so.
The idea of worshipping God is from the ancient Jews, who culturally were pretty similar to the Zulus in some ways. Praising God would be no different to praising a mighty warrior or a wise king, or whatever, which is why I say I respect God. It's just no longer the cultural norm to display that respect with extravagant songs and whatnot.
Quote
God combines vast power with supposedly infinite goodness (though there have been challenges to that last). That he expects me to worship him before he gives me my treat, even if he were to exist, would make a rebel of me.
I'm sure we've been over this at least once, probably more. The only thing Jesus says is necessary for salvation is accepting that he died for you. There is no worship involved. It's kinda expected that you'd appreciate it, and if you really care to try to be a good person, though.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 06, 2016, 02:36:55 am
Maybe a good place to reach many people, but not good enough. I'd expect better from God.Still seems right dickish to stick Jesus in a place where people in the americas wouldn't hear about him for over 1000 years, and then after enough time that christians had decided that killing non believers was super cool.
The Roman Empire is probably about the best possible place to put someone in that period, wouldn't you say?
Post by: i2amroy on December 06, 2016, 02:09:12 pm
Yeah, Jesus should have simultaneously appeared before every single person to interact with them, right? :PMaybe a good place to reach many people, but not good enough. I'd expect better from God.Still seems right dickish to stick Jesus in a place where people in the americas wouldn't hear about him for over 1000 years, and then after enough time that christians had decided that killing non believers was super cool.
The Roman Empire is probably about the best possible place to put someone in that period, wouldn't you say?
Per the belief vs. rules thing, it's also something that helped to set NT Christianity apart from other religions of the time. Most religions of the time (and many still today) are much more ritualistic focused, i.e. follow these steps, make these sacrifices, do this pilgrimage, etc. and you will be saved. NT Christianity's promise that all you had to do was "believe", something you could supposedly do right now, and didn't require you taking on a life of piety or sacrificing half of your income or anything else (not that they would be opposed if you decided to as a further sign of devotion), is quite an attractive one compared to things that require daily religious text reading, sacrificing your fattest cows on the altar and such forth.
And yeah, many versions of NT Christianity have some sort of rule that says that people who don't have the chance to convert and believe due to circumstances (which captures people who died before the NT, people who never heard the word, and babies that died too young) often get dumped into purgatory or something similar as opposed to straight into hell (or there is a tool like in Mormonism that lets you "save" your past dead ancestors through one process or another to bring them out of hell/purgatory).
Post by: tonnot98 on December 06, 2016, 02:19:58 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 06, 2016, 02:27:58 pm
Ethnic religions, by contrast, have often required very specific things of all followers. Judaism is the interesting example, since we see how it was once utterly this (kosher, sabbath, etc) but now has many people who only follow it in the same way most people follow a universalizing religion.
Post by: TheDarkStar on December 06, 2016, 04:23:09 pm
Pretty much all universalizing religions have a mass reduction in their ritualism, at least for the lay worshipers. It's a part of the whole deal. Christians just have to "believe", Muslims just have to say the shahada, and Buddhists basically have no entry gate. It only gets complex if you're committed or want a title.
There's more than that though. Muslims have dietary guidelines to follow and need to do more than just say the shahada - they also have to pray, pay alms, fast, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca. There are enough varieties of Buddhism that generalizing is hard. And many Christian religions have their own moral codes to follow. As a Mormon, for example, I believe I have to keep certain commandments/rules (dietary stuff, service/being nice to people, praying/going to church/reading scripture) and I have to go to an LDS temple for various things (it's probably best comparable to Muslim pilgrimages to Mecca). The Catholics have less, but afaik they have church services with communion + maybe other stuff?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 06, 2016, 04:41:34 pm
Yes, yes, the religions have rituals. But they aren't mandatory. They say they're mandatory for the sake of ideology, but they're functionally not. Plenty of Muslims never visit Mecca, never pay alms, pray once a week, and chug bacon-infused beer the other six days. Plenty of Christians definitely don't follow any claimed demands of the religion beyond describing themselves as a Christian (hence all the criticism people have of those who are sanctimonious and hypocritical). I'm sure you know of Mormons who do not exactly keep the commandments.Pretty much all universalizing religions have a mass reduction in their ritualism, at least for the lay worshipers. It's a part of the whole deal. Christians just have to "believe", Muslims just have to say the shahada, and Buddhists basically have no entry gate. It only gets complex if you're committed or want a title.
There's more than that though. Muslims have dietary guidelines to follow and need to do more than just say the shahada - they also have to pray, pay alms, fast, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca. There are enough varieties of Buddhism that generalizing is hard. And many Christian religions have their own moral codes to follow. As a Mormon, for example, I believe I have to keep certain commandments/rules (dietary stuff, service/being nice to people, praying/going to church/reading scripture) and I have to go to an LDS temple for various things (it's probably best comparable to Muslim pilgrimages to Mecca). The Catholics have less, but afaik they have church services with communion + maybe other stuff?
Fact is, with universalizing religions most converts get in by deciding "I believe this now" and most followers as a whole get it passed down from their parents. Compare to ethnic religions. You know what it takes to get recognized as a Jew by ones who are still even halfway into the religiosity of it? It's borderline impossible. I don't think most Hindus would ever accept a convert who wasn't Indian.
The Catholic Church, for the record, is primarily defined through the sacraments. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacraments_of_the_Catholic_Church)
Post by: TD1 on December 24, 2016, 08:08:16 pm
Yes..... Thank you God for Homeless people, natural disasters and stillborn babies.
You're great.
Edit: Also, worship meaning respect - my point remains. Even if God existed, I wouldn't respect him. Impressed/respect his power? To a certain degree. Respect God himself? No. Stripped of power, he becomes a small, petty person who wants everyone to love him and is prepared to punish those who don't. God is worshipped/respected for his ability to give treats. Take that away....and what is he?
Edit edit: http://adam4d.com/irony/
....
Is it impolite to laugh? I think it may be :P
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 24, 2016, 08:27:53 pm
God is worshipped for more than that, though yes, usually respect is given to one who is powerful. I'll ask you how many people there are who don't want people to like an appreciate them, especially if they've done something for them. For that matter, how many parents don't want their kids to love them, and will punish them if they mouth off? Like, three parts of all good all knowing and all powerful don't fit, yeah, but someone doesn't need to be all three of those things to be worthy of praise or respect. Worship? I mean, that's basically how gods worked back then. You praise the god and offer it sacrifices and it protects your village/town, makes sure the crops grow, and so on. It was how it worked. It's more or less how feudalism works too, except there you don't get to effectively choose your own taxes, though whether your fields got burned and towns pillaged was still largely random, depending on your lord.
I understand the sentiment; I don't like bullies. But if hell isn't actually fire and brimstone for eternity, it's just not Heaven, then it's hard to blame the guy. Yeah, yeah, no eternal paradise for infinity and that's just as bad as torture for infinity except no, not really.
People who had no way of possibly knowing about God are a whole different matter, with plenty of theological debate about it.
Post by: Kot on December 24, 2016, 08:50:42 pm
Like, three parts of all good all knowing and all powerful don't fit, yeah, but someone doesn't need to be all three of those things to be worthy of praise or respect. Worship? I mean, that's basically how gods worked back then. You praise the god and offer it sacrifices and it protects your village/town, makes sure the crops grow, and so on. It was how it worked. It's more or less how feudalism works too, except there you don't get to effectively choose your own taxes, though whether your fields got burned and towns pillaged was still largely random, depending on your lord.Those Gods were okay. They never claimed to be something they aren't (all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing) and they had clear rules and so on.and stuff. Stephen Fry has it right - if I were met by a, let's say, bunch of Slavic Gods, or Greek Gods, or such I would be okay with that, they are pretty much really powerful humans so their motives can be explained.
Whilist Christian God is basically a mafioso that provides "protection". He says he's good, he cares about you, he says he's powerful and that he will help you, but in reality he's evilest dude around, his power isin't really as big as he would want but at the end of day he'll raid your shop even despite he said he won't and all you're supposed to do is to praise him.
Fuck, the Aztec human-sacrifice Gods were proably better.
Post by: TD1 on December 24, 2016, 09:08:35 pm
If it were true that there was simply a "not-heaven" for non Christians, that would be nice. Doesn't quite fit the original literature, though, which was very emphatic when speaking of all the various sadistic tortures their god would visit on you.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 25, 2016, 12:28:11 am
You don't think the old gods that demanded human sacrifice to be appeased had a stick as well as a carrot? Really? Like, at a certain point you stopped making sense, there.
And actually, looking at the literature, the.impression I get is that Heaven is life everlasting. Hell is just death by fire. Literally called the second death. And that's specifically the new testament god, and when you take into account that the bible is not in fact divine word kept perfectly identical through millennia, (like how it was Ra, not god who hardened the pharoah's heart, iirc) it makes a bit more sense. And if I were him and knew people's options were 'death or immortality based on how close to me they can get emotionally', I know I might exaggerate a bit in the interests of having more people's souls not burn to death.
Post by: RoseHeart on December 25, 2016, 12:50:23 am
Or Abraham channeled by Esther Hicks?
It's in the same vein as The Secret.
If they hasn't shaped my worldview I would probably consider my closest thing to religious figures Mr. Rogers and Bob Ross.
I suppose I do, still do anyway. There's something about living a public life of peace that is profound. Because it is shared.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 25, 2016, 05:47:04 am
Post by: Teneb on December 25, 2016, 07:58:25 am
Fuck, the Aztec human-sacrifice Gods were proably better.The Aztec gods demanded human sacrifice because they were expending all their power and sacrificing themselves to keep the world from ending. Gotta keep the world going. Now, would you kindly climb up this here pyramid with me?
like how it was Ra, not god who hardened the pharoah's heart, iircWouldn't Ra's presence in the Bible be an argument that there are other gods? And as such maybe other afterlives? There is an argument that Hell is existence without YHWH, then it could very well be that he believes that any afterlife that isn't his is shit.
Post by: Kot on December 25, 2016, 08:35:39 am
The Aztec gods demanded human sacrifice because they were expending all their power and sacrificing themselves to keep the world from ending. Gotta keep the world going. Now, would you kindly climb up this here pyramid with me?Well, they clearly do great without human sacrifice and that climb seems exhausting so I'd rather stay down here just in case someone needs me.
Wouldn't Ra's presence in the Bible be an argument that there are other gods? And as such maybe other afterlives? There is an argument that Hell is existence without YHWH, then it could very well be that he believes that any afterlife that isn't his is shit.Hey, friend.
What if... what if the world is so shit becaues we're already in hell and its so shit because there's no God here?
I GUESS THAT MEANS IT'S TIME TO PARTY HARD!
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 25, 2016, 01:41:17 pm
That's my point; it was edited out later. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. It wasn't even about that he's the other god; it's about how he's the best and most powerful god, and that's why you listen to him and do what he says, instead of those other gods. Over centuries and into New Testament was when it was 'the only god'. Original version of YHWH had very little to say on the afterlife, if I remember right. You basically went into a holding zone. Christianity was the thing that really focused on the whole 'rewards in the afterlife' thing.Fuck, the Aztec human-sacrifice Gods were proably better.The Aztec gods demanded human sacrifice because they were expending all their power and sacrificing themselves to keep the world from ending. Gotta keep the world going. Now, would you kindly climb up this here pyramid with me?like how it was Ra, not god who hardened the pharoah's heart, iircWouldn't Ra's presence in the Bible be an argument that there are other gods? And as such maybe other afterlives? There is an argument that Hell is existence without YHWH, then it could very well be that he believes that any afterlife that isn't his is shit.
Post by: RAM on December 26, 2016, 09:02:15 am
Humanity as a collective seems disappointing. As far as I can tell, the greatest achievements of humanity are the stasis of written text and the error-correction of science. They seem to be fundamentally inclined to accumulate inaccuracy at a greater pace and to a greater peak than correctness. Adding more humans always seems to be a losing proposition, in intellectual matters at least. Not that one should abandon collaboration, it is just unworthy of any inherent respect and thus should always be subject to critical analysis rather than being accorded any faith or deemed more worthy than any random other entity such as an individual, community, cow, rock, the concept of backwards...
Still, that whole writing/logic/mathematics/science thing and all its marvellous technology is nice, but nobody seems willing to apply that stuff to social conduct, meaning of life(it is "to be yourself"(honestly(not that you have any choice) participate in evolution) which is a terrible lesson in general, short sighted, and extremely depressing. I prefer "to seek a purpose that is actually worth something" which can be extrapolated to "seek inspiration"(maintain diversity) "keep at it"(don't let your civilisation die), and "continue the mission"(make sure that somewhere, somehow, some part of your community is actually thinking about this stuff)), mental development, philosophy, or anything else remotely useful long-term unless they are trying to control it for nefarious ends...
Benevolence is incompatible with faith. Faith is inherently trusting something without reliable confirmation. Benevolence is reliant upon an assessment of the situation. Trusting something means cooperating with it without personally verifying the virtue of its desired task. Faith is, essentially, granting your ability to impose consequence upon the world without also granting your ability to determine what those consequences actually are nor what value they might have. If the subject of your faith further fails to subject itself to intensive analysis to determine precisely what its capabilities and objectives are... It is akin to signing up with an organisation without knowing if it is Doctors Without Borders or The Hitler Youth... All power-transference organisations are inherently immoral because power transfers far more readily than morality does, religion just earns special mention because the authority by which it demands obedience is so irrefutable and the ability to discern and alter the specifics of its morality, along with a complete absence of ability to apply your own morality, result oin a completely one-way conduit of evil.
Well, I suppose if anyone knows of any spirits or fae that I could form a personalised pact with...
Wind is more like a friend than a god and none of the other elements seem worth talking to. But hey, if you can hook me up with an element of existence that can actually talk back then that would be ace! I really like the idea of local spirits or elemental pantheons but I just don't see much in the way of the sort of evidence you would expect if Poseidon was lurking in the S-bend and Thor was powering the toaster...
Then there is the issue of plausibility. If something wants to be worshipped then it really ought to make an effort. As far as I can tell, too many religions are incompatible. Religions just seem to get too partisan over silly thinks like human sacrifice, cannibalism, child mutilation, rules versus intent... You really can't just choose them all, so you have to pick one. You obviously need to pick the correct one so that means looking at which is best supported, and that means looking at distribution. As far as I can tell, the most widely distributed religion seems to be "a bunch of talking animal-things being terrible to one another, and Bob was there!". Sadly, I just don't really feel it when I think about coyote stealing platypus' nose and spider tricking them into accepting a rock as a replacement...
Creator-gods are a complete no-sale. They are utterly irrelevant. One of the very very few objectively true things is that the scenario that accounts for all of everything is exclusive. There is only the one version of all that exists, a universe if you will. This universe could be anything, the complete absence of anything is still a single scenario(there would be nobody to care about it, but then nobody would care about that...), as is a scenario containing a multitude of worlds described by a single set of dimensions(regardless of whether there is any way for one to leave their own dimensions to enter a different set of dimensions or if instead the sets dimensions are completely inconsequential to one another and others may as well not exist from any given perspective...), or a whole of existence that is a meat pie, or even a world composed entirely of abstractions... The point is that there are no external forces as any such forces would exist thus be a part of it and thus not external. So nothing acted upon it to alter its nature, and everything within is subject to its nature, so even if something is defined as having designed it, that something only exists because it happened to be a component of the universe that we happened to end up with and if we had happened to end up with a different universe then things would be different... So, basically, we have the universe that we do because we obviously don't have a different one, so it turns out that "just because" is actually the irrefutable, absolute, and objective answer to life, the universe, and everything. Not as eloquent as 42 I grant, but still somehow entertaining to me.
Given that the true identity of the creator of the universe is "whatever will be, will be" and that it is directly and personally involved in every component of not just your own existence but that of all of your progenitors whether mortal, divine, or otherwise it obviously cuts in both above and below any creator gods by being both more involved in your own creation and also responsible itself for creating any creator gods. It is also noteworthy for forging the whole of existence by pure force of whim, being completely devoid of any form of will, intent, purpose, nor anything similar. Now, granted, Que Sera Sera The Random Number God may have picked up a severe case of sadism since it mindlessly brought forth existence, but it is obvious that the chain of events that lead to the idea that I might worship something was originally brought about by forces that lacked the mental faculties necessary to care about worship.
Although, I can only recall the one time that I properly asked for a specific result on a die, and I got that result at a 5% likelihood, so R.N.G. gets points for both definitely being the creator of everything and also having answered my prayers. I would like a larger sample size, but large sample-sizes produce conformity which feels like sacrilege...
and please take note that according to the definitions I am using, "God exists outside of the universe" is identical in meaning to "god does not exist"... Really, that whole line of thought produces some fascinating tangents, but ultimately collapses into various exciting forms of nonsense.
And lets just not use the term "God" as it really doesn't have a definition aside from "something that is worshipped" which can accurately describe Hitler, Stalin, science fictionology, your favourite Twilight ship, and any of the thousand or so "Jesuses" there are out there at the moment, amongst others... "Worship" itself is pretty poorly defined, so it is a bit of a case of blind-leading-a-suggestively-shaped-pumpkin-that-seemed-human-at-the-time. It is easier to discuss more specific things like creators, lords, patrons, or similar...
So, basically, I went looking for spirituality and everything I found beached itself and died. On that note, I have developed the ability to toggle an all-encompassing sense of support that makes limbs feel weightless, motion feel effortless, purpose feels certain and true... It certainly seems consistent with being able to control the holy spirit, so I guess I must be god, or perhaps god is just going along with it to mess with my ability to believe that it is an external phenomenon... I really do feel that I have explored spirituality enough, using both rational and passionate approaches, that it really wouldn't be fair for there to be a "true" spirituality out there and for me to still not be able to identify it with any certainty. But hey, more perspectives lead to greater inspiration! So if anyone knows a religion that I could possible respect, that would be great! Please be advised that I will not embrace a religious text without comparing it to all others as that would risk missing out on something better, and I am not going to read ALL religious texts for reasons that really ought to be obvious, so religious texts are pretty much useless(The real reason is a mixture of laziness, a lack of palatability in the text, and a wise distrust of poetry...)...
Post by: TheDarkStar on December 26, 2016, 11:45:32 am
Please be advised that I will not embrace a religious text without comparing it to all others as that would risk missing out on something better, and I am not going to read ALL religious texts for reasons that really ought to be obvious, so religious texts are pretty much useless(The real reason is a mixture of laziness, a lack of palatability in the text, and a wise distrust of poetry...)...
This seems self-contradictory? You'll read all religious texts but you won't read any religious texts?
Post by: TD1 on December 26, 2016, 12:56:53 pm
So the worst thing to be is someone who claims to besomething other than they are? That's the worst possible thing to be?
It is not the worst thing to be. However, when two people are asses and one pretends to be otherwise, it adds an extra layer of assiness to his character.
Forgive me for my blatant anthropomorphism of the God who made us in the anthropic image.
Post by: inteuniso on December 26, 2016, 06:29:51 pm
I now have some calculations I'm sticking in a quantum computer, as soon as I have access to it.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 26, 2016, 07:41:35 pm
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on December 26, 2016, 07:47:23 pm
Post by: Putnam on December 26, 2016, 11:32:01 pm
But hey, if you can hook me up with an element of existence that can actually talk back then that would be ace!
Carbon's your element.
Post by: RAM on December 27, 2016, 05:00:29 pm
No, just all or nothing, and all is impractical. Imagine that you can only read one book, and only one book in the whole world is actually worth reading, and, in theory, given that the book is perfect, you should be able to write it yourself based upon the "great minds think alike" theory of perfection being predictable due to possessing only the one form. You really probably ought to write the book yourself, so I did, but it was pretty boring stuff with just a few bits of advice for preparing for any possible persistence after life. I mean, sure, "know yourself" is a pretty useful piece of religious doctrine, "maintain your own will and ambience" can help people who lack the arrogance needed to survive this world, and "don't impose your self upon others'" is common decency and carries more weight when your are threatening their afterlife and risking contamination to your own(if two objects press against each other then they both tend to lose their shape...), but there is a distinct lack of giants fighting monsters and virtuous armies righteously purging unworthy squatters who irredeemably refused to abandon their defended city while a horde of fanatics with sharp objects waited outside because they heard second-hand that a disembodied voice said they could have it. I suppose you could probably stretch some incest into it though if you really tried(seriously, what is it with religion and incest, I suspect that it is worse than most fiction aimed specifically at incest fetishists.)? But you can see that it is really light on the whole love, betrayal, violence thing that religious texts love. So I am wondering if the one book that is worth reading might be identified by reading the blurb on the back, but it turns out that there are a lot of books out there, and their blurbs are long and detailed and mostly mindless filler and often contradictory and vague, and there are so many of them that reading them all, or even identifying them all, would be a Herculean labour, so I really can't read the back of every book in the world and even if I did there is no guarantee that it would tell me enough about the books to know which is the best one. So I figured I would ask other people who had already chosen their books because word-of-mouth is more interactive and specific than some advertising piece that was probably made by P.R. people rather than the actual Author and likely had only the vaguest relationship to the actual content of the book itself.Please be advised that I will not embrace a religious text without comparing it to all others as that would risk missing out on something better, and I am not going to read ALL religious texts for reasons that really ought to be obvious, so religious texts are pretty much useless(The real reason is a mixture of laziness, a lack of palatability in the text, and a wise distrust of poetry...)...
This seems self-contradictory? You'll read all religious texts but you won't read any religious texts?
So, yeah, if I could actually find every religious text in the whole world, and have them reduced to a single brief paragraph for each religion, without losing any of the meaning, then reading religious texts would be worthwhile. Sadly there is no way of ranking their validity(popularity is far too variable to be a measure, I mean, the most popular religions today started out being exclusive to a single race...) so it has to be all or nothing and all is impractical. So I fail to see any contradiction at all...
Seriously? Carbon can talk for itself? How can I get in on this? Oh, wait, do you mean, like, organic compounds and only the subset that are designated to be alive? Most living things can't talk. They can communicate, sure, but I am sort of looking for philosophy rather than gossip. I already mentioned that I am distrustful of humanity as a god... I had a traumatic experience where a parrot ate me, on m birthday no less, so I am assuming that the cult of parrot doesn't accept me. And on top of all that, these are only specific examples of the element talking, I was referring to the element itself, or its official representative talking. I mean, if an arcane haze rose from every human and coalesced into a single humanoid form and bade "Wooo! Dudes! Party time!!! Oh man, sorry about stepping on your garden. I am so wasted right now... Hey dudes! the more of you there are, the more wasted I get! MOAR BABBIES 4EVA!!!" whilst producing a cacophony of celebratory gestures then I might consider it a valid religion. I can't say that I would see much validity in actually following the religion, but I would concede the point that it were, in truth, an element of existence directly communicating and thus qualify as a god patron.But hey, if you can hook me up with an element of existence that can actually talk back then that would be ace!
Carbon's your element.
So please tell me how to contact the patron of carbon as this seems like an excellent time to join the cult. Diamonds continue to be sought-after, I still have faith in the applicability of graphite, and nanotubes are all the rage these days and it seems like their star is still rising...
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 27, 2016, 08:19:49 pm
Also, that's some...interesting...logic behind your case for 'all or nothing'. Hell, if you're going to read books at all, you could just read religious texts instead of fiction narratives or whatever else you'd be reading. Doesn't seem too impractical to me. You've got years ahead of you, after all.
There's just so many weird assumptions and dismissals built in to that argument that it's hard to see where you're coming from.
Post by: RAM on December 28, 2016, 02:48:34 am
Religious texts tend to be boring and depressing. Barely any editing so the content is all over the place so even if some of it is appealing most isn't, a plot that usually revolves around heroes and villains being good or bad based upon who they know rather than what they do, an overall message that tends to look disturbing like "if you are lucky I will kill you and eat your soul, otherwise I'll probably just dump you alone in a featureless void and forget you as your mind looses cohesion and then your soul melts. And when I say "lucky" I mean that I basically set up a conveyor belt to produce humans, but instead of improving the manufacturing process so that it would produce a vast variety of tolerable humans, I just threw it together haphazardly and put all my effort into throwing away the rejects when they reach the end of the line because I want my extra-special-ignorant-favourites to have something to feel better than...", and almost nothing is ever actually explained, it just leaves it for you too figure out the hows and whys and then tell it how clever it is for not saying anything that you disagree with... If I am reading for entertainment than I will go with better fiction. If I am looking for knowledge than I will go with non-fiction(it is possible that one religious text at random is non-fiction but there is no way of telling which it is even if it happens to be one that you have read).
So as far as I can tell, there is very good reason to read fiction narratives or almost anything else instead of religious texts. And there are so many, I wouldn't want to even speculate on how many different how-to books there are on feng shui...
Vibrations are unnecessary. I was a bit hasty in requesting speech, that is my bad and I apologise. It would need to communicate in a somewhat sophisticated way though. I really can't get a clear intent off of infants and animals most of the time so it would need to be more compatible with me than that but so long as I can get an appreciation of the concepts that it is conveying with confidence that I am not misinterpreting it. And, of course, it would need to be inspired by the entity in question. If a specific giant carbon molecule when subjected to a specific vibration at a specific point starts singing hymns than that is pretty compelling if it was a result of carbon following natural growth patterns in an unremarkable environment. If it the result of a massively repetitive forced-growth process then it would be a bit more dubious unless the message was "cut that out you annoying brats" and the following structures all had their own messages following a theme that would actually be plausible from the manifest will of all carbon. And even then, it really doesn't matter if god patrons exist because there is still no established reason to worship them, it just means more people who we really ought to try to treat decently because we are all trapped in here with each other and all the messes that we make.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2016, 05:59:31 am
It seems to operate on Supernatural logic, where the soul is basically a conscience... and holds memories, while the brain also holds memories. So when a soul is returned (in Supernatural and presumably in Fallen London) you essentially re-enter your body and remember everything it did in your absence.
It's an issue that I'm more familiar with from a sci-fi perspective. There's a great short story which takes star-trek transporters to an extreme, where they're the only FTL travel (only information can be transferred). The "clones" being reconstructed are inevitably angsty and even furious, but the original is compensated.
In another story, a guy was repeatedly uploading himself into a personal computer simulation...
And trying to figure out why all his copies kept committing suicide.
I have no point, just musing about the nature of self/soul/consciousness.
Inevitable edit: Specifically, I'm justifying the Sunless Sea option to simply offer your soul to a lonely deviless in exile. She only wants company (at least, that's what she says). She promises that when "you" drown, you'll actually stay with her in pleasant company. There's an implication that she would set you free and replace you if/when said company became tiresome, but she's a devil. In exile. It's not even a promise.
But maybe that form of immortality would be preferable to the unknown, at least for a while? The main danger would be boredom, a problem she is equally eager to confront day-by-day.
Post by: Silverthrone on December 28, 2016, 09:56:04 am
Then, there is the matter of who to follow. Many claim that there is (or should be, for tidiness' sake) only one true choice. I disagree. I am quids in on Christ, myself. That is mostly because that I was I was born in and raised with. It is familiar, and I like it because it is mine, so to speak. If I were born elsewhere, I would likely be the same dabbling follower of the faith given to me. What matters is that I try to become, and be, a good and decent chap, and I would like to think that would be true no matter which particular path of ink I was invited to follow. Christ is one way of many. It is not a particularly difficult thing.
The matter of our maker and our being is not one of picking and comparing holiday destinations in adverts and leaflets. Aspire to be a good person, and to die on good terms with your life. That is what matters, and you need not worry about having chosen the "wrong" package tour. Unless it is a path of cruelty or spite that hampers you from doing good to your fellow men, the particulars of it will not matter. Indeed, not choosing a particular path of faith, in a religious context, is a valid choice. You do not, strictly speaking, need scripture or ritual to be a good person, and to honour your maker. I doubt it matters if you even believe that your maker is real, it matters so little next to the reality of how you live and who you are. Try to do good, try to be good, and live the best life that you can. It will all be well.
Post by: inteuniso on December 28, 2016, 11:42:49 am
While that isn't a good yardstick to measure by, the thing is obscure. inteuniso, could you give a synopsis?
Contact-like riddle involving 23 pages of magic cubes made up by magic square constants, with the magic cube's constant being 666, huge division problems involving only primes, and a bunch of old turkic runes basically stating that extraterrestrials made the riddle and whoever solves it gets access to their eternal library. They also claim to be the ones behind the bible, with YHWH actually being a clue towards π7/π^7=
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
137 is a number that spooked Feynman/physicists in Feynman's camp simply because it appears seemingly everywhere and we've yet to hold a candle to anything that would explain this. This riddle ups the ante and uses calculations of only primes to come up with answers that contain various physical constants + religiously significant numbers in a single answer
Spoiler: See here, ripped from the wiki (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 28, 2016, 11:55:00 am
Dark souls with aztec theme wenFuck, the Aztec human-sacrifice Gods were proably better.The Aztec gods demanded human sacrifice because they were expending all their power and sacrificing themselves to keep the world from ending. Gotta keep the world going. Now, would you kindly climb up this here pyramid with me?
Post by: TempAcc on December 28, 2016, 02:07:22 pm
Post by: inteuniso on December 28, 2016, 02:39:22 pm
This is the timecube thread now.
Acceptable to Zalthor.
All irrational numbers, in their extended decimal sequence, contain every single possible combination of numbers. All of them.
Correct. Very correct. They're infinitely extending numbers that do not repeat, so there's no way you can't be correct about that. Problem with your quibble: the number the riddle refers to is rational. The spoilered number? Terminates at the 46th decimal. If you had opened the last spoiler, you would have noticed the wiki's creator points out how it's probably tied to the human genome as it has 46 chromosomes and all of the DNA bases are clip art on the last page of the riddle.
So, you're right. I'm not a math genius, I never got past the MVT and Taylor polynomials. I struggle with multivariable calculus. Sue me. Doesn't mean this isn't some cool math, at the least. It's cool to see rational numbers come out like this, even if it's just coincidental that railgunny/supernatural numbers show up.
Post by: Gentlefish on December 28, 2016, 06:47:33 pm
All repeating/terminating chains of decimals have a rational number whose decimal representation is that decimal. So it's trivial to do this problem in reverse- come up with some bunch of "important" numbers in a big decimal expansion, find the rational number whose decimal representation is that decimal number, factor the numerator and denominator. Things that look amazing backwards can actually be rather boring looking at them forwards.
Boo, you wet blanket. Let people have their fun.
Post by: Putnam on December 28, 2016, 07:39:08 pm
All irrational numbers, in their extended decimal sequence, contain every single possible combination of numbers. All of them.
Correct. Very correct.
No, that is, in fact, completely wrong. Here's an irrational number:
0.101001000100001000001000000100000001...
It is a decimal number, base 10. It is irrational. It does not contain the number 2 anywhere in its expansion.
The type of number you are referring to are called "normal numbers". Almost all real numbers are normal, but not all irrational numbers are normal. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number) The page gives a specific example of an irrational but non-normal number. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number#Non-normal_numbers)
Please do not make shit up or affirm others' shit they made up.
All repeating/terminating chains of decimals have a rational number whose decimal representation is that decimal. So it's trivial to do this problem in reverse- come up with some bunch of "important" numbers in a big decimal expansion, find the rational number whose decimal representation is that decimal number, factor the numerator and denominator. Things that look amazing backwards can actually be rather boring looking at them forwards.
Boo, you wet blanket. Let people have their fun.
By the same logic, I might as well say that everyone deserves to die because the Sun is purple. I can't let people base any sort of philosophy or eschatology on things that are verifiably incorrect, that's morally wrong.
Post by: TD1 on December 28, 2016, 08:03:09 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 28, 2016, 08:06:37 pm
Humbug. Religion in general is intellectually dishonest, we still let them carry on with it.We don't let anyone carry on with anything, even communism couldn't kill it even when they were literally killing tens of millions of them and controlling every information input in their lives
Until we have the Man Emperor of Mankind of course
Post by: TD1 on December 28, 2016, 08:08:17 pm
Whether or not it would happen without our support is beside the point.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 28, 2016, 08:39:49 pm
Of course we let them carry on with it, by not challenging it. Most of us do not challenge the right to religion, right? Ergo, we let it happen.Not allowing someone to do something is saying you have the ability to stop it but choose not to
Whether or not it would happen without our support is beside the point.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 28, 2016, 09:04:33 pm
Humbug. Religion in general is intellectually dishonest, we still let them carry on with it.That's a very strong statement you've got there. Specially considering it's only fairly recently that science and faith have become considered to be opposed. Religion is just a form of philosophy/ideology, at it's heart. If you'd like to say that philosophy is intellectually dishonest, that's one thing, but if you're not prepared to go that far, I'mma challenge that assertion.
Post by: TD1 on December 28, 2016, 09:10:09 pm
Whilst not diametrically opposed to science, religion nevertheless asserts that it holds truth, no matter what science says. It is this which marks it as intellectually dishonest, as it seeks to shape reality to what it already believes rather than exploring reality and deducing certain truths from that.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 28, 2016, 09:16:26 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 28, 2016, 09:51:43 pm
Furthermore, philosophy as a whole changes in response to new discovery, as does to some extent, religion as a whole. Most philosophy which believes in truth believes itself to be true, by it's nature (if it didn't, people wouldn't hold the philosophy).
I mean, like, look at, say, absurdism, solipsism, epicureanism, nihilism, empiricism, rationality (in terms of the philosophy), egoism, platonic forms...these are all (mostly) separate philosophies, and I'm not sure how much you can say that they're based on solid reasoning and science whereas religion is all hocus pocus bollox that no one of any intellectual integrity would believe. Religion is a way of explaining and viewing the world, which originated as an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Which is why I'm guessing you think of it as intellectually dishonest; we now have science which does that, for much of the things religion previously did. And yet, religion is still a way to find meaning in the world, much like philosophy is a way of finding meaning (or a lack thereof) in the world.
Theology and philosophy are on the same level of scientific merit; it's difficult if not impossible to find a way to bridge the is/ought barrier, after all.
Post by: Gentlefish on December 29, 2016, 01:14:29 am
By the same logic, I might as well say that everyone deserves to die because the Sun is purple. I can't let people base any sort of philosophy or eschatology on things that are verifiably incorrect, that's morally wrong.
I... What? No, I think you missed my point. How is it even at all similar? If someone wants to believe that the riddle is sign of extraterrestrial life and wants to solve it, how is that the same as believing everyone should die because they disagree on the color of the sun?
I do not think this is at all the same logic.
Post by: Silverthrone on December 29, 2016, 08:33:03 am
Humbug. Religion in general is intellectually dishonest, we still let them carry on with it.
Why, yes, thank you kindly for allowing me to "carry on with it". Your grace and mercy knows no bounds, Sir.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 29, 2016, 10:01:42 am
Why should we, when Abrahamic religions describe us as the worst kind of fools, and make it clear we're going to a bad place? Christianity demands evangelism by holding every human hostage... Evangelism is the kindest response, but it's not respectful.
Though it's also likely you're the type of Christian who thinks hell isn't actually so bad, heaven's just great. Maybe your church doesn't even evangelize, or you don't support a church. That's a cool faith I can coexist with and mutually respect, largely *because* of its distance from historical Christianity.
Post by: inteuniso on December 29, 2016, 10:36:03 am
Partially due to lack of resources, but also because most atheists are fine with people being religious if they also accept science. That's a respect we know not to expect in return.
Yeah, hard to argue against that. And knowing biology's predilections towards control/domination/survival over others, I could see how religion is how Jared Diamond described it: another tool designed to maintain the kleptocracy.
I would rather focus on integrating graphene into numerous tools to enhance their effectiveness than speak words to people because of some words someone said/wrote. At the end of the day, words don't make water.
Post by: Silverthrone on December 29, 2016, 10:59:00 am
I suppose conditions are different in America, however. Remarkably different, and I cannot say that I approve. Evangelism seems, on the whole, to be treated as a reason to be dismissive, rude and threatening. And as a way to bolster membership numbers, and to show them off. None of those are particularly worthy, and on second thought, a certain open hostility against such groups is rather understandable. It is irksome, nonetheless, to be lashed by faint association to the sort of people who deserve it, but that does happen.
As for accepting science, it seems like rather the non-question. It is an awful waste of time and effort not to, and it does not honour either man or maker. It is very odd, this stupid tendency to regard the sciences and faith as mutually exclusive enemies, and I have never understood why.
As for conversions, I have met a few people who have tried to take it to themselves to, in their mind, save me from ignorance, and "living a lie", which is no doubt well-meant, but more of an action to their benefit than mine. Suffice to say, no one likes ham-fisted attempts at conversions, that goes hand in hand with belittlement. An open door is a better way. Spiritual well-being is a private matter.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 29, 2016, 11:50:52 am
I feel like I remember that back when Islam was the fount of knowledge in the middle ages, study and scientific experiment was seen as a way to become closer to God by gaining a better understanding of His creation, and through it, God Himself. After all, if God is Truth, then what better way to know God than to learn what is True? I could be misremembering, though.
I've had religious friends (my relationship with one of my best friends was based on religious debate/discussion, for a time) and rather dismissive atheist friends. Atheism in it's most annoying forms believes religious folk to be the worst kind of fools; the less annoying forms of either Abrahamism or Atheism just show a respect and 'you do you'. Obviously both sides would prefer if everyone believed their version of things, but...
Still, not sure why Evangelism is disrespectful as a whole, rather than the specific means of Evangelism being disrespectful for certain churches.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 29, 2016, 11:53:22 am
Hence Islamic art being sick fractals and not a Michelangelo, because formless spacing out would do the job better than giving the unknowable a form
idk I'm prolly wrong tho
Post by: Rolan7 on December 29, 2016, 12:06:44 pm
Thinking about it, it could easily go the other way; most Christians are fine with people being scientific if they also accept Christ. :PWell, not to go all "!!SCIENCE!!", but accepting the scientific method as a way to find reliable facts isn't comparable to a faith. Science isn't the "one true faith", it's just the "one verifiable system". I mean, it constantly makes mistakes... by design, and grows from them :P
I feel like I remember that back when Islam was the fount of knowledge in the middle ages, study and scientific experiment was seen as a way to become closer to God by gaining a better understanding of His creation, and through it, God Himself. After all, if God is Truth, then what better way to know God than to learn what is True? I could be misremembering, though.
I've had religious friends (my relationship with one of my best friends was based on religious debate/discussion, for a time) and rather dismissive atheist friends. Atheism in it's most annoying forms believes religious folk to be the worst kind of fools; the less annoying forms of either Abrahamism or Atheism just show a respect and 'you do you'. Obviously both sides would prefer if everyone believed their version of things, but...
Still, not sure why Evangelism is disrespectful as a whole, rather than the specific means of Evangelism being disrespectful for certain churches.
Point is, everyone ought to respect the value of testing and verifiability, even (especially?) if they disagree about various conclusions. Faith is a whole 'nother thing, which is totally fine as long as it doesn't try to replace rationality in decisions that actually matter.
Historically that has been a problem, and I'm not convinced that faith can be safely compartmentalized like many people do. But what do I know? Many people do that, including brilliant scientists, and seem to get on just fine.
As for evangelism, I find most of it condescending. Though naturally, personal conversations about faith tend to be more respectful than mass-targeted ads like signs! Not always, but often.
Missionary aid strikes me as deeply dishonest recruiting... Certainly no respect there. But maybe I'm just being bitter.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 29, 2016, 12:51:03 pm
Know God's creation, not God, with the emphasis on God being unknowableIt's probably far more nuanced than how I'm describing given it was around 600+ years of cultural development as a religion matured. :/
Hence Islamic art being sick fractals and not a Michelangelo, because formless spacing out would do the job better than giving the unknowable a form
idk I'm prolly wrong tho
@Rolan7: I mean, you could argue that it requires faith to believe that science will give us answers to everything, but I think the main point I was trying to get at got across :P Rationality and faith don't have to be opposites, though; I have faith in other people, for example. Most people can tell that sort of thing. Sometimes they'll abuse it. Most of the time, they don't. We have a tendency to return trust placed in us. Reciprocative behavior. I think as long as people don't actively go against logic and reason, that religion tends to have positive effects, overall. Improves mental health, for one thing (there have been studies on the matter; a fair number of people do have philosophical/spiritual needs, turns out).
I think for missionary work, what you have to remember is that to people who believe, they're saving people's lives and their souls at the same time. You think of it as recruiting, but really? If it gets people to go help other people, what does it matter that they try to bring Jesus along? Who cares if the person doing charity work is doing it for the warm fuzzies, because it's the right thing to do even though they get zero personal satisfaction out of it, not even for the fact of doing the right thing, because God says to help the poor, or because they want to convert people in the process? The alternative to giving aid is not giving aid. Demanding that they give people aid for the reasons you think they should is rather...conceited. I understand that's not what you're doing, I'm just pointing out that charity is charity, don't matter what reason, people are being helped, and that's the point, in the end.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 29, 2016, 01:12:48 pm
As for charitable works funded by religious missions, as long as the charitable work is the primary focus of the mission it's good in my books. I don't like the ones where they withhold goodwill to nonbelievers or require them to partake in their services in exchange for aid
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 29, 2016, 01:14:14 pm
As an aside, it's horrifying trying to figure out who is RolanRolan was one of Charlemagne's lieutenants. It's also spelled Roland, Roldan, Hruodland, and Orlando
Post by: Rolan7 on December 29, 2016, 01:26:35 pm
And, huh! I don't mind being confused with Rolepgeek, though I didn't think we looked that similar :P Neither of us have changed our avatars too recently (me most recently, probably). I've enabled signature images, though, which honestly helps a bit... I often note my posts by the flags.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 29, 2016, 05:25:35 pm
As an aside, it's horrifying trying to figure out who is Rolan and who is Rolepgeek for some reason. Now I know what it was like for people trying to figure out who is LW and who is LSPIt gets worse when people use Rol as shorthand for Rolan and I get real confused.
As for charitable works funded by religious missions, as long as the charitable work is the primary focus of the mission it's good in my books. I don't like the ones where they withhold goodwill to nonbelievers or require them to partake in their services in exchange for aid
But yeah those people are kinda assholes. Although it reminds me of the outcry at PETA early on in the water crisis in Flynt, or when a city conducted a study about homeless people (and only gave them half of them the money or whatever), and the response to that, which, summed up, was "So acknowledging the problem without entirely fixing it makes you responsible? They could have done nothing to help, even conditionally, and you wouldn't be berating them. What the fuck, people?"
Post by: Putnam on December 29, 2016, 05:50:25 pm
By the same logic, I might as well say that everyone deserves to die because the Sun is purple. I can't let people base any sort of philosophy or eschatology on things that are verifiably incorrect, that's morally wrong.
I... What? No, I think you missed my point. How is it even at all similar? If someone wants to believe that the riddle is sign of extraterrestrial life and wants to solve it, how is that the same as believing everyone should die because they disagree on the color of the sun?
I do not think this is at all the same logic.
I meant "let people have their fun" in the context of said "fun" being not even wrong, i.e. being based on statements that, as part of their basic premise, includes something completely wrong.
Post by: RAM on December 30, 2016, 06:20:46 am
Thanks to Fallen London, I find myself in a situation where I'm casually attempting to justify, to my friends, the act of selling one's soul to devils. They're very nice devils. There's a treaty.One of my theories of souls(I speculate about most things...) is that your "real" self is the mind and body and that the soul is basically a safety-net that wraps around the person and absorbs various life-experiences, such as thoughts, memories, behaviours, interactions with others... and when you die the soul moves on with al this accumulated familiarity with your person and represents you as a sort of legacy. This, is, of course, pretty much the opposite of the concept that you are using but it is fun to speculate. If you lost it then it would be less developed than if it had stuck around until your kicked the bucket. Selling it would put your legacy under someone else's control, whether that means harvesting it for information, conscripting it into an army, using it as clothing... is no longer something that would go according to your wishes. Of course the really fun thing would be to absorb it and use it as glue to stop your mortal self from dispersing. This makes for a fun theory of immortality with the downside of making your otherwise-immaterial soul vulnerable to mortal interaction, but I for one would would welcome the chance at personal immortality at the cost of the certainty of a perpetual representation for my self that no longer exists... And if people's souls really do persist as their full, living self then why are they not constantly messing with us. I really don't see that the median soul would fail to desire to return and meddle in mortal affairs, and if they have any agency at all then surely the massive bulk of souls would be able to petition for a measurable effect on their old haunts...
It seems to operate on Supernatural logic, where the soul is basically a conscience... and holds memories, while the brain also holds memories. So when a soul is returned (in Supernatural and presumably in Fallen London) you essentially re-enter your body and remember everything it did in your absence.
Inevitable edit: Specifically, I'm justifying the Sunless Sea option to simply offer your soul to a lonely deviless in exile. She only wants company (at least, that's what she says). She promises that when "you" drown, you'll actually stay with her in pleasant company. There's an implication that she would set you free and replace you if/when said company became tiresome, but she's a devil. In exile. It's not even a promise.
But maybe that form of immortality would be preferable to the unknown, at least for a while? The main danger would be boredom, a problem she is equally eager to confront day-by-day.
But to address your problem, if your soul is your real self, and it is on an island, then the person who continues their adventure is not you. If you are happy to live on the island, then you should be willing to quit the game when you make the deal, otherwise it seems that your character is not ready to retire to a life on some remote island while their double goes off to do all the fun stuff. To be fair, there is no reason not to satisfy idle curiosity, and if your double can set some of your affairs in order then that is all the better. So you do not need to quit the game, but you should be at a point where such is acceptable, otherwise you would be dishonest with your character's wishes...
I do believe that it is possible to worry too much, and eventally stare oneself blind, as it were, on scripture and which one is precisely the right one. There are many paths to God (in whichever form it may be). Further, scripture is made and written by men. It is an aid, but cannot be followed to the letter, even though that would be a comfortable way to handle matters. Be it religious congragations trying and wanting to live by the very letter of unapplicable ancient Old Testament law, or people who are against scripture but would still like the people appointed as opponents to stick perfectly to it to keep their conflicts all pleasantly absolute and black and white, it is not a good choice.1: There are too many paths to god. Cannibalism, murder, mutilation of children, torture, these have all been religious practises that people have been born into a culture of and they do not seem compatible with your good. Just look at what happens in the old testament when people get in the way of divine edict. I have heard that some of the most revered examples of a virtuous life involved arbitrary conquest and massive abuses of civilians(my contemporary sensibility want to use the term "heretically malevolent"...). Religion's problem in this respect is that it has nothing to do with being goodly, all it cares about is being godly. There are some forces compelling godly to be goodly, an openly malevolent church tends not to do well, but godly remains very arbitrary from a mortal perspective. Ultimately, either you understand god, in which case you should only support it if it supports your own sense of morality, or you do not, in which case you should support your own sense of morality in case this god that you don't understand is not actually something whose goals are tolerable to you. So from my perspective, religion is irrelevant to virtue, there is no point associating the two.
Then, there is the matter of who to follow. Many claim that there is (or should be, for tidiness' sake) only one true choice. I disagree. I am quids in on Christ, myself. That is mostly because that I was I was born in and raised with. It is familiar, and I like it because it is mine, so to speak. If I were born elsewhere, I would likely be the same dabbling follower of the faith given to me. What matters is that I try to become, and be, a good and decent chap, and I would like to think that would be true no matter which particular path of ink I was invited to follow. Christ is one way of many. It is not a particularly difficult thing.
The matter of our maker and our being is not one of picking and comparing holiday destinations in adverts and leaflets. Aspire to be a good person, and to die on good terms with your life. That is what matters, and you need not worry about having chosen the "wrong" package tour. Unless it is a path of cruelty or spite that hampers you from doing good to your fellow men, the particulars of it will not matter. Indeed, not choosing a particular path of faith, in a religious context, is a valid choice. You do not, strictly speaking, need scripture or ritual to be a good person, and to honour your maker. I doubt it matters if you even believe that your maker is real, it matters so little next to the reality of how you live and who you are. Try to do good, try to be good, and live the best life that you can. It will all be well.
2: But christ is not a path to goodness. Treating others as I wish to be treated would earn me nothing but hostility as I appear to be too alien to my would-be peers for such a philosophy to work. Turning the other cheek does not resolve the inherent hostility within society. Sharing a single loaf and fish with a thousand results in a thousand hungry people, doing so is just wasting the limited resources, perhaps it could have been used to gain an audience with an employer who would feed a thousand in exchange for services? A few days of torture is not pleasant, but it is well worth it in exchange for a certain reward of infinite value. Certainly it is a means of spreading your message when there are few alternatives, but too much faith in your ideal blinds you to its flaws and prevents it from being improved. Jesus constantly endorsed faith, "believe in yourself and you can do anything!"... Faith cannot compete morally with understanding and faith is, by definition, ignorant... If you wish to help someone, understand their circumstances lest you harm or insult them. If you encounter conflict, seek to understand the causes and spread knowledge of them. If your situation is desperate, seek a path that ends the desperation and seek to know yourself so that you do not succumb to panic. If you believe that your message must be shared, then share it as best you know, and be mindful, as you learn more, that your message continues to seem worthy.
Fundamentally there is a terrible flaw in the Jesus narrative. Jesus was not human, Jesus had certainty of the divine, Jesus had faith in a god that was personally known, that is not the human condition in which religious matters are inherently mysterious. It is like knowingly gambling on a rigged match and saying that your victims should have had better judgement. Jesus cannot serve as a guide or example any more than god can.
3: As I already addressed, The Maker is irrelevant. It is, as an absolute truth, the product of what practically amounts to random chance. Every tiny little facet of reality is also a product of this same entity. This entity does not possess a will or desire or plan nor anything else that would be associated with a god that can be worshipped in any meaningful way. Also, everything is certain, not necessarily predictable, but the idea of "a new world comes into being every time a decision/random-event occurs" is objectively invalid as there is only ever one possible outcome to any scenario(although there just randomly being a whole lot of worlds that are just minor variations of one another is entirely plausible, it is just the cause that isn't viable). This all makes it pretty clear that The Maker is not as responsible for our natures as random inevitability is and it is itself subject to that same master. Given that there is something both higher in status and closer in presence it is obvious that The Maker, while possibly being worthy of respect for other things, is not a big deal simple for being one of the step involved in our making...
On a similar note, I often hear about free will as a gift. Between peer-pressure, chemical contamination, brain-damage, insanity, hormones, sleep, oppressive environs, addictions, physiological needs, panic, advertising with horrific amounts of money and expertise supporting it, patriotism and other born affiliations, various "instincts"... I find myself compelled to seek a refund...
I believe that religion obscures the path to being a good person. It provides an arbitrary path to goodness. Religions almost always focus upon the state to attain at death, to be without unresolved sin, to attain enlightenment, to possess positive karma... I see these as harmful because thy are unsubstantiated and could be misleading. My religion feels that any possible afterlife is a mystery, and all that we can do to prepare is to strengthen our self-identity so that what little we retain will be most prepared for a completely alien experience. Other religions will tell you to rely upon another party, or to seek alignment to a concept, or to bind your self-identity to the well-being of others, and all of these seem harmful to my perception. I have heard many stories of christians causing harm in their efforts to aid others. I preach that if wisdom does not guide one to goodness, then one requires more wisdom, and that goodness without wisdom is too inept to consistently achieve goodness.
... Does paetheist work? To aggressively seek religion by confronting all comers and hoping that some form of
Humbug. Religion in general is intellectually dishonest, we still let them carry on with it.I note that human sacrifice has declines significantly in recent history... So long as religions lay no claim to morality or authority I see little harm in them, a bit of fantasy can do a lot for morale. But once they start saying that they need to mutilate children or slaughter animals or regulate laws in some specific way and back up their claims with "because that's what god wants" and god refuses to defend these claims then I will persist in believing that religions are hostile to civility. And let's not even get started on how easy it is to use religion to gather support for outright villainy...
Most philosophy which believes in truth believes itself to be true, by it's nature (if it didn't, people wouldn't hold the philosophy).Is:
I mean, like, look at, say, absurdism, solipsism, epicureanism, nihilism, empiricism, rationality (in terms of the philosophy), egoism, platonic forms...these are all (mostly) separate philosophies, and I'm not sure how much you can say that they're based on solid reasoning and science whereas religion is all hocus pocus bollox that no one of any intellectual integrity would believe. Religion is a way of explaining and viewing the world, which originated as an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Which is why I'm guessing you think of it as intellectually dishonest; we now have science which does that, for much of the things religion previously did. And yet, religion is still a way to find meaning in the world, much like philosophy is a way of finding meaning (or a lack thereof) in the world.
Theology and philosophy are on the same level of scientific merit; it's difficult if not impossible to find a way to bridge the is/ought barrier, after all.
It is perceived that we act.
Action, even the lack of such, has consequence.
Consequence creates agency.
The self desires the self.
Ought:
The self should have/seek control.(more of an intellectual+self control really, but I am trying to keep this brief...)
...
Cooperate, endure, preserve variety, and seek wisdom!
Philosophy is exploration, religion is explanation. Philosophy is honest about its origins and generally open to modification through established methodology, and people typically won't burn you at the stake for obstinately insisting that your version is better than theirs... Religion generally resists analysis and criticism because its origins are inaccessible and it is very sensitive about threats(Especially the monotheisms, polytheisms seem to be more inclined towards religious tolerance...). Religion is fundamentally flawed because it relies too much on faith. Most everyone knows that faith needs some form of consistent observation to support it. You don't blindly trust the used-car salesman, or the Nigerian prince, or the candy-donating windowless panel-van. Intellectually you know that, in theory, their could be completely legitimate, but you appreciate that no matter how trustworthy and virtuous they seem when they speak to you, you really ought to investigate their claims through alternate sources. Rationalisation is not required to find flaw in faith, people already have faith that pure faith alone is insufficient to make important decisions well. People just arbitrarily give religion a free pass because surely no god would publish a big-old load of public relations fluff and there is certainly no reason that your friends and family would blindly adhere to the doctrine that they already devoted their entire lives to back when they were in your situation and whose absence would invalidate their- well, aspects of nearly every facet of their existence from lost opportunities to lost friends to enduring difficult relationships and, well, way too much to summarise...
Religion is dishonest because it expects more faith from less presence. Give my claims as much faith as God's. We are both mysterious texts from beyond your experience that may or may not be watching you.
Science is not a thing like that. It is just a methodology, and to a lesser extent the product of that methodology. Science has no truth aside from "this seems reliable". But Science is so good that some parts of it are known to be false but they are still in use because they work well enough for most purposes. Fundamentally, religion makes claims that it cannot support, science doesn't really make claims. Comparing the two is kind of silly. Philosophy to me is a game, its virtue is that you don't need to devote yourself to it any more than you agree with its reasoning, religion doesn't really give you any reasoning at all and insufficient devotion can be difficult when confronted with peer pressure, or lynch mobs...
While I am unsure precisely where the tithe goes (on the admittadly rare occasions I attend), I believe it goes for maintenance and charity workI am uncomfortable with charity work associated with religion. I do not really see a difference between a religion's name on a charity and a company's name at a sports event. I regard public acts of a religion as comparable to actually using a company product in full display of the audience. It may seem like a small and natural thing for a minister to oversee an orphanage, and to say grace at every meal, and to hold communal means, but the potential to influence the religious views of the orphans should not be discounted... I would regard it as innocent on behalf of the minister, they are just living by their own tenets, but the close association has an effect regardless.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 30, 2016, 10:35:32 am
But to address your problem, if your soul is your real self, and it is on an island, then the person who continues their adventure is not you. If you are happy to live on the island, then you should be willing to quit the game when you make the deal, otherwise it seems that your character is not ready to retire to a life on some remote island while their double goes off to do all the fun stuff. To be fair, there is no reason not to satisfy idle curiosity, and if your double can set some of your affairs in order then that is all the better. So you do not need to quit the game, but you should be at a point where such is acceptable, otherwise you would be dishonest with your character's wishes...Thanks for the thoughts, and I agree with that conclusion. That character was essentially retiring in safety, with the devil he knew, rather than risk drowning at see. His body continued on mechanically without him. It would be neat if the player didn't get to follow that body anymore, having its final fate randomly chosen. Instead, that soulless character is doing very well, even falling in love and raising a son... which just raises more questions. Maybe the love is faked, he's just fulfilling a remembered goal of building a legacy.
Like a cooperative golem (the game does also have golems too, heh. The buggiest of which act as if they have souls).
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 30, 2016, 11:51:41 am
Also; the reason people give religion 'a free pass' is because they were taught this by their family, and people trust their family. Also because when people survive really extraordinary things, it becomes rather simple to attribute that to god. It seems like you're saying they're stupid to trust family and try to find meaning in life instead of allowing themselves to fall into a spiral of despair. And yes, I know people who have told me that if they didn't think Jesus existed they would see no meaning in life, because they've suffered such tremendous trauma.
And actually, Jesus was a pretty cool dude, all things considered. Turn the other cheek helps avoid blood feuds and continuous revenge, treating others how you want to be treated is called cooperating in the Prisoner's Dilemma, and a lot of the stuff he talks about are basically means for society to function more effectively if everyone does it. You're correct, if you're the only who does it, you're going to suffer more. Turns out that's maybe why Christianity has such a big martyrdom/persecution fetish, because that was the only way to get it started.
Honestly can't tell what you're trying to get at with gambling metaphor. :/
There are a lot of assumptions being made about The Maker, there. Also about quantum mechanics and how the many worlds hypothesis works. As for free will: You mean you're affected by people other than yourself in decision-making? That's still free will. Free will is the ability to choose within the parameters you have available to you. Free will is the ability of the conscious mind to make decisions, rather than the unconscious mind (which loves to take over decision making from the PR part of the brain).
Lastly, charity is good, period. If religion makes people more likely to do charity work, then I don't see much of a problem with the charity taking care of orphans. You see the alternative as 'charity without religion'. When the alternative is 'no charity at all', I'll take the religion every time.
Regarding philosophy: When irrational numbers were discovered, the guy who discovered them in ancient greek society was thrown over a boat by the followers of Pythagoras for making his claim. Stalinists during the Cold War, or McCarthyists during the Cold War, would do plenty of stuff to someone who obstinately persisted in saying that the ideology which wasn't the prevailing one was wrong. Religion is not unique in this aspect. It is a facet of humanity, as all else is, and like all of humanity, contains the good and the bad. I seek to preserve what is good, and allow what is wrong to gutter out.
Post by: RAM on December 30, 2016, 07:46:19 pm
Know God's creation, not God, with the emphasis on God being unknowableAnd this is what really annoys me. I mean, you can make some pretty decent extrapolations from the assumption that this miserable death arena was actually designed this way. And people make loads of assertions about gods anyway, so that whole unknowable thing is basically a catchphrase with no substance. God is love(in my experience, love is evil), God is all powerful, god is everywhere, god knows everything, god is perfect, god is good, god is great, god sent the Israelites on a mass murder spree, god punishes the wicked, god designed human variance with respect to wickedness, humanity was spoiled by a serpent that god designed perfectly, knew every facet of, left in close proximity to humanity in god's own private garden and god knows everything anyway and god could totally take that serpent any time it likes with no effort at all...
I don't buy the argument that suffering makes any sense either. I have heard analogies to smithing. The sword must go through the horrific smelting process and then the warrior needs to swing it around and such to test if it works before relying upon it in a battle-field. I am pretty sure that god can make perfect swords directly, or even a massive variety of interesting but also functional swords, and I see no reason that humans would be more effort than swords considering that god is supposed to be so powerful and wise and so forth... It makes far more sense that something that exists without limitations would make a depressing pit of misery and watch it like a soap-opera, collecting the memories of the living to play as reruns while dumping their minds into oblivion as disgusting sludge. Occam's razor seems to cut the divine just as readily as it cuts anything else...
Science isn't the "one true faith", it's just the "one verifiable system".I would say that science is not without competition. It seems like the best of the bunch my a large margin, but the scientific method has not gone completely unchanged, I think. But mathematics is certainly competitive with science, in addition to the two cooperating extensively, logic is not entirely terrible... Science is just a simple, consistent method of checking if your claims are completely bogus. This has resulted in a massive surge in human technology because, as it turns out, humans have a massive tendency to make completely bogus claims and run with them on a society-wide level. Now, this is only verifiably true on a technological level, as science specialises in practical matters, so it is entirely possible that humanity as a whole are perfect savants with respect to social and spiritual matters because these remain untested...
@Rolan7: I mean, you could argue that it requires faith to believe that science will give us answers to everything, but I think the main point I was trying to get at got across :P Rationality and faith don't have to be opposites, though;Rationality and religion are having a territory war at the moment. You see, science was talking about all the cool tricks it could do and how it hoped that there would be loads more and people took that as a promise. So people ran with this promise and gathered under a crudely-made flag that they proclaimed to be science's and marched off to the promised land of, say, health, and found a bunch of religion already living there. Now, the science fanatics looked at these religious types and thought "ew, they are unlike us, bring in the tanks" but were willing to politely walk up and tell everyone to offer an unconditional surrender while team science took the land and people to satisfy their whims. On the way, team science overheard things like "don't accept blood transfusions", "mutilate your babies", "take these mind-altering drugs", "totally don't eat this stuff", and "ritual fasting is the way to go" which prompted team science to assume that everyone was beyond redemption and decided to send in the tanks and blow everything up. And then science comes along in person and ignores the mass graves and burning cities and instead desecrates the meditative shrine to steal the holy mind-altering drug and says "I bet that I could do something with this" and it heretically distils the drug into its component parts, decides that it probably has a certain effect on certain parts of the brain, and accidentally implies that interacting with god is not necessary to explain what people were experiencing.
Science has allowed rationality to offer useful hints where religion offers, umm, unverified truth... Rationality and religion have always been in conflict because religion doesn't like competition and both are claiming to possess knowledge. It is just that rationality has generally not been able to compete with religion and has kept itself out of religion's business, but this is changing...
I have faith in other people, for exampleNow this is the thing that I just don't understand at all. As near as I can tell, religious people have more faith in god than they do in people, but know less about god than they do other people. Knowing someone should give you a better idea of if and how they will betray you. I mean, if god tells you to run into a burning building to rescue a child, and a firefighter tells you to stay out of the building because it is about to collapse, what do you do? You know that the firefighter has seen many fires and many collapsed buildings and knows about the child and is crying because they like children and not being able to save this one is, well, bothering them, and they explained why you shouldn't do it. God, on the other hand, has never directly explained anything, got you to join up through peer pressure because everyone around you was already a member, provided you with a book that reads like a war propaganda script, and has never actually stated that the objective is to rescue the child, it could be that the desired outcome is for you to be stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of your life and the child was toast no matter what. Everything that I know about faith/trust/belief tells me that religion is wrong about it, that god should be treated as an annoying fool that constantly produces unimportant nonsense but you may as well listen to it in the absence of legitimate inspiration. Everything that I know about religion tells me that god should be trusted without question precisely because it refuses to allow anyone to question its trustworthiness. I just don't understand how I could possibly accept any of the established religions, and then religious types have the nerve to imply that I will be punished by my supposed designer for following the imperatives of my design...
I think for missionary work, what you have to remember is that to people who believe, they're saving people's lives and their souls at the same time. You think of it as recruiting, but really? If it gets people to go help other people, what does it matter that they try to bring Jesus along? Who cares if the person doing charity work is doing it for the warm fuzzies, because it's the right thing to do even though they get zero personal satisfaction out of it, not even for the fact of doing the right thing, because God says to help the poor, or because they want to convert people in the process? The alternative to giving aid is not giving aid. Demanding that they give people aid for the reasons you think they should is rather...conceited. I understand that's not what you're doing, I'm just pointing out that charity is charity, don't matter what reason, people are being helped, and that's the point, in the end.Their souls only need saving if they are imperilled, which means that god is going to punish them, probably for being born in the wrong place, which makes it a pretty brutally malevolent god in my book. Charity and conversion can be separate. Religion survives because it perpetuates, destroying other religions is most of why christianity is so successful. Religion is an overriding mental construct that has evolved to spread rapidly, or, in other words, a memetic hazard. If people don't accept a religion without the charity, then the religion doesn't offer enough to be accepted. If the charity cannot be offered without conversion as an incentive, then charity is not sufficient motivation for the people offering it. Christianity has an unfortunate history of doing things with the intention of saving people which were not appreciated by the people being saved
Religion only resists analysis so far as the people in it do. By which I mean that theology is the analysis of religion. And that's been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years. No, it's not analysis as you would typically think of it, but it definitely still exists.I really don't know theology well, but I suspect that it spends a lot more effort on discerning how and why something is true rather than upon what is true. I tend to see a lot of ignorance being proposed in such discussions. I see things like "you cannot know if god exists" and it hurts. I cannot discern if something exists if the means and inclination to prevent me from discerning its existence are in effect, but I can make reliable speculation upon combinations that are not compatible with that scenario and I can also observe that if I cannot even perceive its existence than it is not practical to consider it as being relevant to my decisions. People also say that you cannot know the mind of the creator, but I can speculate upon what I would create, what pothers would create, and who would create what we have, and how relevant they are to a world that appears to function without external intervention. Ignorance hurts me and common religious belief seems to regard it as a necessity. Not that I am free of ignorance myself, but the world was never fair or just...
Also; the reason people give religion 'a free pass' is because they were taught this by their family, and people trust their family. Also because when people survive really extraordinary things, it becomes rather simple to attribute that to god. It seems like you're saying they're stupid to trust family and try to find meaning in life instead of allowing themselves to fall into a spiral of despair. And yes, I know people who have told me that if they didn't think Jesus existed they would see no meaning in life, because they've suffered such tremendous trauma.I preach understanding. Family was persuaded by family was persuaded by family was persuaded by family... Trusting family is good(as far as arbitrary bas is concerned, and arbitrary bias is bad, but meh, it gets really really complicated really quickly...) but only to a certain extent. Blind faith in anything is bad, I am sure that you can imagine a scenario in which family can prove unworthy of trust.
Just because nobody in your family has ever betrayed you doesn't mean that that holds true for everyone else. If family is the only justification for a faith, then I do not believe that faith to be well-founded.
For every potentially fatal situation, there is a chance of survival. That those who happen to survive attribute it to external forces implies that all who died were ignored or abandoned by said forces. This is a fairly obvious expression of people placing a greater importance upon themselves than others. It is not remarkable that someone survived as most dangerous situations have many peers so the odds of someone surviving one of them are quite high. That the survivor is the survivor is certain, and it had to be someone... Attributing such an event to god is unfounded, and thus will tend to produce false assumptions in the future, likely resulting in errors and suffering.
Just because religion sustains someone doesn't mean that religion is the only thing that can sustain them. If people pit half as much effort into actual helpful psychology as they do into psychology that sells bad products then we might be able to get an actually reliable treatment for such people and save everyone. Rather than only hearing from the few that were saved by religion and ignoring all the victims who religion failed and thus were not available to provide testimony. A large part of fixing a problem is recognising that the problem exists, and religion gets in the way of that.
For my own problems, I cannot appreciate why believing that this whole world were deliberately designed to be so would help with the trauma of enduring its peculiarities. I find no comfort in believing that nobody cares, but it is far less comforting that somebody cared and that this world was the result.
And actually, Jesus was a pretty cool dude, all things considered. Turn the other cheek helps avoid blood feuds and continuous revenge, treating others how you want to be treated is called cooperating in the Prisoner's Dilemma, and a lot of the stuff he talks about are basically means for society to function more effectively if everyone does it. You're correct, if you're the only who does it, you're going to suffer more. Turns out that's maybe why Christianity has such a big martyrdom/persecution fetish, because that was the only way to get it started.Turning the other cheek can, potentially, settle a feud between two people. Or it can just fail. Or it can exacerbate the situation by inciting an ally who doesn't like seeing people being assaulted without defending themselves. Religion provides a single solution which might not work. Better to work towards understanding the situation and preempting a situation in which a blood-feud would start. I am a MASSIVE fan of nonviolence, but even I have to accept that it is preferably to be briefly violent yourself than to allow an inherently violent force to use violence to proliferate freely. As technology, both military and psychological, progresses, violence becomes more and more viable as a means of suppression. The existence of armies is a failure of society, but it is better to fail and acknowledge that failure than to surrender your influence upon the world to those who do not recognise such as a failure. Blood-feuds are bad but there are worse things, it is better to seek your won wisdom than to blindly trust religion's.
Prisoner's dilemma?!?!?!???? ??? ??? !?!?! Empathy is bad. It promotes group dynamics that destroy individuals. Compassion is better. If your prisoner buddy has been looking for a way to pay you back and also wants to get out of the business for a while, and silence gets them prison time and a criminal record regardless, then selling them out can be a kindness. IF, on the other hand, you respect that they do not want longer prison time, then you can choose to protect their interests without considering your own wishes. "Do as you would experience" is okay for a desperation ploy, if you don't have any information, but it is comfortable pitiful as far as morality goes.
I do not recall implying "if you're the only who does it, you're going to suffer more". Did you mean the bit about "earn me nothing but hostility"? I have often been the victim of people trying to help me, and people often complain when I offer them the same considerations that I myself desire. The people around me do not want what I want and I do not want what they want. "do unto others" is not a lesson, it is an encouragement to succumb to natural empathy, which evolved to keep society more or less functional but is horrific from a morality perspective. Empathy often causes harm because what you would have others do unto you is not always what they would have done unto them. If everyone does it then eye for an eye is better, provided that it extends to repaying positive efforts, or just being neutral to positive and negative. People who are ignorant will either use hostility or empathy, and thus either their hostility will be confronted or their empathy will be reflected with something that they desire rather than what the other party desires which they might not desire. Once they actually understand one another than eye for an eye evolves into something more sophisticated where you actually understand what the other party is trying to achieve and respond with similar intent rather than similar action.
I agree that martyrdom can be effective. It is less effective now as propaganda improves, but mostly my problem with it is that it solidifies your position. Your legacy is unchanging, and if your policies were a bit too extreme, or missing a vital point, then your followers will be hesitant to reject your example. It is tricky to work around.
Honestly can't tell what you're trying to get at with gambling metaphor. :/Just that Jesus apparently knew the specifics of god's plan and thus it really isn't fair to equate Jesus' experience with that of a human. For a human to perform similarly they need to accept something that is inherently unreliable.
There are a lot of assumptions being made about The Maker, there. Also about quantum mechanics and how the many worlds hypothesis works.that is just one version of many worlds, it comes up now and again and it struck me as odd that something so inherently implausible would be so popular. It is also a really good example for clarifying the point that there really isn't any alternative way for existence to play out. Dwarf Fortress looks random but at the end of the day it is all just rigid mathematics.
On that note, I do not see much sense in our world being a simulation. There are too many discoveries and details. Simulations generally have a lot of simplifications and only simulate the parts that are of interest. Granted, the entities within a simulation would be designed to be ignorant of it, but that really doesn't seem to be the case. There should be things that we just don't want to do"like abandon religion" that prevent us going off of the script and encountering elements that are not being simulated, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all, there always seem to be exceptions. If we are a simulation, then we are one of the relatively tiny subset that are not cripplingly simple and seem to be purely recreational.
As for free will: You mean you're affected by people other than yourself in decision-making? That's still free will. Free will is the ability to choose within the parameters you have available to you. Free will is the ability of the conscious mind to make decisions, rather than the unconscious mind (which loves to take over decision making from the PR part of the brain).I mean that people can enter a situation, know what path will keep them from regret, know that same path is what they want, and still be incapable of following that path. Some people are literally incapable of leaving the food platter alone until the guests arrive. Some people wake up in a gutter and say "never again" and throw away their drugs, call their friends or help, lock themselves in a room, and wake up in a gutter a week later. I am saying that some people really don't want to drink alcohol, but their friends all invited them to a bar, and they were bought a drink, and people sometimes look at them funny, and they are getting thirsty, and they don't want to insult their friends by leaving, and just a little bit won't hurt, and then they wake up in a stranger's bed. I am saying that being fat is almost never a choice, that people went off to war and died for their county without ever stopping to think if glory was worth it, that if you test a man's restraint by having them refuse water in the desert that they are probably capable of it but will probably have forgotten about the test and just take you up on the offer. I am saying that a lot of the time free will doesn't happen. I am saying that we got the shoddy factory-second garbage version and I would be ashamed to put my name on this useless junk. It is a joke gift, a prank gift, an insult gift. I cite it as an example of religion having really low standards.
Lastly, charity is good, period.That REALLY depends upon the charity, there is nothing to say that you can't pity the difficulties of being a nazi in the modern world and offer them a bit of support to help them with their eugenics untranationalist agenda. And really, it is better to fix the world so that nobody needs charity. Unfortunately we were given a junk garbage world where power disparity is all-pervading and I am too miserable to bother being the antichrist and fixing it all just yet...
If religion makes people more likely to do charity work, then I don't see much of a problem with the charity taking care of orphans. You see the alternative as 'charity without religion'. When the alternative is 'no charity at all', I'll take the religion every time.I think that there are other people who will do charity and that many religious people are willing to do charity anonymously. And this assumes that religion is harmless. If its doctrine of relying upon external forces to secure an afterlife results in a weakening of the soul and avoidable disintegration at the conclusion of death then that is a count against it. If it indoctrinates people and preaches an unwillingness to investigate the full range of possibilities in matters that conflict with spirituality then I would count that against it. If it can be used to convince people to mass-migrate to the holy lands and kill everyone who disagrees with you then I would count that against it. I think that there is too much blind acceptance in religious doctrine so that it it discourages critical thinking. I really don't know with any precision, but it seems entirely possible that the presence of religion could be worse than the absence of charity. It seems much easier to rescue someone from desperation than obedience. And bear in mind that christianity is not the only religion. I have little doubt that there are "terrorist organisations" with religious themes that are operating orphanages today...
It is impossible to completely avoid indoctrination, our world is full of influences, but it would be healthy to limit the extent to which biases can be solidified or led to extremes of volume or focus.
Regarding philosophy: When irrational numbers were discovered, the guy who discovered them in ancient greek society was thrown over a boat by the followers of Pythagoras for making his claim. Stalinists during the Cold War, or McCarthyists during the Cold War, would do plenty of stuff to someone who obstinately persisted in saying that the ideology which wasn't the prevailing one was wrong. Religion is not unique in this aspect. It is a facet of humanity, as all else is, and like all of humanity, contains the good and the bad. I seek to preserve what is good, and allow what is wrong to gutter out.Oh, granted, it certainly exists, but I feel that religion tends to be a bit more conductive to fanaticism than philosophy does. And philosophy is more prone to people pointing out that it is just plain wrong. As I said, I like philosophy as a game, a tool to explore possibility, as something to devote yourself to it runs much the same risks as religion does. I have never really been inclined towards devotion myself so I suppose I could be ignorant on this matter, but still, it seems difficult for me to understand how a religion could be used without being devoted to it.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 31, 2016, 10:25:44 am
Humbug. Religion in general is intellectually dishonest, we still let them carry on with it.That's a very strong statement you've got there. Specially considering it's only fairly recently that science and faith have become considered to be opposed.
At least as far back as heliocentrism. So, y'know, pretty close to the origins of modern science.
"Love is evil," RAM said. Like, what? How? I could see if you had bad experiences with someone who claimed to love you but that doesn't make love inherently evil.
Please don't respond with another massive wall of text, at least if you want me to actually read your reply.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 01, 2017, 05:01:34 pm
The scientific method is often misunderstood and misused, I'll definitely grant you that. But at the core, the method values one thing: Being reproducible.Science isn't the "one true faith", it's just the "one verifiable system".I would say that science is not without competition. It seems like the best of the bunch my a large margin, but the scientific method has not gone completely unchanged, I think. But mathematics is certainly competitive with science, in addition to the two cooperating extensively, logic is not entirely terrible... Science is just a simple, consistent method of checking if your claims are completely bogus. This has resulted in a massive surge in human technology because, as it turns out, humans have a massive tendency to make completely bogus claims and run with them on a society-wide level. Now, this is only verifiably true on a technological level, as science specialises in practical matters, so it is entirely possible that humanity as a whole are perfect savants with respect to social and spiritual matters because these remain untested...
And that testability, that vulnerability to criticism, is what makes it the best route. Because theories ARE replaced, and that doesn't weaken science... it only strengthens it.
It helps that rational science has reliably been the best and therefore most useful estimation of reality. Always.
But that was never been a given. The important part is that it's willing, even desperate, to be proven "technically wrong". Self-examination and peer-examination are built into it.
As they are arguably built into Islam, actually. Come to think of it.
I don't think that's worked out in practice, not like science has, but I still respect the attempt.
Post by: RAM on January 01, 2017, 09:51:21 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 02, 2017, 11:46:56 am
Humbug. Religion in general is intellectually dishonest, we still let them carry on with it.That's a very strong statement you've got there. Specially considering it's only fairly recently that science and faith have become considered to be opposed.
At least as far back as heliocentrism. So, y'know, pretty close to the origins of modern science.
Considerably longer, I should think. The earliest example I can think of off the top of my head is Ancient Greece, where Hippocrates was condemned for not seeing the gods as the cure to any and all ailments, but instead trying to take healing into his own hands. Aristophanes' 'the Clouds,' also, pokes fun at Socrates for polluting the youth with his teaching and leading them from the gods. It's thought that this played a large part in his trial and ultimate death.
Post by: Teneb on January 02, 2017, 05:01:33 pm
Humbug. Religion in general is intellectually dishonest, we still let them carry on with it.That's a very strong statement you've got there. Specially considering it's only fairly recently that science and faith have become considered to be opposed.
At least as far back as heliocentrism. So, y'know, pretty close to the origins of modern science.
Considerably longer, I should think. The earliest example I can think of off the top of my head is Ancient Greece, where Hippocrates was condemned for not seeing the gods as the cure to any and all ailments, but instead trying to take healing into his own hands. Aristophanes' 'the Clouds,' also, pokes fun at Socrates for polluting the youth with his teaching and leading them from the gods. It's thought that this played a large part in his trial and ultimate death.
Saying someone was leading the youth away from the gods was a pretty common tactic among the various politicians and philosophers of the Greek poleis to discredit someone. It's like the modern "Think of the children!" or the ever popular (and I do mean ever popular, you can find ancient texts with this exact wording) "<group> eat babies".
Post by: TD1 on January 02, 2017, 05:10:27 pm
Also, let's not forget the terror of mocking the Mysteries, various deities forbid!
Post by: RAM on January 02, 2017, 09:54:28 pm
Understanding takes the unknown and says "I want a closer look".
When both take the same unknown, sometimes they say "Well it really isn't the same thing afterall.".
Sometimes they say "Well if you phrase it like that and I phrase it like this, then I guess it sort of looks like we are saying the same thing.".
Sometimes they say "Well you're just wrong!" and religion pulls out a sword and armour and charges while understanding pulls out a toothpick and flees and gets stabbed in the back.
On occasion understanding would have a rapier instead of a toothpick, nimbly sidestep the sword, and stick the rapier through a gap in the armour and into something important.
Lately, understanding has been coming to meetings in a tank...
Religion has been saying that they are the best of friends while sidling closer and looking for a convenient hole in the tank into which to insert something unpleasant.
Understanding has been trying to figure out if the tank would be more impressive if its armour were electrified.
Religion and understanding have not been opposed in much the same way that The U.S.S.R. and N.A.T.O. were not opposed. They could occasionally converse without swearing death to one another. They could spy upon one another without declaring open warfare. Sure, lots of folk died and a few nations fell, but ultimately the planet didn't ep a radioactive wasteland with naught but a few mutated husks hallucinating about an internet forum, hopefully...
Religion likes science, so long as it stays in its box and makes nice toys for religion to play with.
Science likes religion so long as it stays quite and doesn't interrupt its work.
They can get along just fine so long as science doesn't use any bad words, like "psychology of faith" or "What if god really was one of us" or "we brought this dude back to life after three hours, just how long does god leave people lying around before collecting them?" or "Well, the time machine has its problems, but we know for certain that the origins of Christianity had nothing to do with anyone recognisable as Jesus" or even the simple "We added pig genes to this goat".
Religion used to make a lot of very practical statements. Things like how to treat the sick, how to discern honesty, what will the weather be like... It doesn't really do that much anymore, and is becoming very irrelevant because of that. Religion and science have been mortal enemies for their entire duration, it is just that their battle is slow and vague so it is very difficult, even for those in the trenches, to discern whether a battle is actually occurring or not.
Their really isn't much in the way of actual hostility from either side, it is just that they are both making claims about otherwise mysterious information and sometimes they come into direct conflict and neither is entirely willing to just stand aside and accept the other's assertions. If science were willing to accept that religious doctrine is unassailable, or religion were willing to forgo any claim to practical matters, then there would be no conflict.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 02, 2017, 11:02:37 pm
"We added pig genes to this goat"."And it's calling itself 'Literally Satan Made Flesh', displaying remarkable pyrokinesis, and overall being very uncooperative and costly. Very promising, though. Please send funding, also help."
Good post, though, I agree. The schools of thought are definitely opposed, people are just good at compartmentalizing and being diplomatic. And it helps that major religions have have largely evolved to be much more tolerant... for their own survival in a world where mystery is receding.
Post by: smjjames on January 02, 2017, 11:46:51 pm
"We added pig genes to this goat"."And it's calling itself 'Literally Satan Made Flesh', displaying remarkable pyrokinesis, and overall being very uncooperative and costly. Very promising, though. Please send funding, also help."
Good post, though, I agree. The schools of thought are definitely opposed, people are just good at compartmentalizing and being diplomatic. And it helps that major religions have have largely evolved to be much more tolerant... for their own survival in a world where mystery is receding.
Not all religions and theres still resistance in many places.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 03, 2017, 02:10:05 am
There is a downside to religion dying out though. For more than a few people, it's hard to find meaning in life. Religion gives that to quite a few people, provides community (which is actually like the number one factor in happiness, if the science podcast I listened to was correct), improves mental health in most cases...science, in deciphering the mysteries, can also result in such joyous philosophies as nihilism, solipsism, and egoism. Plus, science always thinks it's right, when actually, science is really damn hard, and confusing, and every once in a while it'll turn out religion had it figured out via trial and error a couple thousand years ago. (like meditation and acupuncture and shit, which I've never seen a real in depth scientific explanation for; religion just says 'it works, this is how you do it', and it does) And then science gets into civil wars.
So you know, ups and downs to both, as usual.
And this is what really annoys me. I mean, you can make some pretty decent extrapolations from the assumption that this miserable death arena was actually designed this way. And people make loads of assertions about gods anyway, so that whole unknowable thing is basically a catchphrase with no substance. God is love(in my experience, love is evil), God is all powerful, god is everywhere, god knows everything, god is perfect, god is good, god is great, god sent the Israelites on a mass murder spree, god punishes the wicked, god designed human variance with respect to wickedness, humanity was spoiled by a serpent that god designed perfectly, knew every facet of, left in close proximity to humanity in god's own private garden and god knows everything anyway and god could totally take that serpent any time it likes with no effort at all...I mean, it's much easier to assume god is not infallible and that either people painted him as such when they wrote his book because they wanted to be on his good side, than to assume god is evil, I would say. But then, I also don't consider the world to be a miserable death arena, so you know. :/
I don't buy the argument that suffering makes any sense either. I have heard analogies to smithing. The sword must go through the horrific smelting process and then the warrior needs to swing it around and such to test if it works before relying upon it in a battle-field. I am pretty sure that god can make perfect swords directly, or even a massive variety of interesting but also functional swords, and I see no reason that humans would be more effort than swords considering that god is supposed to be so powerful and wise and so forth... It makes far more sense that something that exists without limitations would make a depressing pit of misery and watch it like a soap-opera, collecting the memories of the living to play as reruns while dumping their minds into oblivion as disgusting sludge. Occam's razor seems to cut the divine just as readily as it cuts anything else...
Way I've heard suffering is that it's the only way to simultaneously provide an incentive at the material level to avoid sin and still allow free will. *shrug*
I mean, that's one way to look at it. The other way to look at is that this firefighter is a stranger you've never met before, that you may well have seen miracles before (or what you believe to be miracles), and that you have this whole long book about God that you've been studying your entire life. Oh, and there's a child in that burning building, so fuck it if you're not going to try anyway. Also, odds are that either the firefighter is crying, or they've got a lot of experience, not both. Most people become jaded to stuff like that because they have to keep doing their job. I mean, I don't really have a way to respond to you saying 'everything I know about X tells me Y', other than to say obviously other people have different views on the subject? I dunno, man.I have faith in other people, for exampleNow this is the thing that I just don't understand at all. As near as I can tell, religious people have more faith in god than they do in people, but know less about god than they do other people. Knowing someone should give you a better idea of if and how they will betray you. I mean, if god tells you to run into a burning building to rescue a child, and a firefighter tells you to stay out of the building because it is about to collapse, what do you do? You know that the firefighter has seen many fires and many collapsed buildings and knows about the child and is crying because they like children and not being able to save this one is, well, bothering them, and they explained why you shouldn't do it. God, on the other hand, has never directly explained anything, got you to join up through peer pressure because everyone around you was already a member, provided you with a book that reads like a war propaganda script, and has never actually stated that the objective is to rescue the child, it could be that the desired outcome is for you to be stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of your life and the child was toast no matter what. Everything that I know about faith/trust/belief tells me that religion is wrong about it, that god should be treated as an annoying fool that constantly produces unimportant nonsense but you may as well listen to it in the absence of legitimate inspiration. Everything that I know about religion tells me that god should be trusted without question precisely because it refuses to allow anyone to question its trustworthiness. I just don't understand how I could possibly accept any of the established religions, and then religious types have the nerve to imply that I will be punished by my supposed designer for following the imperatives of my design...
Also, 'religious types' don't believe those are the imperatives of your design. So, you know. :/
I think for missionary work, what you have to remember is that to people who believe, they're saving people's lives and their souls at the same time. You think of it as recruiting, but really? If it gets people to go help other people, what does it matter that they try to bring Jesus along? Who cares if the person doing charity work is doing it for the warm fuzzies, because it's the right thing to do even though they get zero personal satisfaction out of it, not even for the fact of doing the right thing, because God says to help the poor, or because they want to convert people in the process? The alternative to giving aid is not giving aid. Demanding that they give people aid for the reasons you think they should is rather...conceited. I understand that's not what you're doing, I'm just pointing out that charity is charity, don't matter what reason, people are being helped, and that's the point, in the end.Their souls only need saving if they are imperilled, which means that god is going to punish them, probably for being born in the wrong place, which makes it a pretty brutally malevolent god in my book. Charity and conversion can be separate. Religion survives because it perpetuates, destroying other religions is most of why christianity is so successful. Religion is an overriding mental construct that has evolved to spread rapidly, or, in other words, a memetic hazard. If people don't accept a religion without the charity, then the religion doesn't offer enough to be accepted. If the charity cannot be offered without conversion as an incentive, then charity is not sufficient motivation for the people offering it. Christianity has an unfortunate history of doing things with the intention of saving people which were not appreciated by the people being saved
Well, you say that god's gonna punish them, but if the whole point is that you must actively become close to god in order to have a place in Heaven, and God designed humanity and let it run it's course...I mean, hell, we started out in North Africa, far as I remember. That's right around the birthplace of the abrahamic religions, to be fair. Humans chose, of their own free will, to go run off to places and get stuck there. And no, destroying other religions is most definitely not why Christianity was/is so successful. It was successful for a few reasons. One, timing; Roman Empire provided a very nice backdrop against which everything else could play out and spread. Two, narrative; appealing to the poor/common people(charity helps with that, by the way), and using powerful images like sacrifice, martyrdom, persecution, etc., are very powerful ways to spread an ideology, which is why they get used time and again(and watching people die for their beliefs is actually a surprisingly effective way to get people to wonder if maybe there's something to it). Three, assimilation of local beliefs and customs. Throughout most of it's early years, it did that a lot, when it managed to get a hold in places. it was only well after that, say, 1500 years after, that it started the wholesale destruction thing. And at that point it's hard to say it's really the religion acting, when there were so many other motivations involved.
Charity is part of the religion, though. That's like saying that if a restaurant doesn't offer enough without the drinks, then the restaurant doesn't offer enough to be in business. But if any restaurant didn't serve drinks, no one would go to them. That's not how they work. And again, if the potential for conversion gets more people to do charity work, great, that's an extremely cheap price to get people to donate more of their time to helping others. Sweet deal.
Finally: yeah. That's true of most ideologies, turns out. Replace saved with other things, though, so often even the intent to help is missing. But yeah, pediatricians also do things to help save kids the kids may not appreciate. Needles, mostly. Kids tend to hate those.
Modern, lay-theology tends to be that, yes. Much like most modern physics lectures tend to be on how and why something is true rather than about what is true. Because most of the work about what is true for that particular sect has usually been hashed out hundreds or thousands of years ago. Usually, when they come to a different conclusion about what is true, and people agree that that makes sense, it creates a new religion. Lutheranism, Calvinism, All the many many many different sects, almost all were started by that sorta thing, and people who agreed with them. Almost all the possibilities for interpretation have been looked at by this point, is why you don't see much else in the way of 'what is true?' It's like how we'll look at modern-day chemistry in like 300 years. Nobody except a few subspecialties will care about the past hundreds of years of evidence for how we know chemical X interacts with chemical Y in Z way. They'll care about the mechanics of how it does so, and why it does so, but the 'what' is already taken care of.Religion only resists analysis so far as the people in it do. By which I mean that theology is the analysis of religion. And that's been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years. No, it's not analysis as you would typically think of it, but it definitely still exists.I really don't know theology well, but I suspect that it spends a lot more effort on discerning how and why something is true rather than upon what is true. I tend to see a lot of ignorance being proposed in such discussions. I see things like "you cannot know if god exists" and it hurts. I cannot discern if something exists if the means and inclination to prevent me from discerning its existence are in effect, but I can make reliable speculation upon combinations that are not compatible with that scenario and I can also observe that if I cannot even perceive its existence than it is not practical to consider it as being relevant to my decisions. People also say that you cannot know the mind of the creator, but I can speculate upon what I would create, what pothers would create, and who would create what we have, and how relevant they are to a world that appears to function without external intervention. Ignorance hurts me and common religious belief seems to regard it as a necessity. Not that I am free of ignorance myself, but the world was never fair or just...
Furthermore; I cannot perceive the existence of bacteria. I can witness their effects, or what people claim are their effects, but I cannot directly perceive the existence of bacteria. Microscopes could be seeing really weird dust particles, for all I actually know. Nonetheless, I choose to believe that they do exist, and that they do have an impact, and modify my behavior accordingly. Is it so difficult that for someone to whom 'God' is no less strange a notion, that this might be the case? Furthermore, while you don't see external intervention, many religious folk see it everyday. Interpretation of events, that some would call chance, luck, probability, etc., and others call fate or God. *shrug*
Trusting family isn't all that much of an arbitrary bias, really. They have a vested interest in your wellbeing, after all, particularly from an evopsych point of view. But usually it's not simply blind faith. There's pastors to help answer questions, an entire process of learning about the faith and you still usually have to decide for yourself whether you want to stick with it or not. And yeah, sometimes there's peer pressure involved, but it's a community. You can't leave the community and expect to still be a part of the community (leaving aside, for the moment, the shittier families that disown people who don't remain within the faith, since of what I know, that's fairly uncommon). Further, it's possible for there to be other implications, like god's grace, or other such things. Additionally, when people go through trauma, they aren't usually concerned with the finer implciations of their rationalizations for how they survived when others didn't (have you heard of survivor's guilt? wonderful thing, really fucks people up, recommend it every time). And yes, people place more importance on themselves than on others. Weird, that. Also: most people, religious or not, don't understand how probabilities work. Especially not at the meta-level like that.Also; the reason people give religion 'a free pass' is because they were taught this by their family, and people trust their family. Also because when people survive really extraordinary things, it becomes rather simple to attribute that to god. It seems like you're saying they're stupid to trust family and try to find meaning in life instead of allowing themselves to fall into a spiral of despair. And yes, I know people who have told me that if they didn't think Jesus existed they would see no meaning in life, because they've suffered such tremendous trauma.I preach understanding. Family was persuaded by family was persuaded by family was persuaded by family... Trusting family is good(as far as arbitrary bas is concerned, and arbitrary bias is bad, but meh, it gets really really complicated really quickly...) but only to a certain extent. Blind faith in anything is bad, I am sure that you can imagine a scenario in which family can prove unworthy of trust.
Just because nobody in your family has ever betrayed you doesn't mean that that holds true for everyone else. If family is the only justification for a faith, then I do not believe that faith to be well-founded.
For every potentially fatal situation, there is a chance of survival. That those who happen to survive attribute it to external forces implies that all who died were ignored or abandoned by said forces. This is a fairly obvious expression of people placing a greater importance upon themselves than others. It is not remarkable that someone survived as most dangerous situations have many peers so the odds of someone surviving one of them are quite high. That the survivor is the survivor is certain, and it had to be someone... Attributing such an event to god is unfounded, and thus will tend to produce false assumptions in the future, likely resulting in errors and suffering.
Just because religion sustains someone doesn't mean that religion is the only thing that can sustain them. If people pit half as much effort into actual helpful psychology as they do into psychology that sells bad products then we might be able to get an actually reliable treatment for such people and save everyone. Rather than only hearing from the few that were saved by religion and ignoring all the victims who religion failed and thus were not available to provide testimony. A large part of fixing a problem is recognising that the problem exists, and religion gets in the way of that.
For my own problems, I cannot appreciate why believing that this whole world were deliberately designed to be so would help with the trauma of enduring its peculiarities. I find no comfort in believing that nobody cares, but it is far less comforting that somebody cared and that this world was the result.
It's more than a matter of effort, as you should well know, (for one thing, define 'actual helpful psychology'? Therapy that works? That's different for everyone, sometimes nothing works, and trying to mess with what's working well as-is is usually considered a no-no in medicine, for a reason). Psychology is hard. Why fix something that ain't broke, and risk breaking it? Here, let me give you an example. My grandparents had one of their children raped and killed at the age of two. The only thing that allows my grandfather to continue to function effectively is the knowledge/belief that there was a greater purpose in that trauma and that their daughter is in heaven, now. Now, you could try to dissuade him from this belief, and risk the psychology failing, or you could let him continue to be a functioning member of society, instead of deciding that you know better than he does. Which is what is implied by your reasoning here.
The reason it helps people find comfort is the idea that it was for a purpose. That the suffering was for a reason beyond things within their control or things outside anyone's control. People find comfort both in the idea that their suffering was necessary, and that they are therefore noble for struggling through it, and that is within someone's control. Whether or not that someone is themselves comforts or discomforts them is usually up to the individual; some people find comfort in knowing that it was their own doing, and some people don't like the idea that they could have avoided it, because it makes them blame themselves and the memory festers.
So, I don't think you were getting what I was saying there. Those possibilities are not, in fact, equally likely. Even though there are three possibilities that you put forward for the result of turning the other cheek, they do not each have a one in three chance. In fact, I really don't think you understand this part at all, the way you're talking about it. I don't mean that to be rude, I think either I failed to make it exactly clear because I think you may be in precision analysis mode, rather than overview analysis mode, or we both failed to get to the same level of specificity. A. No, it does not provide a single solution. It has years upon years of history and chapter upon chapter of solutions and guidelines for how to deal with situations such as that. B. It's not designed to work at the individual, it's designed to work at the society wide level. Obviously the best method is to avoid the situation that would lead to violence in the first place. Just because you don't turn the other cheek doesn't make that likely to work. Also; christianity kept armies, you may have noticed. Keeping public order and dealing with criminals was also talked about in the bible. Defense of the faith is in there too. Don't take my examples as end-all be-all means.And actually, Jesus was a pretty cool dude, all things considered. Turn the other cheek helps avoid blood feuds and continuous revenge, treating others how you want to be treated is called cooperating in the Prisoner's Dilemma, and a lot of the stuff he talks about are basically means for society to function more effectively if everyone does it. You're correct, if you're the only who does it, you're going to suffer more. Turns out that's maybe why Christianity has such a big martyrdom/persecution fetish, because that was the only way to get it started.Turning the other cheek can, potentially, settle a feud between two people. Or it can just fail. Or it can exacerbate the situation by inciting an ally who doesn't like seeing people being assaulted without defending themselves. Religion provides a single solution which might not work. Better to work towards understanding the situation and preempting a situation in which a blood-feud would start. I am a MASSIVE fan of nonviolence, but even I have to accept that it is preferably to be briefly violent yourself than to allow an inherently violent force to use violence to proliferate freely. As technology, both military and psychological, progresses, violence becomes more and more viable as a means of suppression. The existence of armies is a failure of society, but it is better to fail and acknowledge that failure than to surrender your influence upon the world to those who do not recognise such as a failure. Blood-feuds are bad but there are worse things, it is better to seek your won wisdom than to blindly trust religion's.
Prisoner's dilemma?!?!?!???? ??? ??? !?!?! Empathy is bad. It promotes group dynamics that destroy individuals. Compassion is better. If your prisoner buddy has been looking for a way to pay you back and also wants to get out of the business for a while, and silence gets them prison time and a criminal record regardless, then selling them out can be a kindness. IF, on the other hand, you respect that they do not want longer prison time, then you can choose to protect their interests without considering your own wishes. "Do as you would experience" is okay for a desperation ploy, if you don't have any information, but it is comfortable pitiful as far as morality goes.
I do not recall implying "if you're the only who does it, you're going to suffer more". Did you mean the bit about "earn me nothing but hostility"? I have often been the victim of people trying to help me, and people often complain when I offer them the same considerations that I myself desire. The people around me do not want what I want and I do not want what they want. "do unto others" is not a lesson, it is an encouragement to succumb to natural empathy, which evolved to keep society more or less functional but is horrific from a morality perspective. Empathy often causes harm because what you would have others do unto you is not always what they would have done unto them. If everyone does it then eye for an eye is better, provided that it extends to repaying positive efforts, or just being neutral to positive and negative. People who are ignorant will either use hostility or empathy, and thus either their hostility will be confronted or their empathy will be reflected with something that they desire rather than what the other party desires which they might not desire. Once they actually understand one another than eye for an eye evolves into something more sophisticated where you actually understand what the other party is trying to achieve and respond with similar intent rather than similar action.
I agree that martyrdom can be effective. It is less effective now as propaganda improves, but mostly my problem with it is that it solidifies your position. Your legacy is unchanging, and if your policies were a bit too extreme, or missing a vital point, then your followers will be hesitant to reject your example. It is tricky to work around.
And no, empathy is not bad. I can conceive of nothing you could say that will make me believe having empathy for another human being is bad, nor a means I can see of convincing me that is it is mutually exclusive, even partially, with compassion. In both of the situations you describe, the solution is still for both people to cooperate. Again, this is a society-wide thing, not an individual thing. I think that failed to come across. You're discussing how relevant this is for individual use, and how it isn't perfect. I'm talking about how as a rule of thumb for entire cultures, it's pretty damn great.
I was raised to help people. It's difficult to help people who don't want to be helped, and 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you usually has to kicked up a meta-level or two in order to work in all situations, but nonetheless, I offer my assistance and ask what they need/how I can help. Because that's how I would like for people to treat me. Furthermore: most people's needs are surprisingly similar. While it's true that trying to help someone the way you would want to be helped doesn't always work, that doesn't make 'don't try to help people' the solution. It means 'be smarter about how you try to help people'.
Hostility and trust both tend to be reciprocated. In fact, there's a part of psychology where it's really hard to respond to someone the way they're acting towards you. But in iterated prisoner's dilemmas, tit-for-tat with forgiveness succeeds above all others. On society wide scale, eye for an eye is tit for tat. Turn the other cheek is forgiveness.
Willpower/battling it out with the unconscious is not the same as not having free will. You don't have perfect free will, because other things happen in the world, because you are not yourself God with all abilities, which is what it seems like it would take to fulfill your definition of free will, in which there are literally no limits on your actions. I don't know if literally incapable ever really applies to people. They could do things like lock the food platter under a top, give the key to a friend, and tell the friend not to let them eat anything on the platter under any circumstances until the guests arrive. Peer presusre is not irresistible. People changing their mind later is not a failure of free will, it's a feature. That's literally the point. The war/glory thing has nothing to do with anything because that's not even about free will or making a choice, it's just about considering the consequences of one's actions, which is a whole nother matter. Being fat is also a whole nother thing, because if you want to start bringing physical attributes into this then it becomes another matter entirely. Most of these are, in fact, the culmination of a lot of little choices that result in a different result than they previously, and may even currently desire. None of these are something overriding your decision making process entirely. Which can happen. But usually it doesn't, your judgment is just reduced (I had that happen to me at one point and it freaked me the fuck out, because my idea of 'what is acceptable behavior' shifted temporarily) in various situations and you make a decision you wouldn't have made in other situations. That's not your will being overruled.As for free will: You mean you're affected by people other than yourself in decision-making? That's still free will. Free will is the ability to choose within the parameters you have available to you. Free will is the ability of the conscious mind to make decisions, rather than the unconscious mind (which loves to take over decision making from the PR part of the brain).I mean that people can enter a situation, know what path will keep them from regret, know that same path is what they want, and still be incapable of following that path. Some people are literally incapable of leaving the food platter alone until the guests arrive. Some people wake up in a gutter and say "never again" and throw away their drugs, call their friends or help, lock themselves in a room, and wake up in a gutter a week later. I am saying that some people really don't want to drink alcohol, but their friends all invited them to a bar, and they were bought a drink, and people sometimes look at them funny, and they are getting thirsty, and they don't want to insult their friends by leaving, and just a little bit won't hurt, and then they wake up in a stranger's bed. I am saying that being fat is almost never a choice, that people went off to war and died for their county without ever stopping to think if glory was worth it, that if you test a man's restraint by having them refuse water in the desert that they are probably capable of it but will probably have forgotten about the test and just take you up on the offer. I am saying that a lot of the time free will doesn't happen. I am saying that we got the shoddy factory-second garbage version and I would be ashamed to put my name on this useless junk. It is a joke gift, a prank gift, an insult gift. I cite it as an example of religion having really low standards.
Are you seriously Godwinning already. I understand this is the spirituality thread, but it doesn't literally mean God-Win. You know quite well what charity means in this context, RAM. Please just don't.Lastly, charity is good, period.That REALLY depends upon the charity, there is nothing to say that you can't pity the difficulties of being a nazi in the modern world and offer them a bit of support to help them with their eugenics untranationalist agenda. And really, it is better to fix the world so that nobody needs charity. Unfortunately we were given a junk garbage world where power disparity is all-pervading and I am too miserable to bother being the antichrist and fixing it all just yet...
And those people are capable of doing charity as well. There is currently no real cap on how much charity can be done and still help people, unfortunately. Vast majority of the time, religion is harmless or helps people. The doctrine weakening the soul is, uh...what?If religion makes people more likely to do charity work, then I don't see much of a problem with the charity taking care of orphans. You see the alternative as 'charity without religion'. When the alternative is 'no charity at all', I'll take the religion every time.I think that there are other people who will do charity and that many religious people are willing to do charity anonymously. And this assumes that religion is harmless. If its doctrine of relying upon external forces to secure an afterlife results in a weakening of the soul and avoidable disintegration at the conclusion of death then that is a count against it. If it indoctrinates people and preaches an unwillingness to investigate the full range of possibilities in matters that conflict with spirituality then I would count that against it. If it can be used to convince people to mass-migrate to the holy lands and kill everyone who disagrees with you then I would count that against it. I think that there is too much blind acceptance in religious doctrine so that it it discourages critical thinking. I really don't know with any precision, but it seems entirely possible that the presence of religion could be worse than the absence of charity. It seems much easier to rescue someone from desperation than obedience. And bear in mind that christianity is not the only religion. I have little doubt that there are "terrorist organisations" with religious themes that are operating orphanages today...
It is impossible to completely avoid indoctrination, our world is full of influences, but it would be healthy to limit the extent to which biases can be solidified or led to extremes of volume or focus.
I mean, seriously, dude, evolution was used to justify Social Darwinism. Do you count that against it? Guilt by association doesn't belong in the courts or in philosophy. You don't have to say "all religion is evil!" just because some of it is. I mean, hell, here's a line of reasoning for you: one way or another, people who are susceptible to ideology will become indoctrinated into something. It is, on average, better for that something to be religion, because weighted by probability of their conversion, most religions preach charity, kindness to one's fellow man, moderation, and good work ethic, which means that for society as a whole, it is more beneficial than them being indoctrinated into other less savory ideologies. I definitely believe there's flaws in that reasoning, but my point is that you're making a lot of assumptions here that could just as easily go the other way, and you seem to ignore probability weighting in much of it.
I mean, that's kinda how most people operate with religion. It's a background thing. It's not usually the single most overriding thing in their life, particularly if they grew up with it. It's just...there. They believe in it, they try to live in accordance with it, and they live their life in all the other ways. It's part of the backdrop of their life, not the forefront. Religion only produces more fanatics because it's more common.Regarding philosophy: When irrational numbers were discovered, the guy who discovered them in ancient greek society was thrown over a boat by the followers of Pythagoras for making his claim. Stalinists during the Cold War, or McCarthyists during the Cold War, would do plenty of stuff to someone who obstinately persisted in saying that the ideology which wasn't the prevailing one was wrong. Religion is not unique in this aspect. It is a facet of humanity, as all else is, and like all of humanity, contains the good and the bad. I seek to preserve what is good, and allow what is wrong to gutter out.Oh, granted, it certainly exists, but I feel that religion tends to be a bit more conductive to fanaticism than philosophy does. And philosophy is more prone to people pointing out that it is just plain wrong. As I said, I like philosophy as a game, a tool to explore possibility, as something to devote yourself to it runs much the same risks as religion does. I have never really been inclined towards devotion myself so I suppose I could be ignorant on this matter, but still, it seems difficult for me to understand how a religion could be used without being devoted to it.
Post by: Gentlefish on January 03, 2017, 08:48:48 am
Post by: Rolan7 on January 23, 2017, 02:48:13 am
Isn't that a little weird? Surely a typical evil guy would eagerly take advantage of Christ, but I can't.
My sin should be transferred onto the most perfect thing in existence? Uh, no, can I just stop existing instead?
Not that there's any reason to believe Christ is real, the whole thing is ridiculous. But I'm positing a hypothetical where Christ personally offers absolution. It's actually not that weird, a common theme in religions is people being weighed down by their sins... And that's me, I guess.
What happens to someone who *wants* to atone for their sin? Purgatory?
I honestly don't know how it officially works, in the denominations where it's even a thing... But I want to confront everything I've done wrong. All of it.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2017, 02:50:50 am
Post by: Rolan7 on January 23, 2017, 03:06:18 am
Maybe that's my problem with Christianity...
It posits an almighty God who hates certain things his creations do, okay.
It posits that we can be forgiven of ANYTHING because he killed part of himself which immediately got better. Uh.
It posits that we should share this with X people. Just like a cheap chain-email. Because the time of miracles is arbitrarily over, or maybe not (depending on denomination).
All that said, I'd still like to get rid of this baggage somehow.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2017, 03:09:40 am
I don't think any of that even necessarily requires atheism.
Post by: Adragis on January 23, 2017, 07:00:32 pm
Post by: RAM on January 24, 2017, 04:43:32 pm
If you want to avoid contaminating the source of your world? Don't worry, it is also the source of your contamination...
If you want to be a better person, self-analyse. If you do not know what a better state is, and do not know the difference between your current state and that of the desired state, then any improvements will be largely random. You shouldn't expect to make a decent paper plane if you don't know what shape you want it and can't see the paper... Really, I inherently distrust any religion that doesn't preach self-understanding. The whole idea of "sin" feels to me like it is telling you what is wrong arbitrarily so that you don't need to bother looking at evidence or thinking about anything... Compare with things like Fox News that would get you caught up over how they are wrong about an issue and really win by having you ignore this other issue that they don't even mention or just drop and an inconsequentiality... Your sins probably haven't caused as much damage as you think and the damage you have caused probably had more contributing factors than you think.
Really, bad deeds are not a matter of the consequences they have. Humans are not equipped to know all of the consequences of their actions. Bad deeds are the result of failing to attempt to predict what consequences you are able to. You can have good intentions by spraying water at a cat to get it out of a tree, but whether it safely runs home, runs onto a road, plummets from the tree and lands badly, or climbs higher doesn't change the fact that you were probably acting with undue haste and a lack of consideration, but ideally the cat wouldn't have been stuck up a tree to begin with.
Minds are far less malleable than people think. With sufficient resources, it is possible to murder someone by compelling them to commit suicide. Advertising does have a measurable effect. Thoughts are not that important, it is all just a big mess of circumstance. Whatever bad deeds you feel that you may have committed were(most likely) performed by your own hands, but being the person that you were you didn't possess the means to act differently. All that you can do is try to mould yourself to behave better in the future, and that means self-understanding...
Also, consider that a great many very unhappy people have died, often in great numbers over a short period of any given dimension. There is a decent chance that any being that interacts with the dead has been displaced at some point... Maybe god number 38926 could benefit from your relative decency...
Post by: Tomasque on February 06, 2017, 01:32:45 pm
Accept that the universe is objectively meaningless, all of your actions in the past are the result of contextual scenarios, that you cannot alter the past, and attempt to live the remainder of your life in concordance with your self-defined values and be the best of yourself?I agree completely. It's a bit hard early on, but if you keep the "universe is objectively meaningless" on the backburner, and focus on it only to put things into perspective (it works surprisingly well at making bad things not seem as bad), then I think you'll feel a lot better about yourself.
I don't think any of that even necessarily requires atheism.
Post by: TD1 on February 06, 2017, 06:23:23 pm
Not to mention names, but previously in this (or one of these) thread(s) a Forumite essentially said that "something" and "nothing" are essentially no different - without a God, the universe may as well not exist.
As a rejoinder that I just thought of, the universe does hold meaning so long as someone/thing believes it does, and god(s) need not feature into that.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on February 06, 2017, 06:25:26 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 06, 2017, 06:30:58 pm
Embrace the rail gun, and have real fun.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 06, 2017, 06:39:34 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 06, 2017, 08:04:08 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on February 07, 2017, 12:24:50 am
Praise coil.
Post by: Adragis on February 07, 2017, 03:07:24 am
Post by: tonnot98 on February 07, 2017, 11:59:08 am
Post by: Teneb on February 07, 2017, 12:21:43 pm
it feels like this is more of a railgun thread that occasionally gets derailed (decoiled?) by spirituality discussion.It's a railgun. It has rails. If it had coils, it would be a coilgun. Please.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on February 07, 2017, 01:38:17 pm
Post by: Kot on February 07, 2017, 01:40:43 pm
Spoiler: REDEEM YOURSELF IN THE EYES OF EMPEROR BY FOLLOWING THE ONLY TRUE FAITH! (click to show/hide)
Post by: TD1 on February 07, 2017, 01:43:18 pm
Post by: Kot on February 07, 2017, 01:52:22 pm
Post by: Arx on February 07, 2017, 01:56:07 pm
Post by: TD1 on February 07, 2017, 02:44:47 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 07, 2017, 02:58:15 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 07, 2017, 06:56:07 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 07, 2017, 07:17:21 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 07, 2017, 07:47:31 pm
But that's for 40k thred
Post by: Kot on February 07, 2017, 11:38:14 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 08, 2017, 04:18:29 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 17, 2017, 01:59:20 am
Well now, apparently another South African pastor fed his congregation rat poison to prove that they're above death. (http://www.unilad.co.uk/viral/priest-feeds-congregation-rat-poison-to-prove-theyre-above-death-they-all-die/) Five of them died.
Or so it seems, anyway. I can't find a good source on this, but there are pictures so it seems like it can't be fake. I found the post on their Facebook so that part is real for sure, it's the deaths that are in question.
Anyway, someone tell the South Africans to stop trying to prove their faith with pest control substances, it's getting weird.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 17, 2017, 08:08:44 am
Post by: Telgin on February 17, 2017, 09:56:34 am
It was a rare day that I could say, "No, they're not quite that crazy."
Post by: Rolan7 on February 20, 2017, 01:46:17 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kadbd3tCqc
All will be well, and all manner of things will be well.
Edit: Like specifically the song brings up a lot of problems with Earth, and then is like "Shh... it's okay"
... And this is a long shot, but I seem to remember an exultant, fast-paced rock song... And I feel like the chorus started JUUULian of NOOORwich. But it was probably someone else, right? Just in case someone remembers.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 24, 2017, 10:07:43 pm
https://extranewsfeed.com/a-spell-to-bind-donald-trump-and-all-those-who-abet-him-february-24th-mass-ritual-51f3d94f62f4#.tbahs4rfo
First off, while actual witches are generally claiming the spell is mere binding not cursing, it does involve wishing that he fail in all things. So that's a thing.
Besides that part, even though I'm heavily ill and consequently a bit drunk at the moment, I'm going to contribute my own energy. Though in a strictly positive way, hoping that good comes of these recent terrifying events. Though there will be a lot of negative energy, I think there will be more hope. Even if this is all nothing, I'd rather contribute positively that not at all.
I bow my head at church, I can at least perform a personalized jury-rigged version of the ritual.
I even have a tarot deck, and losing the Tower will be significant to me - that probably helps.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on February 25, 2017, 12:04:09 pm
If only I could.
Post by: smjjames on March 05, 2017, 07:08:09 pm
Just something interesting I found: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/living/jesus-debate-man-versus-myth/index.html
On whether he existed or not, I don't know. He very well could be based on an actual person, but it's heavily wrapped in myth and tall tales. Probably not too different from the King Arthur mythologies, theres some evidence that it's based on an actual ancient Briton king, but a huge amount of it is myth.
Post by: Telgin on March 06, 2017, 11:28:38 am
Anyway, I've been fairly interested in the other gospels that have been unearthed since they tend to paint Jesus in a different light. There's obviously the rumor that he was married and maybe had kids, but there's also a particularly strange one (Gospel of Thomas I think?) that took the whole spirituality thing even further to the point that I've seen it compared to eastern religions. That might have even been the book that said that the God of the Old Testament wasn't really the true God and was literally some evil thing that simply thought it was God, and the true God was beyond approach and comprehension to the point that communicating with it was literally impossible for humans. Admittedly, that would explain some things.
I wish I could remember more details, but I'm at work at the moment and can't really research it at the moment.
Post by: TD1 on March 06, 2017, 11:46:49 am
As for Arthur, I think Gildas mentions him as being a Roman soldier leading the Britons, but the impression I got was that he was a figment created to give some one to fight against the Northern Hordes. You see that type of thing a lot - Robin of the Hood is fighting your enemy so have heart, or Prester John of Africa is fighting the Muslim tide, or Arthur is fighting the Danes.
Post by: MoonyTheHuman on March 07, 2017, 10:10:16 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 07, 2017, 10:13:50 am
This is orange wizard's thread. I make a memorial here.His name is Robert Paulson
Post by: McTraveller on March 07, 2017, 02:30:18 pm
Basically: everyone has faith in something, so it's worth understanding how people decide to believe the things they believe.
I'd love to discuss some of the talking points from that one - they include things like:
- Does being a non-theist really require as much faith as he says?
- Can materialism / evolution really only tell you what's practical to do, not what you ought to do?
- We should really be trying to get more humanists in the world.
Post by: TempAcc on March 07, 2017, 02:48:57 pm
I'm ok with atheism ~non theism~ and even materialism (to some extent). What I usualy make fun of is the edgy atheist who is 100% sure that everything we currently know about existence is the unquestionable truth of everything, which in turn is far more like a religion than atheism, but those tend to be few and nobody really takes them seriously.
Post by: Gentlefish on March 07, 2017, 02:58:17 pm
-snop-
I'd love to discuss some of the talking points from that one - they include things like:
- Does being a non-theist really require as much faith as he says?
- Can materialism / evolution really only tell you what's practical to do, not what you ought to do?
- We should really be trying to get more humanists in the world.
Haha, oh man. What's practical. I had a guy like that in my metaphysics class. He's technically right in that we can only know what's practical to do (ie, it's practical to understand that we can't breathe water, but we don't KNOW that we can't because we can't know anything.
Being a non-theist requires absolutely zero faith. It simply requires you to acknowledge that you cannot know anything, and thus cannot know a God or Gods, nor may it be practical to do so (see above water argument). And as to the last point, it's basically saying we should be more compassionate about how we treat people? Abso-goddamn-lutely we should. In fact, technically Christianity is humanist, if you truly believe we were made in the image of God; by worshipping God, we are also worshipping ourselves.
Post by: McTraveller on March 07, 2017, 03:24:43 pm
but we don't KNOW that we can't because we can't know anything.Are you sure? ;D
Post by: Frumple on March 07, 2017, 04:18:23 pm
Though yeah, a nontheist doesn't require much faith, if any. Certainly significantly less than most/all more metaphysically burdened positions to have on theism, and what faith they do require is mostly not of the religious sort. Usually if someone's saying otherwise they're trying to hoodwink you one way or another, heh.
Materialism or evolution can totally tell you what you ought to do, though. Sorta'. There's optimal or necessary paths to achieve whatever goal you're aiming at that can be decided on (with whatever degree of functional effectiveness) using principles that aren't in violation of either sort of thing. They're not exactly able to tell you what you ought to do on their own, though. They're not prescriptive systems, though certain strains of materialism might be. Can't even tell you what's practical, tbh. Just what is.
That said, nothing can establish an ought without there being a goal to ought towards. Religions tend to presuppose whatever their goal is (heaven, escaping resurrection, whatever) is the one being aimed for, but that doesn't give them particularly special grounds on that front. Anything that provides a framework for effectively accomplishing a goal can tell you an ought, to one extent or another.
Post by: RAM on March 07, 2017, 04:56:31 pm
The absence of theism does not require any faith at all. It is just familiarity. People don't have faith that they will remain on the ground, people are accustomed to not floating off into space and have no reason to speculate otherwise. There is no extrapolation or speculation here, it is just conditioning from being exposed to consistent stimuli. You do not need to believe in the world, you just need a background of cooperating with it, and amazingly enough people who don't cooperate with the world aren't very common, something about leaping off of tall buildings to fly away causing them to leave the world or something... Still, no reason to hate on them, give them a nice padded cell and a straightjacket and they can be all sorts of inspiration.
Granted, once you start getting philosophical you start needing to trust a few things, or not, there are some certain facts and relying upon the familiar really isn't an act of faith but the two certainly do have a lot of blurring once you get into metaphysics. But the question is a pretty obvious false dichotomy. The third option is, of course, to just not care... Then again, you need faith in other people, except you don't, people are all terrible. You have faith in the future or else you commit suicide, right? or not, future is bad, hope is fiction, but death is a part of life so there is no escape to be found there and a lack of faith suggests that perhaps there is some unknown element that might justify the malevolence that went into a world where life requires the consumption of a greater quantity of life(Or the slow death of a star, which many people have worshipped as a living being over the years...) and thus inherently removes its own justification unless humans openly admit that they think that some lives are more important than others and then we get slavery and genocide... Well ,we get those regardless, but at least people don't start worshipping them.
Evolution is very clear on what you ought to do: obey your own nature and be lucky. "Be yourself" is corny but it is actually the correct answer to the "meaning of life", more or less. Evolution is definitely not about winning, it is about letting the world judge if you are a winner or not, and the world is a very inconsistent judge... Of course, Evolution is wrong, obviously. You get a system that is mostly about competition, then introduce the ability to churn through untold millions of years' worth of solar energy in under a century then of course it will go into mad consumption mode and become unstable. This sort of thing is inevitable when your system is repetitive such that children will generally be okay if parents are okay because of similar conditions. Some critters have birth control, so it is not like adaptability is not evolved towards, but competition really is the star of the show to a massive degree and it just leads to a pretty much certain doom once you get the ability to wipe out your food, which happens a lot but is usually only local, and can be recovered from externally, but hey, what could be wrong with globalisation! Breaking away from evolution is the important thing that humans need to focus on right now, but they can't do it. I mean, the ideals are pretty obvious. Preserve diversity to maintain inspiration. Focus upon persistence rather than potency because everything you have ever done becoming meaningless kind of lowers the value of human civilisation and hedonism only works if you value humans over their environment which is obscenely stupid as humans cannot survive to be hedonistic if they don't have an environ in which to exist. And then just remember to have some philosophical curiosity just in case there is somehow a meaning of life that is both valid and useful out there so we aren't stuck choosing one or the other...
Humans are nothing special. The Roman legion disrespects what they do not understand:
A gun: It fires, they are overwhelmed by automatic weapons and defeated.
Contemporary society: All guns and explosives spontaneously vanish, ten thousand armed legionnaires march on a peaceful town and force it to submit to The Empire by brutally quashing all resistance.
Same story, different outcomes, because force is more forceful and civility is difficult to measure. People assume that because they cannot understand the life of a lettuce plant that it has no value. It could easily be that they are correct, but there really is not basis for such a judgement. The same thing occurs between humans, it is inherent to human nature to value some things over others. There was once a laughable study that suggested that humans are not born racist because babies can't identify race. Humans are born with a boatload of bias and it just gets worse, now maybe it won't express towards racial appearance, maybe it will be a split between gender, or region, or culture, or economic status, or profession... humans, in general, innately devalue that which is different from themselves. The humanist cry of "GO TEAM HUMAN!!!" is just feeding the worst aspects of humanity and is this inherently unstable because it just takes the slightest chink in the perception of human homogeneity to trigger a cascade of witch hunts to preserve human purity... The path to virtue lies in humility, not narcissism...
Post by: Frumple on March 07, 2017, 05:01:51 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 07, 2017, 05:06:49 pm
That said, nothing can establish an ought without there being a goal to ought towards. Religions tend to presuppose whatever their goal is (heaven, escaping resurrection, whatever) is the one being aimed for, but that doesn't give them particularly special grounds on that front. Anything that provides a framework for effectively accomplishing a goal can tell you an ought, to one extent or another.Don't forget self-preservation, and in the more successful cases self-propagation. From the religion's perspective. There are exceptions, mostly gone now... funny how that works.
Post by: Gentlefish on March 07, 2017, 05:11:46 pm
Ah... evolution isn't clear about what you ought to do. At all. The system is entirely descriptive. Doesn't say anything about what to do, just what's going on.
Yeah. It's a practical belief to hold, if one were to assume we cannot truly know anything. Which, to be fair is a good position to assume. How can you truly know something? By knowing you know it? But how do you know that? It's a fair position to hold as an axiom, just as much as acquaintance == knowledge that most people ascribe to.
@RAM you don't need to trust anything, beyond "okay, that's practical for now". For example, for the longest time, it was practical to think of the elements as water, fire, earth and air. Why? Because it worked. Once empirical knowledge caught up, it was no longer to think of "water" as a singular element as much as oxygen, which we call atoms still, ie indivisible. Which we have divided about twice more since their conception as a human idea.
The path to virtue is another great argument point. Ask a philosopher about the philosophical definition of justified beliefs. One of the steps was to hold evident that a belief is justified, or summat. To have a justified belief, it must be justified. Or, from a precursory wikipedia article, a justified belief is a belief that we are "within our rights" for holding. Thus, racism is a justified belief in America. It's well within our rights to think minorities are worth stepping on. Creationism is also well within our rights to believe in, in America.
tl;dr epistemology is a feckin' mess.
Post by: McTraveller on March 07, 2017, 05:56:52 pm
This is an honest question - definitions are important and I'm just trying to understand this part of the discussion.
EDIT:
:All generally interesting stuff, until this last sentence: from where does this 'virtue' originate - or does it even matter? I got confused a bit here because you started (I think?) by saying it is all arbitrary, but then seem to make this value statement, which implies a non-arbitrariness.
:
The path to virtue lies in humility, not narcissism...
Post by: TD1 on March 07, 2017, 06:02:47 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 07, 2017, 06:12:43 pm
Anyway, thing is lack of belief isn't an affirmative belief in and of itself, however much certain brands of bible thumpers say otherwise. You don't need anything to not believe in a god, you just don't believe. No faith involved one way or the other 'cause there's nothing involved to begin with.
Post by: McTraveller on March 07, 2017, 06:42:15 pm
Anyway, thing is lack of belief isn't an affirmative belief in and of itself, however much certain brands of bible thumpers say otherwise. You don't need anything to not believe in a god, you just don't believe. No faith involved one way or the other 'cause there's nothing involved to begin with.Maybe on a fundamental level, I agree - but most people don't just "not believe" - they "believe that their belief is the correct one" - which takes some... for lack of a better word, faith? I think that is the point the video is making.
There is also the aspect of - if you were not in a culture that espouses the idea of atheism, what would you believe? How much of the "it takes no effort to not believe X" is actually a product of environment?
Put another way - did the first human cultures have a theistic belief or not? If so - did that take more or less "effort" than the alternative?
Post by: redwallzyl on March 07, 2017, 06:50:16 pm
the first human cultures had what is described as shamanism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism). later beliefes typicly revolve around ancestors which likely arose as a result of sedentary lifestyles where they served as a justification for why the land was yours. see Jericho (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastered_human_skulls) specificly and more generally burial mounds (https://www.britannica.com/topic/burial-mound).Anyway, thing is lack of belief isn't an affirmative belief in and of itself, however much certain brands of bible thumpers say otherwise. You don't need anything to not believe in a god, you just don't believe. No faith involved one way or the other 'cause there's nothing involved to begin with.Maybe on a fundamental level, I agree - but most people don't just "not believe" - they "believe that their belief is the correct one" - which takes some... for lack of a better word, faith? I think that is the point the video is making.
There is also the aspect of - if you were not in a culture that espouses the idea of atheism, what would you believe? How much of the "it takes no effort to not believe X" is actually a product of environment?
Put another way - did the first human cultures have a theistic belief or not? If so - did that take more or less "effort" than the alternative?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 07, 2017, 07:16:12 pm
But animism is not theism per se, the earliest form of what we recognize as theism are in the form of "human gods". You see later forms of this with Gilgamesh or the Hellenistic pantheon. The gods aren't transcendent beings, they act and mostly look like immensely powerful immortal humans. Zeus is a horndog. Poseidon fucks up people who disrespect him. Aphrodite puts Playboy models to shame. All very human impulses and desires.
And, for the record, this starts to turn into the transcendent kind of god when these polytheistic deities are all gradually subsumed: first in henotheism as one god takes precedence above the rest, and then eventually in monotheism as one god absorbs the qualities of all the rest. But at that point all of your "human but more" attributes get subsumed into a single idea and it isn't long before that gets smoothed out by the idea of omnipotence and omniscience.
As for the other thing, no, you don't need faith to be an atheist. The definition of faith should not be "accepting your own beliefs" because that's completely non-determinate. Everybody accepts their own beliefs about everything. It's a useless word at that point, much along the lines of people who say shit like "I think everything is God" (pantheists exempted). Faith, in the way it is typically used by anybody outside of trying to win an argument, and by both theists and non-theists, is "belief in something without or in spite of evidence". Faith should also not be conflated with trust, because an idea of trust is based upon the past experience or character of what/who is being trusted.
It is clear that atheists don't have to do this. Pretty much everybody reasonable agrees there's no scientific evidence of the supernatural, even if they think there is a supernatural. "Thou shall not put thy god to the test" and such. This is, in fairness, not to say that someone cannot believe atheism is true on a faith-basis, they just don't have to. An ardent member of the Communist Party of China might have faith that the official doctrines of atheism espoused by the party must be true. However, for atheism as it is generally discussed in English, we're virtually always taking about western skeptics or people who accept similar ideas. Skepticism is the polar opposite of faith, a conscious withholding of belief until sufficient evidence is provided, and so in general it is correct to say that atheists don't have faith.
Post by: Frumple on March 07, 2017, 07:52:44 pm
Not really sure how I'd deal with that at th'mo, to be honest, other than perhaps just consider it another case of the vagrancies of religious language. Maybe folks trust their experiences weren't hallucinations? Or have faith in that and trust in what they take to be the consequences. Probably would need to think on it more. Probably not going to :V
Though yeah, that definition of faith is the more or less standard one, if it needed any more support. Tend to further divide it based on the nature of the evidence in question (whether evidence can be gathered and communicated or not, basically, which makes the different between nonreligious and religious faith), m'self, but eh.
Post by: McTraveller on March 07, 2017, 08:17:23 pm
Interesting - because I think this depends on context? I mean, people say "I have no faith in the government" which is markedly not in a religious context. So are we agreeing that is a different kind of 'faith'? I can do that. (And I got sniped by @Frumple who said basically the same thing?)
But I still think it's splitting hairs to talk about how 'skepticism' is not 'faith'. I would say that skepticism is faith - it's faith in one's ability to discern the point at which 'sufficient evidence' is observed. Or more abstractly, even, faith in something like the idea that 'evidence trumps everything.' Now I agree that perhaps this isn't really how the word is used most of the time - but we're being philosophical here, right?
That said - how does any of this help people live together without doing things to damage each other? I mean, if that's even a goal, I guess.
Post by: TD1 on March 07, 2017, 08:19:30 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 07, 2017, 08:30:52 pm
Interesting - because I think this depends on context? I mean, people say "I have no faith in the government" which is markedly not in a religious context. So are we agreeing that is a different kind of 'faith'? I can do that. (And I got sniped by @Frumple who said basically the same thing?)That's just an established saying, it doesn't change the primary definition of the word. English, what a language.
Quote
But I still think it's splitting hairs to talk about how 'skepticism' is not 'faith'. I would say that skepticism is faith - it's faith in one's ability to discern the point at which 'sufficient evidence' is observed. Or more abstractly, even, faith in something like the idea that 'evidence trumps everything.' Now I agree that perhaps this isn't really how the word is used most of the time - but we're being philosophical here, right?See, that's why you shouldn't accept that viewpoint on faith. You're well on your way to "evolution is a religion" with this chain of thought, which I'm sure we can agree is obviously not true.
Skepticism isn't faith in one's ability to discern sufficient evidence for two reasons: A. A large part of skeptical and critical thought is identifying cognitive biases and logical fallacies, and only a seriously narcissistic person would apply that to others without applying it to their own thoughts. Once you have chosen skepticism it is a short road to "must find clear evidence-based discernment of human reason from human insanity". B. This argument is at least partially solipsistic and thus useless because it makes literally everything faith again. Human beings are functionally capable of some degree of reason, as demonstrated by countless examples of everything practical we do. It doesn't matter if the universe is a simulation or god created us yesterday with fake memories or whatever, the standard of evidence ends at "arbitrarily high" not "100%".
Post by: McTraveller on March 07, 2017, 09:53:08 pm
That's just an established saying, it doesn't change the primary definition of the word. English, what a language.The first-listed definition in many (most?) English dictionaries for 'faith' is just "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." So instead of saying "the skeptic has faith in the system of evidence-based validation of theory" how about "the skeptic has trust in the system of evidence-based validation of theory". Does that really change anything?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 07, 2017, 09:58:47 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 07, 2017, 10:13:58 pm
Trust is simply earned, over long periods of time.
Post by: McTraveller on March 08, 2017, 07:15:51 am
When you have to examine faith, you're told to have more faith because God/gods/existence/theCult work in mysterious ways. You are encouraged to "have more faith" and thus overcome the urge to question.I feel sad for folks that are subject to the "have more faith and don't question" mantra. I'm realizing that I am fortunate that I am in a community that both has strong faith and a strong sense of "it's ok to question - keep digging more! Find out why you believe what you do, don't accept it at face value or just because we say it."
Trust is simply earned, over long periods of time.
From my perspective, I don't think that faith and 'earned trust' are necessarily exclusive.
Post by: TD1 on May 17, 2017, 03:52:40 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on May 17, 2017, 04:02:32 pm
Still pretty funny, though.
Looks like baptism is supposed to be a once-in-a-lifetime thing, by most accounts. But this wouldn't be a "genuine" one, since the baby's not giving informed consent :P So sometimes people get "re" baptized (technically for the only time) if they feel their previous ceremony didn't count, IE they were too young or just mistaken or something.
Some groups think that baby baptism is binding and it's wrong to ever baptize that person again, though.
Post by: TD1 on May 17, 2017, 06:23:15 pm
Gotta say, it was ironic to say the whole I believe thing when I most certainly did not, but whatever.
Post by: mastahcheese on May 18, 2017, 02:46:29 am
...That said, they baptized me once, and I fell away from that group before doing it a second time. That was a long time ago, and my beliefs are way different now.
Post by: TD1 on May 18, 2017, 04:14:09 am
Personally I prefer the notion of unlimited afterlife. At least with that you're assured of still being yourself.
Post by: Putnam on May 18, 2017, 05:20:44 am
Post by: Descan on May 18, 2017, 12:35:41 pm
Post by: TD1 on May 18, 2017, 12:47:57 pm
Yea, only joking. Sign me up too. Can I also immortalise my dog? It's more ethical to do animals first anyway. At least we've (supposedly) got heaven. They've got nothing, poor sods.
Post by: Descan on May 18, 2017, 12:58:57 pm
But you fixed it, so you get to live.
...
For now.
Post by: wierd on May 18, 2017, 01:01:10 pm
The best you can do is live "A very , very, very, long time."
Post by: Descan on May 18, 2017, 01:10:15 pm
we've been at the whole physics thing for what, 200 years? 3? yeah, i'm not holding my breath that we got that part 100% right.
Post by: TD1 on May 18, 2017, 01:58:11 pm
Post by: mastahcheese on May 18, 2017, 11:17:43 pm
Oh, hold on. You believed in a mixture of Christianity and reincarnation, right?I don't think I identify as "Christian" anymore. It's pretty much solely a basis in reincarnation, now. I believe that there's a god (or multiple gods, whatever. Wouldn't make a difference to me.) but I don't really think that they're quite as... dynamic? as most religions believe.
Quote
Personally I prefer the notion of unlimited afterlife. At least with that you're assured of still being yourself.I personally would not want to be immortal. I mean yeah, you lose all your worldly connection to everything, but it's not possible to truly experience everything if you never release the preconceptions you develop throughout your life. A clean slate is needed at some points.
...That said, if you want to become immortal, have at it.
I'll look forward to meeting you again in my next incarnation. :D
Post by: Egan_BW on May 18, 2017, 11:31:56 pm
Post by: mastahcheese on May 18, 2017, 11:46:02 pm
but what if your next incarnation is meThen I guess I'd....
...I'd have no choice but to...
Fuck, I dunno. I never thought about reincarnating as pre-existing people.
Hold on while I make a new religion.
Post by: TD1 on May 19, 2017, 04:08:00 am
Post by: Egan_BW on May 19, 2017, 06:46:16 pm
Post by: mate888 on May 20, 2017, 01:55:31 pm
I'll only join a cool-robes religion if it means I can cast fireballs. :VI mean, the Spanish Inquisition has been gone for a while, but who knows.
Post by: TD1 on June 16, 2017, 08:16:46 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 16, 2017, 08:26:25 pm
Post by: TempAcc on June 16, 2017, 08:44:26 pm
Thats just the very basics of it. There's also the historical-cultural argument, since christian morality is one of the main pillars, if not THE main pillar upon which western concepts of morality were built upon.
Post by: Frumple on June 16, 2017, 09:35:18 pm
And sure, those before the jews or whatever were amoral. Or... non-moral or something. Complete disconnect, not against or lacking. Amoral is close but tends to indicate it's in relation to moral or immoral, and that's not quite what's going on. God will forgive them probably maybe ahaha yeah no poor bastards gonna' burn, according to some interpretations.
Post by: Kot on June 16, 2017, 11:26:14 pm
Smarter apologists do what the Catholics do and say God's moral standards are caught up in the natural law we are all aware of on some level. It's a triple threat. It explains how non-Christians can be moral, it condemns non-Christians for "knowing" Christianity is true but not accepting it, and it lets them move the goalposts of the mysterious natural law when needed.But a lot of core concepts of morality do kinda come from the ingrained animal instinct - don't kill those of your pack, share the food, don't breed with women of other men because he will be pissed (continuation of his lineage and whatnot), and liking your parents is kinda ingrained because they care for you, because continuation of species. For this example, that's what's in the decalogue, of which other laws only invoke God and worship of him, which to be honest, is the thing that can lead to denouncing or even stabbing other people for not being pious enough. I mean, it's only a threat if you assume God has to be real. I mean, it explains how anyone can be moral, it explains where the Christianity even got from, and the mysterious natural law can be easily observed and measured by observing the animals.
I mean, it's not like religion is evil, but I find the claim that religion gives morality funny, for it's the other way around. Morality creates religion, as a way to explain (to less... intelligent people who don't get the concept of common good, and think that stealing is good, because it's good for that person) and enforce it (do it, or else God gets mad) and probably some other stuff.
Shit's straight up definitionally impossible without it being done to follow God's will. Morality in that case, basically, is not what you do, but who you do it for.
Humanity? As a species, and a "greater" concept?
without God there'd be no reason to want anything else and morality would pointless, as everything would be become nothing upon death.Humanity? As a species, and a "greater" concept? Also your kids.
EDIT:
Also, as an answer to what was before Jesus - some other progressively complicated systems of beliefs tracking back to the animal instincts of proto-humans and then to whatever apes were before, and then to whatever... you get the idea.
As for what Christians religions belive was pre-Jesus - God's morality and laws which are also pretty much the same (although with more gay hate) since they're the same thing (for most part), and that all religions and people in general get the moral code from God because he kinda imprinted it in humans when he created them (although the recognition came only after the fruit of Eden thing) so the "voice of God" echoes through everyone and all religions because we deep down know what is true?
As for what was before Jews, then yeah, there was nothing, since, you know, world is apparently 6000 years old (or something around that) according to Bible, so there was always religious code of laws (in a way, although commandments came later, I suppose?).
Post by: Frumple on June 16, 2017, 11:33:15 pm
Though no, there's probably not a good answer for the chicken and egg of morality and religion, without a time machine, anyway. Speculation like that is fun, but hilariously empty and so thoroughly unconfirmable any guess might as well be false. Folks have been arguing if gods decree it because it's good or if it's good because god decrees it longer than english has existed as a language.
Post by: Kot on June 16, 2017, 11:36:56 pm
Unless bacteria also belive in bacteria Jesus, or something.
Post by: RAM on June 17, 2017, 02:20:59 am
I mean, it's not like religion is evilI would argue that religions which have moral imperitives are evil. They inherently deny the indifvidual the authority to make their own morality judgements and impose morality judgements that the individual is not permitted to question(Lacking a committment to god's authority is usually an official failure condition) and doesn't understand(They may have an understanding of it of their own, and agree with it independantly, but they are doing it for religious reasons and are not permitted to question those reasons sufficiently to understand them.). Externally-imposed morality imposes responsibility which is fundamentally incompatible with personal responsibility which is required to maintain personal morality.
...
A morality that isn't challenged isn't justified...
...
It isn't even enough to personally verify religous morality. One needs(In order to justify it) to generate their own morality independantly. It is the old arguing trick of going on the offensive. You can say "The president committed election fraud.". One reply is "There is no way that it is possible. They would have revised the security after those problems with the virus busters going wrong!". Another reply is "You keep crying about healthcare, but when you had your chance, nobody wanted it!". The latter is going to be far more effective because people will be too busy yelling about how wrong you are to remember their original issue. If ou start by verifying that you agree with the morality that you have been given, then you have already lost the chance to find out if there is a better one...
explain (to less... intelligent people who don't get the concept of common good, and think that stealing is good, because it's good for that person)I would say that it is not so much that less intelligent people don't understand that good for them is the limit of morality. I beileve that far more common is people compatmentalising morality "It is good that I make money. people's lives may or may not get ruined as a result, but that is an unrelated issue.". Another is mindlessness(Which is the default function of the human mind) "Wha? Hurting people? Naaa, we were just having some fun! I mean, sure, there was screaming and crying and bleeding and dying and stuff, but that is just how these things go, y'Know?". Then there is familiarity "Huh? Arbitrarily dictating life or death of entire populations without justification? Brutal regime that inhibits freedom too much for a mentally stable society? Stop being silly! That's just Hitler! Everyone know he is a good guy. Finally someone willing to stand up and stop those scheming jews from stealing our nation out from under us! It is about time we had someone honest and decent to end this ridiculous apathy and fix things for the better..."... It is not so much that people are not intelligent, but that they do not apply their intelligence to their objectives or justifications.
Morality creates religion, as a way to explain and enforce it and probably some other stuff.
I have difficulty parsing this, but I believe that you are saying that you can do things for humanity in place of doing things for god. Which sort of seems to be missing the point of the original statement of religion defining good as being god, and thus what humanity believes is irrelevant. I would argue that humanity as a species is a terrible god. They are clearly insane. They think that they are bette than animals because thye can build cities and guns and art... Animals can build settlements and weapons and art. Humans are largely incapable of building complex weapons, sophiticated art, and large settlements. These things are built by humans, but only by relying upon unfathomable generations of human civilisation. Humans have a high talent for language and manipulation of sturdy objects. Baiscally, humans are gifted at making records. I very much doubt that you would see a single generation of humans come up with something as sophisticated as a rock combined with a stick outside of an extreme instance of inspiration. Humans are naturally inclined to think the most of themselves for no reason. It is basically the same as religion, it ends up being all about obediance and lacks justification.Shit's straight up definitionally impossible without it being done to follow God's will. Morality in that case, basically, is not what you do, but who you do it for.
Humanity? As a species, and a "greater" concept?
You kids become pointless unless they also have kids, and those are only as valid as their kids, which are only valid because they have kids, which they might not, and the concept of all possibilities occuring if provided with sufficient time indicates that eventually there will be no kids. Also entropy/gravity-death of the universe, or armageddon... But really, justifying kids with more kids is dependant upon valuing kids, and provides no inherent value for kids itself. You may as well just say that kids are self-evidently reason-for-being and thus everyone is self-evidently meaningful because everyone was kids at some point... Unfortunately some people don't feel that humans, even children, are self-evidently meaningful. Otherwise, would people be asking why their own existence is meaningful?without God there'd be no reason to want anything else and morality would pointless, as everything would be become nothing upon death.Also your kids.
For myself, I feel that the best available meaning of life is to seek out a good meaning of life. Which has various quite promising implications. I feel that the inherent meaning of life is to "be yourself" in an evolutionary sense. Which is abysmally bad for a whole host of reasons, not least of which is that there is nobody at the helm and that the whole system is composed of lotteries, but the imminent doom is perhaps the most off-putting. Perhaps the most plausible of the vaguely defensible options is to express the self that you can be proud of. This largely involves throwing away human impulse and adopting understanding and prediction, as otherwise you won't have a clear understanding of what you can be proud of and won't be in a position to control what you express.
As for what Christians religions belive was pre-Jesus - God's morality and laws which are also pretty much the same (although with more gay hate) since they're the same thing (for most part), and that all religions and people in general get the moral code from God because he kinda imprinted it in humans when he created them (although the recognition came only after the fruit of Eden thing) so the "voice of God" echoes through everyone and all religions because we deep down know what is true?If a god's morality is inherent, then everyone should know to obey that god without needing to be converted. Devosion to that specific religion should be as common as not murdering. The existence of wide-spread adoption of incompatible religions is good evidence that such is not the case, or that the god in question doesn't actually regard worship as being as important as murder.
As for what was before Jews, then yeah, there was nothing, since, you know, world is apparently 6000 years old (or something around that) according to Bible, so there was always religious code of laws (in a way, although commandments came later, I suppose?).
As for the 6000 years old thing? There is loads of evidence that such is not true. Enough that I would say that it goes beyond "the gods just like the idea of things being in progress when they started" and well into "the gods are deliberately lying to us". There are just too many details to it, they could have just had everything break down over that span of time and we would have just accepted it, but no, they needed to splat down whole evolutionary trees and weird extinction events... Now, if the gods in question say that lying is okay, then fine, religion of unreliable texts and shameless P.R. campaigns is willing to live up to its own standards. And why not? Everyone loves trickster gods! But a lot of these religions make quite a big deal about their texts not being written as a shameless divine P.R. piece and suggest that lying is bad...
It is though. Archeological evidence and, you know, common sense indicate that the pack instincts and whatnot came a lot before first ritual burials and other stuff that could be considered religion.I would say that bacteria jesus is unlikely. But bacteria commonality is quite likely. there really isn't that much special about humans. I suspect that the human internal monologue is the highlight, and I doubt that it is completely unique. On the other hand, internal monologue is not necessary. I am pretty sure that I didn't have an internal monologue until after I learned to read. I remember being asked to "read silently" and just had a complete "huh!?!?" moment. And we certainly formulate ideas without spelling them out, so that really isn't a thing. I could easily see bacteria having decision-making functions that focused on the self and decision-making functions that focused upon the group and that the latter could be equated to religion. I can see how people could question if such a thing is a mind, but to me it is just a whole great tower of different methods of determining outcomes, with rocks almost certrainly near the bottom with their "roll down until stable" operation and humans near the top with their "if problems arising from acquiring food is less than value of food + hunger+expecation of food in the future then acquire food" operation.
Unless bacteria also belive in bacteria Jesus, or something.
Really, free will is a false concept. It is not as though it does or doesn't exist, but there is no point to it either way. There is no potential for variation. All decisions are a product of mind and circumstance. mind and circumstance are entirely derived from mind and circumstance all the way back to the start of mind, and the forces that led up to that are a product of immutable processes from origin or infinity. The outcome of random chance is inevitable, regardless of whether it is predictable. The ridiculous cience-fiction notion of a parallel world being created every time a person makes a decision is ludicrous. the closest that could happen is infinite worlds with slight variations that resulted is varying decisions, possibly even commencing at the point of variation. The outcome is the same, but the process is completely different. The important point of all this is that the human mind possesses zero potential for variation from its inevitable course. The rock rolls downhill with the same certainty that the hippy feels that a war for the purposes of increasing the support for the ruling political party is bad. People think themselves far too special. The only power we have is to be party to invoking a specific result, or we can be amongst the rocks who abandon that and go with their impulses. I like to think that people would be party to making a better world if they saw it as a possibility.
Post by: Egan_BW on June 17, 2017, 04:37:00 am
Post by: Frumple on June 17, 2017, 06:28:48 am
It is though. Archeological evidence and, you know, common sense indicate that the pack instincts and whatnot came a lot before first ritual burials and other stuff that could be considered religion.Man, when you bring common sense into parsing archeological evidence you dun screwed up. Common sense ain't -- stuff's a set of cultural norms highly informed by bias, common to that particular society only sorta' and actually common even among specific ones only occasionally. For all it works out often enough what likes to happen when you start applying assumptions ultimately based on your current environment and whatnot to incomplete reconstructions of previous environments is those assumptions end up wrong. If you're going to make analysis that isn't just a nice go at a just-so story (i.e. it might as well be fiction, to the extent it isn't outright) you kneecap "common sense" and bury it in the nearest mushroom patch.
Unless bacteria also belive in bacteria Jesus, or something.
Indicate isn't prove, basically. What a thing looks like doesn't necessitate it is what that thing is. We make good attempts at a guess, and do our best to make things cohesive based on what information we have, and it's not like that isn't important to one extent or another... but we did that for dinosaurs, too, and they seem to be picking up the oddest profusion of feathers nowadays :V
We have a lot of things, but the ability to say with justified confidence that religion and ritual were caused by morality or that morality was caused by religion and ritual innit one of 'em. That's the kind of thing you can build evidence for and make a good argument, but at the end of the day we have no means of observing when it happened and end up with the grounds to say which is right, or if either are.
Which, hell. Is fine. For all it's fun to talk about the actual answer doesn't really make a difference.
Post by: TD1 on June 17, 2017, 10:38:40 am
Post by: TempAcc on June 17, 2017, 11:08:52 am
This doesn't necessarily mean that the old morality was evil in comparison to the new morality, it was just born out of a different historical and cultural context.
Hell, this happened within the timeline of the bible itself, as when jesus questioned a lot of the old practices and rituals carried over from the period of Moses' laws. He didn't want to bring about new morals, but he did seem to want to get rid of empty ritualism (something which was important in Moses' time, in order to keep the widely diverse group he was leading together, as rituals create a sense of identity and union) and maybe the more severe punishments (murdering a herd animal is a very serious offense if you're travelling in the desert and your group's existence depends mostly on livestock, but not so much if you're already settled somewhere and have actual crops, for example).
One of the biggest mistakes of both theists and atheists is to take a certain concept of morality born thousands of years ago within a different historical and cultural context at face value. The atheist that views christianity based only on literal interpretation of what he reads in the bible is commiting the same mistake of the hardcore fundamentalist who wants to live by Moses law and stone people for trying to steal cattle.
Of course, there is always an almost unchanging core to all systems of morality, which is inseparable to the whole system and the basis for all of it. In christianity thats the 10 commandments.
Post by: RAM on June 17, 2017, 04:03:59 pm
The private can still make their own moral decisions, but if they oppose orders and it is deemed that the orders failed to be actively opposed to morality, then the private is damned, and may even be so regardless. If they support orders and are deemed immoral for doing so then they will likely retain some respect for having obeyed orders. Religion is basically the same, religious morality is entirely capable of opposing personal morality, and religious morality is less sensitive to context. It is also true that religious morality benefits from experience, but in my own experience, anything that isn't stringently verified is likely to pick up as many errors as accuracies, and religion often actively opposes verification. Then again, people can claim that their religion would never compel them to oppose their own morality, but at that point they are refusing to follow a religion that disagrees with them, which probably meant that they fail to bear sufficient committment to their religion to meet its minimum standards.
So all this comes down the the question of whether gods are trustworthy. Most people seem to commit to gods because doing so "feels right". Unfortunately, conmen around the world have conclusively proven that what "feels right" is the polar opposite of what can be trusted. The most reasonable assumption is that any given god doesn't exist, there is just too much opposition and exclusivity amongst religions, not to mention Occam's Razor... The second most reasonable assumption is that all gods are untrustworthy. Gods are generally agreed to be mentally different from humans, so they reasonably have different ambitions, and with no means of being caught in a lie, they are free to engineer us to their own ambitions rather than ours.
Post by: Hanslanda on June 20, 2017, 01:25:05 pm
*head asplodes from one post*
Well I learned like so much from that brief foray. Mostly that I am theologically an infant in my atheism.
Post by: Egan_BW on June 20, 2017, 01:26:28 pm
Post by: Hanslanda on June 20, 2017, 01:35:39 pm
No offense intended btw. Just how I view things.
Post by: Rose on June 20, 2017, 01:36:25 pm
A God that exists, and wants worship, doesn't deserve it.
A God that exists, and doesn't want worship should have His wishes respected.
Post by: TD1 on June 20, 2017, 02:05:56 pm
And a God that exists, but doesn't want worship may still be terrible and undeserving of it.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on June 20, 2017, 02:06:04 pm
The whole point of Atheism is that you don't have to study much theology. It's a pretty simple worldview. :P
I don't really think that's the POINT of Atheism. I think that's just a side effect of not believing in a higher power... but you should put some thought into whatever you believe, no matter what it is. I mean, I switched to Atheism circa age 6--I went to Sunday School a lot and it was just apparent to me then that it was quite literally brainwashing, not to mention a lot what was being taught didn't make any sense, combined with the inherent uncertainties of relying on a thousand+ year old text, and aforementioned problem of evil, it was all pretty disillusioning.
I'm not saying yo yo yo conver to atheism, but you should examine your beliefs--in any context.
Post by: TD1 on June 20, 2017, 02:07:35 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on June 20, 2017, 02:11:24 pm
If you're not careful you'll spark the old retort: atheism is not a set of beliefs.
It's not, but it isn't the lack of a set of morals, beliefs, or ideologies either. Atheism doesn't mean Nihilism--though the two sometimes line up.
Post by: Kot on June 20, 2017, 02:21:32 pm
I would argue that religions which have moral imperitives are evil. They inherently deny the indifvidual the authority to make their own morality judgements and impose morality judgements that the individual is not permitted to question(Lacking a committment to god's authority is usually an official failure condition) and doesn't understand(They may have an understanding of it of their own, and agree with it independantly, but they are doing it for religious reasons and are not permitted to question those reasons sufficiently to understand them.). Externally-imposed morality imposes responsibility which is fundamentally incompatible with personal responsibility which is required to maintain personal morality.So, doing evil despite religion saying I shouldn't means I am not responsible, but the religion is? Is that what you're saying, because I totally don't understand why external responsibility is incompatibile with personal responsibility. A soldier is ordered to mortar a village, he does it - of course his higher-ups are responsible to give that order, but so is he, as he could refuse.
A morality that isn't challenged isn't justified...Isin't... application of the morality it's challenge? What do you even mean by this catchphrase thrown in?
It isn't even enough to personally verify religous morality. One needs(In order to justify it) to generate their own morality independantly. It is the old arguing trick of going on the offensive. You can say "The president committed election fraud.". One reply is "There is no way that it is possible. They would have revised the security after those problems with the virus busters going wrong!". Another reply is "You keep crying about healthcare, but when you had your chance, nobody wanted it!". The latter is going to be far more effective because people will be too busy yelling about how wrong you are to remember their original issue. If ou start by verifying that you agree with the morality that you have been given, then you have already lost the chance to find out if there is a better one...What?
Eh, I just simplify it for the sake of not having to write few page essays on "why people do evil stuff".explain (to less... intelligent people who don't get the concept of common good, and think that stealing is good, because it's good for that person)I would say that it is not so much that less intelligent people don't understand that good for them is the limit of morality. I beileve that far more common is people compatmentalising morality "It is good that I make money. people's lives may or may not get ruined as a result, but that is an unrelated issue.". Another is mindlessness(Which is the default function of the human mind) "Wha? Hurting people? Naaa, we were just having some fun! I mean, sure, there was screaming and crying and bleeding and dying and stuff, but that is just how these things go, y'Know?". Then there is familiarity "Huh? Arbitrarily dictating life or death of entire populations without justification? Brutal regime that inhibits freedom too much for a mentally stable society? Stop being silly! That's just Hitler! Everyone know he is a good guy. Finally someone willing to stand up and stop those scheming jews from stealing our nation out from under us! It is about time we had someone honest and decent to end this ridiculous apathy and fix things for the better..."... It is not so much that people are not intelligent, but that they do not apply their intelligence to their objectives or justifications.
It's evolution, babe. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI) We are we. It's not that we are inherently better, it's that humanity, as a species, got through a long way to get where it is now. If it wasn't "us", it would be some other animal finally figuring a way to develop civilization. And we didin't have the talent for language and manipulation of sturdy objects always, it's what we evolved. That's what it's actually about. It's not the humans who are gods. It's, ultimately life. Existence. Pure, unadulterated chaos. The only, underlying principle of morality is to ensure existence. Then you add a bunch of stuff ontop it to ensure that most of it exists in relative fairness.Morality creates religion, as a way to explain and enforce it and probably some other stuff.I have difficulty parsing this, but I believe that you are saying that you can do things for humanity in place of doing things for god. Which sort of seems to be missing the point of the original statement of religion defining good as being god, and thus what humanity believes is irrelevant. I would argue that humanity as a species is a terrible god. They are clearly insane. They think that they are bette than animals because thye can build cities and guns and art... Animals can build settlements and weapons and art. Humans are largely incapable of building complex weapons, sophiticated art, and large settlements. These things are built by humans, but only by relying upon unfathomable generations of human civilisation. Humans have a high talent for language and manipulation of sturdy objects. Baiscally, humans are gifted at making records. I very much doubt that you would see a single generation of humans come up with something as sophisticated as a rock combined with a stick outside of an extreme instance of inspiration. Humans are naturally inclined to think the most of themselves for no reason. It is basically the same as religion, it ends up being all about obediance and lacks justification.Shit's straight up definitionally impossible without it being done to follow God's will. Morality in that case, basically, is not what you do, but who you do it for.Humanity? As a species, and a "greater" concept?
To ensure existence, see above. Even if you consider youself non-meaningful and commit suicide, you ain't even beating evolution, you're just playing it's game. You were too weak to survive, so you killed yourself. You won't take up resources, you won't breed, so others will be stronger. Evolution.You kids become pointless unless they also have kids, and those are only as valid as their kids, which are only valid because they have kids, which they might not, and the concept of all possibilities occuring if provided with sufficient time indicates that eventually there will be no kids. Also entropy/gravity-death of the universe, or armageddon... But really, justifying kids with more kids is dependant upon valuing kids, and provides no inherent value for kids itself. You may as well just say that kids are self-evidently reason-for-being and thus everyone is self-evidently meaningful because everyone was kids at some point... Unfortunately some people don't feel that humans, even children, are self-evidently meaningful. Otherwise, would people be asking why their own existence is meaningful?without God there'd be no reason to want anything else and morality would pointless, as everything would be become nothing upon death.Also your kids.
For myself, I feel that the best available meaning of life is to seek out a good meaning of life. Which has various quite promising implications. I feel that the inherent meaning of life is to "be yourself" in an evolutionary sense. Which is abysmally bad for a whole host of reasons, not least of which is that there is nobody at the helm and that the whole system is composed of lotteries, but the imminent doom is perhaps the most off-putting. Perhaps the most plausible of the vaguely defensible options is to express the self that you can be proud of. This largely involves throwing away human impulse and adopting understanding and prediction, as otherwise you won't have a clear understanding of what you can be proud of and won't be in a position to control what you express.Existence. Yours, others, future existence. Of course, someone can adopt a defeatist posture due to mentioned end of world - but... the only way to maybe figure a way out is to ensure existence, and if that doesn't work, then hey, you don't listen to songs because they will end one day, and as long as the song goes on, might at least listen to it and contribute.
Religion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯As for what Christians religions belive was pre-Jesus - God's morality and laws which are also pretty much the same (although with more gay hate) since they're the same thing (for most part), and that all religions and people in general get the moral code from God because he kinda imprinted it in humans when he created them (although the recognition came only after the fruit of Eden thing) so the "voice of God" echoes through everyone and all religions because we deep down know what is true?If a god's morality is inherent, then everyone should know to obey that god without needing to be converted. Devosion to that specific religion should be as common as not murdering. The existence of wide-spread adoption of incompatible religions is good evidence that such is not the case, or that the god in question doesn't actually regard worship as being as important as murder.
As for what was before Jews, then yeah, there was nothing, since, you know, world is apparently 6000 years old (or something around that) according to Bible, so there was always religious code of laws (in a way, although commandments came later, I suppose?).
As for the 6000 years old thing? There is loads of evidence that such is not true. Enough that I would say that it goes beyond "the gods just like the idea of things being in progress when they started" and well into "the gods are deliberately lying to us". There are just too many details to it, they could have just had everything break down over that span of time and we would have just accepted it, but no, they needed to splat down whole evolutionary trees and weird extinction events... Now, if the gods in question say that lying is okay, then fine, religion of unreliable texts and shameless P.R. campaigns is willing to live up to its own standards. And why not? Everyone loves trickster gods! But a lot of these religions make quite a big deal about their texts not being written as a shameless divine P.R. piece and suggest that lying is bad...Religion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I was more reffering to the idea that it's not God who created people, but rather people who created God, to explain their internal monologues or something.It is though. Archeological evidence and, you know, common sense indicate that the pack instincts and whatnot came a lot before first ritual burials and other stuff that could be considered religion.I would say that bacteria jesus is unlikely. But bacteria commonality is quite likely. there really isn't that much special about humans. I suspect that the human internal monologue is the highlight, and I doubt that it is completely unique. On the other hand, internal monologue is not necessary. I am pretty sure that I didn't have an internal monologue until after I learned to read. I remember being asked to "read silently" and just had a complete "huh!?!?" moment. And we certainly formulate ideas without spelling them out, so that really isn't a thing. I could easily see bacteria having decision-making functions that focused on the self and decision-making functions that focused upon the group and that the latter could be equated to religion. I can see how people could question if such a thing is a mind, but to me it is just a whole great tower of different methods of determining outcomes, with rocks almost certrainly near the bottom with their "roll down until stable" operation and humans near the top with their "if problems arising from acquiring food is less than value of food + hunger+expecation of food in the future then acquire food" operation.
Unless bacteria also belive in bacteria Jesus, or something.
Also, I only get internal monologue if I think about internal monologue. Or imagine talking between two different people, although sometimes I do get voices in my head that say what a certain person would probably think. Or something. Dunno. Nobody actually knows if everyone perceives reality the same way. The old, "what colour is red" question.
Really, free will is a false concept. It is not as though it does or doesn't exist, but there is no point to it either way. There is no potential for variation. All decisions are a product of mind and circumstance. mind and circumstance are entirely derived from mind and circumstance all the way back to the start of mind, and the forces that led up to that are a product of immutable processes from origin or infinity. The outcome of random chance is inevitable, regardless of whether it is predictable. The ridiculous cience-fiction notion of a parallel world being created every time a person makes a decision is ludicrous. the closest that could happen is infinite worlds with slight variations that resulted is varying decisions, possibly even commencing at the point of variation. The outcome is the same, but the process is completely different. The important point of all this is that the human mind possesses zero potential for variation from its inevitable course. The rock rolls downhill with the same certainty that the hippy feels that a war for the purposes of increasing the support for the ruling political party is bad. People think themselves far too special. The only power we have is to be party to invoking a specific result, or we can be amongst the rocks who abandon that and go with their impulses. I like to think that people would be party to making a better world if they saw it as a possibility.To be honest, the "alternate universes" isin't about your will, but rather quantum mechanics and shit. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation) It's not that you have free will, it's that that not all seems to be as simple as bunch of rocks.
Eh. I mean more in sense of "commonly accepted science", which, yes, isin't perfect, but until something disproves it, it's accepted as being right or at least bordering truth.It is though. Archeological evidence and, you know, common sense indicate that the pack instincts and whatnot came a lot before first ritual burials and other stuff that could be considered religion.Man, when you bring common sense into parsing archeological evidence you dun screwed up. Common sense ain't -- stuff's a set of cultural norms highly informed by bias, common to that particular society only sorta' and actually common even among specific ones only occasionally. For all it works out often enough what likes to happen when you start applying assumptions ultimately based on your current environment and whatnot to incomplete reconstructions of previous environments is those assumptions end up wrong. If you're going to make analysis that isn't just a nice go at a just-so story (i.e. it might as well be fiction, to the extent it isn't outright) you kneecap "common sense" and bury it in the nearest mushroom patch.
Unless bacteria also belive in bacteria Jesus, or something.
Indicate isn't prove, basically. What a thing looks like doesn't necessitate it is what that thing is. We make good attempts at a guess, and do our best to make things cohesive based on what information we have, and it's not like that isn't important to one extent or another... but we did that for dinosaurs, too, and they seem to be picking up the oddest profusion of feathers nowadays :VIIRC, the idea that dinosaurs had feathers and were in between lizards and birds on evolutionary tree was actually earlier, but didin't gain a lot of attention due to being created just after Darwin published his book on evolution and whole world was butthurt about that God created everything, it didin't evolve, and then just kind of forgotten.
We have a lot of things, but the ability to say with justified confidence that religion and ritual were caused by morality or that morality was caused by religion and ritual innit one of 'em. That's the kind of thing you can build evidence for and make a good argument, but at the end of the day we have no means of observing when it happened and end up with the grounds to say which is right, or if either are.We could though. Experiment on completly isolated beings, just like the theories we are being experimented on by aliens, and that they are the historical gods. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Which, hell. Is fine. For all it's fun to talk about the actual answer doesn't really make a difference.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on June 20, 2017, 02:30:57 pm
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
tl;dr summary.
Post by: TD1 on June 20, 2017, 03:03:54 pm
Religion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
tl;dr thread summary.
Post by: inteuniso on June 20, 2017, 03:37:40 pm
Post by: TD1 on June 20, 2017, 03:40:02 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on June 20, 2017, 03:52:04 pm
I meant that, I don't have much thought put into why I am an atheist. It's basically: Invisible, imaginary friend? Not my thing. Book is two thousand years old and it's 3/4th genealogy. Then also Problem of Evil.It should be that simple, but in the USA (particularly the South where I live) the issue gets pressed pretty hard. Atheism is treated as an extreme statement, when it should be a non-statement. Not to mention how the Bible is treated as a valid reference for political positions... even by members of Congress. Even if the Bible doesn't actually support their position at all, like pro-lifers.
No offense intended btw. Just how I view things.
And if you address issues with the Bible or their politicized interpretation, expect to be called a militant atheist or intolerant. "Why do you hate Christianity so much??" maybe because people keep abusing it in ways that affect me
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 20, 2017, 03:53:05 pm
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070422.gif)
Post by: Frumple on June 20, 2017, 03:55:56 pm
No. Wanting worship is not in itself a bad thing. Demanding it is.... no, no, I'm pretty sure wanting worship pretty much is a bad thing in itself. Attention or respect or somethin' maybe not so much, but there's rather a difference. You desire that kind of adulation for whatever reason, to some degree there's somethin' gone wrong.
Post by: TD1 on June 20, 2017, 03:59:46 pm
Possibly. But there's also a large difference between wanting adulation, which you may or may not deserve, and actually demanding it. The God of Abraham demands it as part of the after-life pension plan - a God that wants it, and forbears from demanding it? That is a God I could at least respect. It is indicative of an ethical decision.No. Wanting worship is not in itself a bad thing. Demanding it is.... no, no, I'm pretty sure wanting worship pretty much is a bad thing in itself. Attention or respect or somethin' maybe not so much, but there's rather a difference. You desire that kind of adulation for whatever reason, to some degree there's somethin' gone wrong.
Post by: inteuniso on June 20, 2017, 04:00:05 pm
Reality is not perception, though; ergo, it doesn't work vice versa.
Using noncommutative quantum field theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncommutative_quantum_field_theory) is how you make a mathematical analogy for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Wow I hurt my own head for that follow up, gimme a bit I gotta think about this one.
Post by: Frumple on June 20, 2017, 04:04:55 pm
snipRespect, maybe, sure. But respect wasn't what was on the table :P
Post by: Hanslanda on June 20, 2017, 04:05:42 pm
I meant that, I don't have much thought put into why I am an atheist. It's basically: Invisible, imaginary friend? Not my thing. Book is two thousand years old and it's 3/4th genealogy. Then also Problem of Evil.It should be that simple, but in the USA (particularly the South where I live) the issue gets pressed pretty hard. Atheism is treated as an extreme statement, when it should be a non-statement. Not to mention how the Bible is treated as a valid reference for political positions... even by members of Congress. Even if the Bible doesn't actually support their position at all, like pro-lifers.
No offense intended btw. Just how I view things.
And if you address issues with the Bible or their politicized interpretation, expect to be called a militant atheist or intolerant. "Why do you hate Christianity so much??" maybe because people keep abusing it in ways that affect me
I also live in the South, and it's legit insane. Folks here are militant about church. I have genuinely watched a hospital official badger a family member about going to church. Said fam is religious, just doesn't believe in Organized Religion.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 20, 2017, 04:12:00 pm
Their two-hour apologetics course isn't enough to play the game if you don't let them define the conversation.
Post by: RAM on June 20, 2017, 04:13:04 pm
Incompatible might be a bit strong... But they definitely degrade one another and have limited ability to coexist. If the soldier is under orders then they need a REALLY good reason to resist them. Prders are, basically, a religon, it works in much the same way. Soldiers have faith in orders on an immediate level and a theoretical level. If they don't have orders then it is enough to say "there are civilians in that village, bombing it would be bad" or "there are enemy soldiers in that village, I should bomb them to protect my allies". If they have orders, however, then it becomes not just a matter of choosing ones own morality. One needs to overcome the pressure of the orders, even without consequence that will be difficult, and with the threat of either misinterpreting your freedom to deviate from orders or misinterpreting the situation and finding out that you would have agreed with the orders had you known more...I would argue that religions which have moral imperitives are evil. They inherently deny the indifvidual the authority to make their own morality judgements and impose morality judgements that the individual is not permitted to question(Lacking a committment to god's authority is usually an official failure condition) and doesn't understand(They may have an understanding of it of their own, and agree with it independantly, but they are doing it for religious reasons and are not permitted to question those reasons sufficiently to understand them.). Externally-imposed morality imposes responsibility which is fundamentally incompatible with personal responsibility which is required to maintain personal morality.So, doing evil despite religion saying I shouldn't means I am not responsible, but the religion is? Is that what you're saying, because I totally don't understand why external responsibility is incompatibile with personal responsibility. A soldier is ordered to mortar a village, he does it - of course his higher-ups are responsible to give that order, but so is he, as he could refuse.
And that is with orders. You can study the finer points of when it is or isn't appropriate to follow orders according to official policy. You can study the history of people who have disobeyed orders. You can study the backgrounds of the people who give those orders. You are likely somewhat versed in the specifics of the country that granted them that authority. A religion doesn't offer nearly so much certainty. There is always some arcane elements somewhere in order to grant it a mystical air. Now, one would think that less certainty would permit more freedom, but it often tends to go the other way. Just because you can't be certain of what god wants doesn't mean that there isn't a correct interpretation and that there are no consequences for being wrong. You are going to spend more time trying to be certain that you are correct about your god's will and less about your own.
In short: being subject to an external authority distracts, inhibits, and undermines your own authority, and thus massively reduces your ability to apply your own morality. It really isn't easy for a soldier to refuse an order...
Just throwing arguments at the argument in the hopes that one of them will stick. And I meant challenging the morality itself for justification, rather than challenging the operator of that morality of their ability to wield it.A morality that isn't challenged isn't justified...Isin't... application of the morality it's challenge? What do you even mean by this catchphrase thrown in?
If you justify your morality by taking the morals that you are presented with by religion and confirming that you are satisfied with them, then you have failed your own morality. The problem is that you skipped over the bit where you generate your own morality. You are too busy saying "I agree that stealing is bad" to think of "It is important to me to respect the efforts that others have put into acquiring what they have" or even "Everything is unicorns! Nothing else matters!".It isn't even enough to personally verify religous morality. One needs(In order to justify it) to generate their own morality independantly. It is the old arguing trick of going on the offensive. You can say "The president committed election fraud.". One reply is "There is no way that it is possible. They would have revised the security after those problems with the virus busters going wrong!". Another reply is "You keep crying about healthcare, but when you had your chance, nobody wanted it!". The latter is going to be far more effective because people will be too busy yelling about how wrong you are to remember their original issue. If ou start by verifying that you agree with the morality that you have been given, then you have already lost the chance to find out if there is a better one...What?
...
If you want to have a morality of your own, then you must build the whole thing from scratch. If you just pick one up from somewhere and start using it because you don't actually have any desperate opposition to any of the parts that you use, then it will never be a perfect fit.
It's evolution, babe. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI) We are we. It's not that we are inherently better, it's that humanity, as a species, got through a long way to get where it is now. If it wasn't "us", it would be some other animal finally figuring a way to develop civilization. And we didin't have the talent for language and manipulation of sturdy objects always, it's what we evolved. That's what it's actually about. It's not the humans who are gods. It's, ultimately life. Existence. Pure, unadulterated chaos. The only, underlying principle of morality is to ensure existence. Then you add a bunch of stuff ontop it to ensure that most of it exists in relative fairness.I disagree with that last sentence being relevant to the rest of the statement. Evolution doesn't recognise fairness. Sure, sometimes they play in the same sandbox, but sometimes evolution will decide to walk somewhere and just barge straight through fairness without a thought and push it out... Fairness as a fictional narrative for the benefit of social cohesion is a thing that evolution can do. Fairness as a legitimate effort to grant equal opportunities to all is a departure from evolution. Humans are every bit as capable of escaping from evolution as a rock is, which is to say, rocks are also subject to evolution, but in a very different way, and humans could get onto an evolutionary methodology that is less... comprehensively terrible in every way...
And everything went through a lot to get where it is, humans are completely not special. Unless they bother to escape from the evolutionary black-hole of doom. Which they probably won't because they fail to see how blind they are when they obey the evolutionary imperative to love their own species. Also, ensuring existence is not actually a part of evolution either. Evolution is about doing what works at the present(With a large serving of random chance), not about caring what happens in the future(Although there are elements of incorporating adaptability). There have been way too many mass-extinction events for anyone sane to think that evolution will lift the tiniest finger to help anyone survive. In a very obvious example, human society is evolving to exploit resources. Humans who shamelessly drain resources wield more power, exert more influence over society, and 'succeed'... Humans are currently exploiting solar energy that accumulated over... a very very very long time... and it won't last. Society is crashing into a disaster by following an imperative to act as much as possible, and evolving to do so, while rapidly depleting the ability to do so. Anyone with a half a brain can see the stupidity of this, and yet every element of human nature is screaming to jump blindly into our own doom and nobody capable of accumulating independent power has the strength of character/denial of evolution to resist it.
Please do not refer to "weak" or "strong" in relation to evolution. It produces a lot of misconceptions... You are correct in the playing of its game however, although suicide is sort of insignificant to the point of irrelevance. Breeding is much less important than most people think too. Still very important, but less than you would think. And evolution is not about survival, it is about obeying nature. Futility is just as much a part of evolution as anything else is. More so, actually, given conservation of energy... Evolution is not a friend, ally, or patron to anyone. We can actually grant some meaning to ourselves if we care to, but as it stands, we are obsessed with perpetuating fundamentally doomed cycles in the desperate hope that our own individually doomed participation in that doomed cycle was meaningful. Recursive value is just sad.To ensure existence, see above. Even if you consider youself non-meaningful and commit suicide, you ain't even beating evolution, you're just playing it's game. You were too weak to survive, so you killed yourself. You won't take up resources, you won't breed, so others will be stronger. Evolution.You kids become pointless unless they also have kids, and those are only as valid as their kids, which are only valid because they have kids, which they might not, and the concept of all possibilities occuring if provided with sufficient time indicates that eventually there will be no kids. Also entropy/gravity-death of the universe, or armageddon... But really, justifying kids with more kids is dependant upon valuing kids, and provides no inherent value for kids itself. You may as well just say that kids are self-evidently reason-for-being and thus everyone is self-evidently meaningful because everyone was kids at some point... Unfortunately some people don't feel that humans, even children, are self-evidently meaningful. Otherwise, would people be asking why their own existence is meaningful?without God there'd be no reason to want anything else and morality would pointless, as everything would be become nothing upon death.Also your kids.
Existence. Yours, others, future existence. Of course, someone can adopt a defeatist posture due to mentioned end of world - but... the only way to maybe figure a way out is to ensure existence, and if that doesn't work, then hey, you don't listen to songs because they will end one day, and as long as the song goes on, might at least listen to it and contribute.I would like to figure out a way to ensure existence. That would be really nice. But we gotta bail on human nature in order to do it. Humanity is too busy drowning in compulsions and ignorance to escape from anything.
You are referring to the one of the scientific multiple dimension sets(there is, by definition, only one universe) theories. I was referring to a phenomena described in science fiction, which is relevant because people seem willing to believe it. I was commenting on what people are willing to believe and fundamental flaws in perception evidenced by such, also it makes a convenient example of how things definitely don't work. This is the second time that I have been misinterpreted as regarding that a legitimate interpretation of anything and it is annoying. Free will is the idea that we have control over how we change outcomes. We cannot change outcomes, "free will" is isn't even legitimate enough to be correct or incorrect.Really, free will is a false concept. It is not as though it does or doesn't exist, but there is no point to it either way. There is no potential for variation. All decisions are a product of mind and circumstance. mind and circumstance are entirely derived from mind and circumstance all the way back to the start of mind, and the forces that led up to that are a product of immutable processes from origin or infinity. The outcome of random chance is inevitable, regardless of whether it is predictable. The ridiculous cience-fiction notion of a parallel world being created every time a person makes a decision is ludicrous. the closest that could happen is infinite worlds with slight variations that resulted is varying decisions, possibly even commencing at the point of variation. The outcome is the same, but the process is completely different. The important point of all this is that the human mind possesses zero potential for variation from its inevitable course. The rock rolls downhill with the same certainty that the hippy feels that a war for the purposes of increasing the support for the ruling political party is bad. People think themselves far too special. The only power we have is to be party to invoking a specific result, or we can be amongst the rocks who abandon that and go with their impulses. I like to think that people would be party to making a better world if they saw it as a possibility.To be honest, the "alternate universes" isin't about your will, but rather quantum mechanics and shit. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation) It's not that you have free will, it's that that not all seems to be as simple as bunch of rocks.
Post by: TD1 on June 20, 2017, 04:16:55 pm
snipRespect, maybe, sure. But respect wasn't what was on the table :P
The respect bit was extraneous :P
I was saying that wanting worship isn't bad in and of itself, so long as it is not demanded. If you have an impulse as Narcissistic as wanting to be worshipped, it reveals a certain insecurity. Control over that impulse recognises this, and seeks to correct it. That is the difference between a god demanding worship, and a god merely desirous of it.
Anthropomorphism? Perhaps. But I don't feel my values lesser to those of some purely hypothetical supra-dimensional being.
Post by: Kot on June 20, 2017, 07:18:52 pm
Incompatible might be a bit strong... But they definitely degrade one another and have limited ability to coexist. If the soldier is under orders then they need a REALLY good reason to resist them. Prders are, basically, a religon, it works in much the same way. Soldiers have faith in orders on an immediate level and a theoretical level. If they don't have orders then it is enough to say "there are civilians in that village, bombing it would be bad" or "there are enemy soldiers in that village, I should bomb them to protect my allies". If they have orders, however, then it becomes not just a matter of choosing ones own morality. One needs to overcome the pressure of the orders, even without consequence that will be difficult, and with the threat of either misinterpreting your freedom to deviate from orders or misinterpreting the situation and finding out that you would have agreed with the orders had you known more...But you still have authority to make your own decision, even if in "ideal" scenario soldiers would always obey orders.
And that is with orders. You can study the finer points of when it is or isn't appropriate to follow orders according to official policy. You can study the history of people who have disobeyed orders. You can study the backgrounds of the people who give those orders. You are likely somewhat versed in the specifics of the country that granted them that authority. A religion doesn't offer nearly so much certainty. There is always some arcane elements somewhere in order to grant it a mystical air. Now, one would think that less certainty would permit more freedom, but it often tends to go the other way. Just because you can't be certain of what god wants doesn't mean that there isn't a correct interpretation and that there are no consequences for being wrong. You are going to spend more time trying to be certain that you are correct about your god's will and less about your own.I feel like that's dependent on person in question, and ultimately you don't think about being correct about your god's will, but rather what other people want the god's will to be, and they tend to present you with a nice package of what they think god's will is, and it just happens it tends to be easily acceptable and fitting with the most common morality.
Sure, it probably means that most people just take the path of least resistance, and just accept that morality. But there is still nothing stopping you from thinking about it and having your own morality.
In short: being subject to an external authority distracts, inhibits, and undermines your own authority, and thus massively reduces your ability to apply your own morality. It really isn't easy for a soldier to refuse an order...Meh, I suppose I just don't give a fuck about authority in general, so it's harder for me to think that authority would somehow influence my own judgement, but I know that it's a thing, (for example, Nazis or fanatical Muslims and so on), so in the end I do think it depends mostly on person in question.
If you justify your morality by taking the morals that you are presented with by religion and confirming that you are satisfied with them, then you have failed your own morality. The problem is that you skipped over the bit where you generate your own morality. You are too busy saying "I agree that stealing is bad" to think of "It is important to me to respect the efforts that others have put into acquiring what they have" or even "Everything is unicorns! Nothing else matters!".Again, I don't think that's exactly how it works. I mean, it's very easy to think of other people as sheep that just always follow what others say, but it isin't always the case.
Sometimes, though.
If you want to have a morality of your own, then you must build the whole thing from scratch. If you just pick one up from somewhere and start using it because you don't actually have any desperate opposition to any of the parts that you use, then it will never be a perfect fit.You can't really figure out a complete morality without being a part of society, which society will for sure have pre-existing morality "templates". It's up to you to take those "templates" and modify and evolve them according to yourself. Unless you're part of some fucked-up Harlow experiment.
I disagree with that last sentence being relevant to the rest of the statement. Evolution doesn't recognise fairness. Sure, sometimes they play in the same sandbox, but sometimes evolution will decide to walk somewhere and just barge straight through fairness without a thought and push it out... Fairness as a fictional narrative for the benefit of social cohesion is a thing that evolution can do. Fairness as a legitimate effort to grant equal opportunities to all is a departure from evolution. Humans are every bit as capable of escaping from evolution as a rock is, which is to say, rocks are also subject to evolution, but in a very different way, and humans could get onto an evolutionary methodology that is less... comprehensively terrible in every way...Not really. The concept of "fairness" is actually something humans, and pack animals, in general, evolved. It's helping others when they're weaker for the benefit of group, survival of which is ultimately your own survival, and, again, evolution is still there. There is no way to cheat evolution, fairness is recognized by evolution because it's one of mechanisms it created, because, ultimately, evolution isin't about singular animal.
Look at humanity - while "fairness" caused a lot of bad things and supposed weakening of it in general (fat Americans anyone, various genetic problems and whatnot), think that it also allowed humanity to allow it's members that normally wouldn't have a chance also contribute, for example, Stephen Hawking.
And everything went through a lot to get where it is, humans are completely not special. Unless they bother to escape from the evolutionary black-hole of doom. Which they probably won't because they fail to see how blind they are when they obey the evolutionary imperative to love their own species. Also, ensuring existence is not actually a part of evolution either. Evolution is about doing what works at the present(With a large serving of random chance), not about caring what happens in the future(Although there are elements of incorporating adaptability).Evolution is doing what works at present, which means surviving into future where you will be able to figure out what works then.
There have been way too many mass-extinction events for anyone sane to think that evolution will lift the tiniest finger to help anyone survive.But it will, or at least will try. If there is a giant asteroid speeding towards Earth, do you think all humans are just going to sit around and watch? Or if there is some kind of plague, do you think nobody will try to find a cure? It's not about evolution not working, it's about what it can work with. Humanitys current status as technological species allows it to survive more.
In a very obvious example, human society is evolving to exploit resources. Humans who shamelessly drain resources wield more power, exert more influence over society, and 'succeed'... Humans are currently exploiting solar energy that accumulated over... a very very very long time... and it won't last. Society is crashing into a disaster by following an imperative to act as much as possible, and evolving to do so, while rapidly depleting the ability to do so. Anyone with a half a brain can see the stupidity of this, and yet every element of human nature is screaming to jump blindly into our own doom and nobody capable of accumulating independent power has the strength of character/denial of evolution to resist it.Then move to other planet and exploit it, and then another one, and then another one, and then another one, and then another one, and then use up resources of literal stars, another star, another star, another star. Life isin't about conserving resources so you can die off for longer time. It's about using up your resources so you can spread and multiply and progress. Life isin't healthy, life is a plague.
Please do not refer to "weak" or "strong" in relation to evolution. It produces a lot of misconceptions... You are correct in the playing of its game however, although suicide is sort of insignificant to the point of irrelevance. Breeding is much less important than most people think too. Still very important, but less than you would think. And evolution is not about survival, it is about obeying nature. Futility is just as much a part of evolution as anything else is. More so, actually, given conservation of energy... Evolution is not a friend, ally, or patron to anyone. We can actually grant some meaning to ourselves if we care to, but as it stands, we are obsessed with perpetuating fundamentally doomed cycles in the desperate hope that our own individually doomed participation in that doomed cycle was meaningful. Recursive value is just sadAnd evolution doesn't care about being your friend, ally, or patron. It is you who should work towards being it's friend, because that's what going to work for you. Also, you're assuming the cycle is doomed from the start, but is it really? I mean sure, the conservation of energy, but, considering that we know (or at least have circumnstantial evidence) that it had a beginning, then, where exactly did it get from? What was before? We don't know, probably none of us ever will, and that applies to whole species, but we don't know. If we manage to survive, it might be figured out one day. I mean, one of theories is that world just collapses into singularity again and then explodes in Big Bang again (which you seem to imply by doomed cycle), but then it still doesn't explain how did it even get from, and some theories imply lack of existence of actual laws of physics and time inside those, which means the laws of physics, actually aren't as simple as you might think, and there might be exceptions you might use to your benefit, and it's even hard to grasp what can be ultimately done. We aren't even Type I civilization, we have no commonly applied fusion, we don't use renewable power in meaningful ways. Now, a Type II civilization has access to what basically amounts to practically infinite resources and power, and I don't know, finally technological singularity will become a thing. And even if nothing good happens out of it, and we all die and dissapear anyway, then heck, we at least had a good run.
I would like to figure out a way to ensure existence. That would be really nice. But we gotta bail on human nature in order to do it. Humanity is too busy drowning in compulsions and ignorance to escape from anything.Human nature is what got us here. We are the swarm.
You are referring to the one of the scientific multiple dimension sets(there is, by definition, only one universe) theories. I was referring to a phenomena described in science fiction, which is relevant because people seem willing to believe it. I was commenting on what people are willing to believe and fundamental flaws in perception evidenced by such, also it makes a convenient example of how things definitely don't work. This is the second time that I have been misinterpreted as regarding that a legitimate interpretation of anything and it is annoying. Free will is the idea that we have control over how we change outcomes. We cannot change outcomes, "free will" is isn't even legitimate enough to be correct or incorrect.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean, what to argue with, I mean, I agree that there is no actual real free will, so I don't understand why you seem to be trying to convince me there isin't.
Post by: RAM on June 20, 2017, 08:34:08 pm
But you still have authority to make your own decision, even if in "ideal" scenario soldiers would always obey orders.This feels like a free will debate. The civilian ordered to kill a bunch of people will probably refuse. The soldier will probably obey. Faith 'tweaks' people so that a bunch of scenarios in which they would obey their own morality instead switch to obeying a morality that comes from a source whose authority and nature they refuse to scrutinise. It is much like tweaking a tire's performance by changing its internal pressure, or adjusting the bar on a high-jump. If you do something because of your own morality then you are personally responsible for it. If you do something because of a god's authority then it is your fault for submitting to that god. Essentially, when accepting a religious morality contract, you instant accept guilt for everything that that contract might potentially lead you to do, as you do not know what precise things might eventuate, you are guilty of everything. Much like someone who drives through a crowd because they are drunk is, in fact, not guilty of choosing to drive through a crowd, they are instead guilty of making themselves incompetent enough at driving, and deducing it driving is a good idea, that driving through a crowd, along with every other possible terrible scenario, was plausible.
Religion is to morality what alcohol is to driving. Actually, if religion is ever relevant to driving, and alcohol is ever relevant to morality... Religion is equal to booze.
I feel like that's dependent on person in question, and ultimately you don't think about being correct about your god's will, but rather what other people want the god's will to be, and they tend to present you with a nice package of what they think god's will is, and it just happens it tends to be easily acceptable and fitting with the most common morality.Except peer pressure, personal conviction, fear of harming your soul, safety in numbers... Religion decreases personal morality. To be fair, so does any form of exposure to communal morality, but religion makes a point of being arbitrary, arcane, intrusive, tribal, and overtly threatening. It is like with whistle-blowers. Generally, people will not be courage, honest, outspoken, and proper, but there are exceptions, and they are completely destroyed by their peers. It is really fascinating that people are distrusted for honesty, distrusted for conviction, slandered for morality, and banished for civility. Meh, humans are evil, ignorance is bliss, go team...
Sure, it probably means that most people just take the path of least resistance, and just accept that morality. But there is still nothing stopping you from thinking about it and having your own morality.
Again, I don't think that's exactly how it works. I mean, it's very easy to think of other people as sheep that just always follow what others say, but it isin't always the case.It is not so much mindless drones as it is trends of behaviour changes. Advertising is extremely effective as mind control, but nobody is irresistibly compelled by it(yet. I can't help but think that if someone found effective mind-control, they would just plug it into "buy expensive shoes", flip the switch, and nobody would ever think for themselves again. All without any grand overlord or evil conspiracy pulling the strings and nobody left to turn the thing off...). It just makes more people buy a thing than would otherwise. It is a gentle effect, but the fact that it works, even to the point of being detrimental to its victims, seems well established. If religion enters a society then that society becomes more inclined to obey the religious doctrine. It is not a good/evil switch, just a subtle trnd of reduced personal responsibility.
Sometimes, though.
Evolution is doing what works at present, which means surviving into future where you will be able to figure out what works then.That only works for mild changes. Drastic stuff still causes mass extinctions, assuming the absence of universal extinctions... Evolution is perfectly capable of being stupid. Well, okay, not actually, implying mental processes seems dubious, but the end result is the same. Evolution can result in lots of losers and zero winners.
But it will, or at least will try. If there is a giant asteroid speeding towards Earth, do you think all humans are just going to sit around and watch? Or if there is some kind of plague, do you think nobody will try to find a cure? It's not about evolution not working, it's about what it can work with. Humanitys current status as technological species allows it to survive more.Technology is not biological evolution. The ability to invent is not the largest factor influencing the ability to acquire. A society with a propensity to produce inventors does have its advantages, but that only goes so far. According to popular theories, evolution has messed up with asteroids in the past, investing heavily in large organisms which didn't work out... Given how much people complain about climate change I am entirely willing to believe that people would sit by and let the asteroid hit. Climate change is not speculation, and even if humanity had no part in creating it, they still ought to be very interested in slowing it down. They are not, people are actively suppressing the mere concept of it. People already sit by and let plagues happen. Tuberculosis is way out of control and people would rather dump their fortunes into buying bombs to drop onto terrorists who became terrorists because of people dropping bombs on their neighbours... Evolution is like a drunkard who generally manages to stagger home, but sometimes doesn't make it. There is a definite trend towards functionality, but on a case-by-case basis, or from a perspective of long-term planning? There is nothing.
Then move to other planet and exploit it, and then another one, and then another one, and then another one, and then another one, and then use up resources of literal stars, another star, another star, another star. Life isin't about conserving resources so you can die off for longer time. It's about using up your resources so you can spread and multiply and progress. Life isin't healthy, life is a plague.I do not see that happening. For one, we are talking about accrued solar energy here. Other planets don't have massive timescales of plants and animals storing energy for a planet. The amount of stored energy required to account for just the living biomass alone is staggering. If we were reduced to zero biomass and had to work our way up from newborn plants it would take ages to get to where we are in terms of volume and energy reserves, and that is assuming we still had our rich topsoil! But even if the mad race to exploit were viable, it would also require that we actually act upon it. Why would we waste money on perpetuating the species when we could spend it on I.V.F. and viagra?
And evolution doesn't care about being your friend, ally, or patron. It is you who should work towards being it's friend, because that's what going to work for you.Surrendering to evolution is about as bad as surrendering to religion. There is still nobody observably competent directing things to a worthwhile outcome and you still end up being bound to arbitrary idiocy where you end up running around in fur-suits because evolution decided to try the anthropomorphism thing yet again because it didn't get over it back with the ancient religious theme of "before life as we know it, there was a bunch of talking animals playing pranks on each other, and Bob was there!". Nothing against furries, but I really don't see how that is a well-planned evolution of the sexual drive. Unless... Compartmentalisation of social groupings? Evolution has does some extremely impressive things. Through trial and error. Over timescales that dwarf all reference points. And many of those impressive things are impressive for just how phenomenally disastrous they were. Evolution is many things, but reliable is not any of them. Given the choice, imma ask for a refund.
Also, you're assuming the cycle is doomed from the start, but is it really?Yes, time destroys all. Print your existence upon the background nature of existence? Just wait for someone else to accidentally set off an antimatter bomb in a teleporter that somehow replaces a few digits and renders you insensate...
Human nature is what got us here.I do not like this address.
Post by: Kot on June 20, 2017, 09:26:51 pm
This feels like a free will debate. The civilian ordered to kill a bunch of people will probably refuse. The soldier will probably obey. Faith 'tweaks' people so that a bunch of scenarios in which they would obey their own morality instead switch to obeying a morality that comes from a source whose authority and nature they refuse to scrutinise. It is much like tweaking a tire's performance by changing its internal pressure, or adjusting the bar on a high-jump. If you do something because of your own morality then you are personally responsible for it. If you do something because of a god's authority then it is your fault for submitting to that god. Essentially, when accepting a religious morality contract, you instant accept guilt for everything that that contract might potentially lead you to do, as you do not know what precise things might eventuate, you are guilty of everything. Much like someone who drives through a crowd because they are drunk is, in fact, not guilty of choosing to drive through a crowd, they are instead guilty of making themselves incompetent enough at driving, and deducing it driving is a good idea, that driving through a crowd, along with every other possible terrible scenario, was plausible.Not very good comparasion. Religion is more of a general drug - used right it can heal and help people, but it's also drunk driving. The original point was that religion is not inherently evil, it's using the religion wrong what leads to evil. If you shitface yourself so hard that you get into a car and drive through a crowd, you used alcohol wrong. If you shitfaced yourself so hard that you exploded in a crowd to get some virgins in afterlife, you used religion wrong.
Religion is to morality what alcohol is to driving. Actually, if religion is ever relevant to driving, and alcohol is ever relevant to morality... Religion is equal to booze.
Except peer pressure, personal conviction, fear of harming your soul, safety in numbers... Religion decreases personal morality. To be fair, so does any form of exposure to communal morality, but religion makes a point of being arbitrary, arcane, intrusive, tribal, and overtly threatening. It is like with whistle-blowers. Generally, people will not be courage, honest, outspoken, and proper, but there are exceptions, and they are completely destroyed by their peers. It is really fascinating that people are distrusted for honesty, distrusted for conviction, slandered for morality, and banished for civility. Meh, humans are evil, ignorance is bliss, go team...It doesn't really, because religion is also personal morality. You usually (unless, like, indoctrination and shit) have a choice wether to adopt a communal morality or continue following it. Otherwise, we would still have the same morality as we had few thousand years ago, as only way to modify communal morality is change personal morality.
Unless God rewires our programming and changes our morality, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
It is not so much mindless drones as it is trends of behaviour changes. Advertising is extremely effective as mind control, but nobody is irresistibly compelled by it(yet. I can't help but think that if someone found effective mind-control, they would just plug it into "buy expensive shoes", flip the switch, and nobody would ever think for themselves again. All without any grand overlord or evil conspiracy pulling the strings and nobody left to turn the thing off...). It just makes more people buy a thing than would otherwise. It is a gentle effect, but the fact that it works, even to the point of being detrimental to its victims, seems well established. If religion enters a society then that society becomes more inclined to obey the religious doctrine. It is not a good/evil switch, just a subtle trnd of reduced personal responsibility.And it's not evil. For longest time, religion guided thousands of people, and it caused them to do a lot of bad things in the name of various gods, but it also caused them to do a lot of good, and given them a reason to group up with other believers of said religion. I am not saying religion doesn't influence people, but it isin't bad. For instance, if you encounter an situation which you do not have time to think about and have no prior thoughts about except for what religion tells you, you at least have something, which can save someones life or something. As usual, don't think about it as rules, but rather set of guidelines...
Although at this point I am not even sure what to argue about, because I honestly don't see the problem. I don't see how using pre-established morality is bad. That's like saying using anything you haven't made completly by yourself is evil, and that brings us to like, hardcore all-for-himself ultra-Amish.
That only works for mild changes. Drastic stuff still causes mass extinctions, assuming the absence of universal extinctions... Evolution is perfectly capable of being stupid. Well, okay, not actually, implying mental processes seems dubious, but the end result is the same. Evolution can result in lots of losers and zero winners.Theoretically, and as far as our knowledge of life goes. If humanity, or even life on Earth were to die off, then there's a some chance that alien civilization will arise and will utilize the resources we haven't. Evolution still going, the Aliens won. Even if all life in universe died, it can still start all over again, since it had to become in the first place. Sure, ultimately, if say, gravity causes the collapse of universe, it probably means ultimately rise of another cycle, up until someone actually wins at the game. Entropy is trickier, but also, theoretically, there could be ways to counteract and workaround that.
Technology is not biological evolution.Still evolution. Still makes one ape stronger than other.
The ability to invent is not the largest factor influencing the ability to acquire. A society with a propensity to produce inventors does have its advantages, but that only goes so far. According to popular theories, evolution has messed up with asteroids in the past, investing heavily in large organisms which didn't work out... Given how much people complain about climate change I am entirely willing to believe that people would sit by and let the asteroid hit.People are already monitoring all possible bolids that could hit. There are contingency plans in case of it.
Climate change is not speculation, and even if humanity had no part in creating it, they still ought to be very interested in slowing it down. They are not, people are actively suppressing the mere concept of it.Boiling frog. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)
People already sit by and let plagues happen.Not so much in developed countries. We still haven't reached a post-scarcity society where we can freely give everyone good treatment.
Tuberculosis is way out of control and people would rather dump their fortunes into buying bombs to drop onto terrorists who became terrorists because of people dropping bombs on their neighbours...For profit. Profit means technology, better economy, resources, strength. Evolution.
Evolution is like a drunkard who generally manages to stagger home, but sometimes doesn't make it. There is a definite trend towards functionality, but on a case-by-case basis, or from a perspective of long-term planning? There is nothing.Because there is no long-term plan, and there never will, unless there is actually God and he has reason for us all. World is chaos, after all, so all plans are useless in the long run anyway.
I do not see that happening. For one, we are talking about accrued solar energy here. Other planets don't have massive timescales of plants and animals storing energy for a planet. The amount of stored energy required to account for just the living biomass alone is staggering. If we were reduced to zero biomass and had to work our way up from newborn plants it would take ages to get to where we are in terms of volume and energy reserves, and that is assuming we still had our rich topsoil! But even if the mad race to exploit were viable, it would also require that we actually act upon it. Why would we waste money on perpetuating the species when we could spend it on I.V.F. and viagra?Why the hell would you need accured solar energy, if you can just get a Dyson swarm and benefit from the solar energy as it goes? Or just fusion?
Surrendering to evolution is about as bad as surrendering to religion. There is still nobody observably competent directing things to a worthwhile outcome and you still end up being bound to arbitrary idiocy where you end up running around in fur-suits because evolution decided to try the anthropomorphism thing yet again because it didn't get over it back with the ancient religious theme of "before life as we know it, there was a bunch of talking animals playing pranks on each other, and Bob was there!". Nothing against furries, but I really don't see how that is a well-planned evolution of the sexual drive.What.
I'm not even asking, but what.
I mean I suppose evolution is to blame for furries, as for everything else, but do you think that it's to be seriously took as something that will survive? I mean, that's the whole point, there is no plan, nobody competent directing things, nothing, because there can be no plan unless you are omnipotent and omniscient and there is nobody competent enough unless you are omnipotent and omniscient, and that is the only way you're going to get any progress done. You sound kinda like you don't belive in god, but wish he existed or something. :|
Yes, time destroys all.Unless there is no time, which can be a thing, but w/e.
Print your existence upon the background nature of existence? Just wait for someone else to accidentally set off an antimatter bomb in a teleporter that somehow replaces a few digits and renders you insensate...Then that someone survives and you don't. It isin't all about yourself, suprisingly.
I do not like this address.Put on your fursuit then, I suppose. :P
Post by: Rose on June 21, 2017, 03:49:19 am
Post by: taat on June 21, 2017, 06:06:52 pm
Does anybody actually read these dump-truck loads of text?
Yeah. Sometimes.
Post by: Rose on August 07, 2017, 07:51:40 pm
I just also equally believe that he is indifferent to humans.
He doesn't value humans over mosquitoes, or towns over tsunamis, etc. We aren't special in his eyes.
Post by: smjjames on August 07, 2017, 07:54:36 pm
So, I've recently came to the realization that I actually do believe in the existence of God.
I just also equally believe that he is indifferent to humans.
He doesn't value humans over mosquitoes, or towns over tsunamis, etc. We aren't special in his eyes.
So, basically God is highly advanced aliens watching over Earth? Just observing, never intervening.
Post by: Rose on August 07, 2017, 08:07:43 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 07, 2017, 10:15:44 pm
Also, could you imagine it as a multiplicity. Like a civilization which decided to create our known universe?
If not, why not?
((I find it somewhat interesting that people like to think of 'God' as a one-off fluke. That there can only ever be one being that Always Was and Always Will Be. Their very logic makes it possible.
Post by: RAM on August 07, 2017, 10:23:13 pm
God exists.
Believing in any given scenario of any god's existence is objectively stupid.
In the unlikely event of god existing its relationship to us is almost certainly exactly like the relationship between us and soap-operas. The afterlife is very real death, but if god likes the episode then your memories will be ogled for all eternity as reruns.
God's motives and nature, provided that you have enough evidence to have even the slightest rumour of a clue as to what you think you will achieve by worshipping it, are tragically easy to comprehend and arguments to the contrary, ugh, I just don't even...
People are inherently good.
People are inherently vacant of any form of good.
Good doesn't exist.
Evil doesn't exist, but if it did then the words "good" and "people" would be the most evil things of all.
That nice young man is helping me make a difficult decision.
That criminal salesman is trying to rip me off for a higher commission.
Anyone who thinks that "faith alone is enough" hasn't been keeping track of just how many things they have faith in, and just how many things they used to have faith in but that faith has somehow departed... Faith, to be useful, needs to be combined with an understanding of consequence, extrapolation, corroboration... If you are going to assume that your beliefs are accurate, that your faith is true, that your trust is well placed, then you are going to make mistakes because of that assumption. As your provably false beliefs get whittled down through the tortures of life then your mistakes will lessen, but there are a myriad of ways to test beliefs prior to being betrayed by them and to take anything as true just because your impulses have taken it as true by accident is far from necessary...
So don't be too worried about believing in god. Even if you believe in it, it still probably doesn't exist. And if there is enough to your soul that an afterlife would have any value, then there is probably enough to your soul that it can make an afterlife of its own that would be better than the one that would be sold to you by a dubious realtor who openly writes all of their own performance reviews and customer satisfaction evaluations and proudly states that it is better that way because they are better than everyone else in every way, especially in humility and consideration of others... So, you know, remember to be a friendly ghost!
Post by: inteuniso on August 08, 2017, 07:27:22 pm
Post by: RAM on August 08, 2017, 09:37:29 pm
So... If the rules represent the majority, then the majority will likely experience a significant gain in quality of life and survivability for a rather long short-term. And this will produce an increase in the net-total of quality of life and survivability. And they are then free to take their improved quality of life and survivability and use it to mug a more open society and sustain themselves long-term in that way. Much as a business can spend all its money on advertising and then buy out a business that spent anything on research, staff, and quality. It is actually really wonderfully effective, but also kind of horrific, and eventually you run out of oil to dig up and realise that while you were climbing to the top of the social ladder you were crushing the world underneath you, and now you are the biggest fish in a dried-up ocean.
If you want a review of specific morality rules, then you are going to have to specify. There is far too much conflict between religions to regard any religious rule as being universal.
Post by: Putnam on August 09, 2017, 01:18:25 pm
Post by: RAM on August 09, 2017, 03:47:36 pm
If the pressure is an invading army, then shared and fixed rules help with solidarity and consistency in defence.
If the pressure is alien cultural influences, then it is a matter of the extent to which you value "survival" if what survives is no longer "you" and how much you value the elements of yourself that will be altered by the changes in culture...
I suspect that the vast majority of pressures will be overtly hostile. This is not a nice world. But it is fair to say that the most familiar of pressures are minor social things that would probably be best to have some acceptance of.
Post by: Egan_BW on August 09, 2017, 04:41:24 pm
Nondiscriminatory resistance to pressure is a bad thing.
That depends upon the pressure.
Nondiscriminatory
Post by: Descan on August 09, 2017, 05:12:58 pm
Post by: Putnam on August 09, 2017, 05:20:35 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on August 10, 2017, 11:39:50 am
If the pressure is alien cultural influences, then it is a matter of the extent to which you value "survival" if what survives is no longer "you" and how much you value the elements of yourself that will be altered by the changes in culture...
That sounds like a really negative mindset.
Post by: Descan on August 10, 2017, 02:02:08 pm
There's no moral judgement here, simply survival and propagation. If an idea that made people commit suicide at 30 years old but had a 90% success rate of spreading to 2 or more people before then took hold, then that idea would be extremely robust. Doesn't mean it'd be a "good idea."
Post by: redwallzyl on August 10, 2017, 04:23:47 pm
I mean I'm fairly sure the foundation of memetics and culture is the same as the foundation of genetics; what we have right now in terms of "memetic packages" like a national group/culture, or a religion, is those packages that have the best ability to propagate themselves (like Christianity or Islam) or adapt to change (the "American" or "Canadian" identities), or both, or to simply survive intact (Such as Judaism). Especially if it's an old package, like the Kurdish or Yazidi cultures, or Judaism, that have had to survive for thousands of years. Doesn't mean they'd look exactly the same as those did thousands of years ago, but the package is more or less intact still, which means at least a portion of those packages directly benefits the wholes survival in one form or another.The basics of culture are that of ensuring stability and survive by the passing down of ways of doing things. there is unfortunately no universal theory of culture and never will be but it is most useful to conceptualize in a more systems theory way and in taxonomies. biological analogies have been out of vogue in the field for awhile now. fundamentally all aspects of a culture exist to help people survive and maintain stability. this occurs through the passing down of tools in the form of culture. all of the aspects of a culture are linked together and exist for a reason. this is why it is always a bad idea to just go and tell people to stop doing things one way and do them another way, usually like the teller does. its like replacing a cog in a machine with a different one. it might work but it wont quite fit properly. even things that often seem very wrong to some people exist because they help the system in some way. often addressing an issue that is dealt with differently in another culture and always interlocking. now this machine does change by itself and often by adapting parts from others but a forced change will always result in unintended consequences. now their are parts that exist for a different reason, sometimes the response to an extreme historic circumstance that may be now unnecessary or at least not currently doing anything. it is important to not mistake these historical aspects for a normal state or how a people will always be or have been, these things can rapidly change. this is the source of much xenophobia. in addition when someone moves from one area to another they may continue with a practice that served a purposes back home and now does not and is also a source of xenophobia. I have specifically excluded any direct examples but you can probably think of the areas such things apply to.
There's no moral judgement here, simply survival and propagation. If an idea that made people commit suicide at 30 years old but had a 90% success rate of spreading to 2 or more people before then took hold, then that idea would be extremely robust. Doesn't mean it'd be a "good idea."
*Anthropologist awaaaaaaaaaaaay!
Post by: Avarice on August 11, 2017, 06:52:01 am
Post by: Teneb on August 11, 2017, 09:50:03 am
I miss orangeHe was banned for your sins.
Post by: TD1 on August 11, 2017, 10:07:32 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 11, 2017, 04:08:55 pm
For your greed, for your....avarice.God of Blood: Armok: 3: The regreedening
Post by: TD1 on November 17, 2017, 03:43:01 pm
Personally I thought it was hilarious, but I also saw how it could be insulting. Though it is true that if it were Muhammad, for instance, much more of a ruckus would be present. I suppose they'd also have to somehow give the sausage roll a beard.
Post by: Descan on November 18, 2017, 06:10:59 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 18, 2017, 06:19:22 pm
Now that would be hilarious. And offensive. And they would kill people. :P
Post by: Egan_BW on November 18, 2017, 06:24:04 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 18, 2017, 06:27:10 pm
I dunno. Personally, I believe the Prophet tastes delicious either way, and we shouldn't make value judgements.
Post by: smjjames on November 18, 2017, 06:45:13 pm
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/Viral/calls-for-greggs-boycott-after-nativity-scene-jesus-replaced-with-sausage-roll-36322973.html
Personally I thought it was hilarious, but I also saw how it could be insulting. Though it is true that if it were Muhammad, for instance, much more of a ruckus would be present. I suppose they'd also have to somehow give the sausage roll a beard.
It's pretty blatant advertising anyways
Post by: Descan on November 18, 2017, 06:50:53 pm
But replacing Jesus with Mohammed in a nativity scene would be...
...
I don't even know. What would that even mean?
It sounds like something the Clueless But Well Meaning character on a sitcom would do, to be 'inclusive.'
Post by: Silverthrone on November 18, 2017, 08:03:42 pm
Gregg's can go, in the most simple of terms, fuck themselves, if they think this is an amusing, divisive little scheme that will generate sausage-selling PR. Less for featuring Jesus as a sausage, more for being un-original, predictable little try-hard idiots that are evidently in the midst of some sort of life crisis. Cowardly little try-hard idiots, as well; they could not possibly settle for a safer target in the world, I am sure. That is was it irritating me, the hideous, naked cowardice and smugness beneath this exorcise.
No, I agree with the general outrage. Less because it steps on the memory of Jesus (who can stand being trodden on after what the Romans and two thousand years have done to him), but more because it is a calculated, unimaginative and cowardly PR move; to look like the rebellious little scamp without having to risk lives nor profits. I am sure they have their Guardians, however...
I am sure their PR department are undergoing some sort of mid-life crisis; and I hope it is long, gruelling and will remind them that they will soon die, a realisation that I hope will teach them something much more valuable than whatever the course leader on 'sausage selling 101' managed to pass on to them.
Post by: RAM on November 18, 2017, 09:49:05 pm
And let's not forget that advertising in this world, at this time, is inherently disrespectful. Saying that and advertiser is being disrespectful is redundant. If you want them to actually be respectful then you are going to have to hold them up to very much higher standards. Like forcing them to ensure that the cute little wildlife that they are using has a sustainable population. That the beautiful vistas they show their latest
Of course, the really easy target is the whole depiction of islamic prophets thing. Anyone with even a hint of awareness would plainly see that there are many people in this world who are inclined to depict things that they have heard about. Win but a trace of intellect they would further be incapable of missing that their efforts at evangelism involve constantly extolling the virtues of their religion, which is basically all based upon one guy, and that maybe, just maybe, people outside of their own little land of indoctrination about all their various rules and regulations might hear about it. If they hand even the remotest inclination towards personal integrity then they would put two and two together and realise that any depictions that occur as a result of this have absolutely nothing to do with anyone else and are entirely a consequence of their own actions, and thus any blame for it is entirely upon them for their idiotic policies and nobody else is at fault for following the extremely obvious course of action that stems from those ignorant foolish irresponsible and flawed policies.
People have to accept that in their efforts to increase membership, their religion became public domain, and it is no longer theirs to control or identify with. Feel free to claim total ownership over your own personal use of that religion, but the public image was given away and nobody has any ownership rights by which to be insulted over the handling of that public image.
Post by: Trekkin on November 19, 2017, 01:23:15 am
I shall confess; I would riot. I would be enraged, furious, horrified and truly quite offended. I would throw the damned thing into the fire-place; for both Jesus and Mohammed's sake, because neither would be part of such a ridiculous scheme, I am sure.
While I'd be very glad it existed and very disappointed to see it go. Everyone needs their sacred cows turned into hamburgers every now and again, just as a reminder that cows are real to everyone in a way that sanctity is not-- and an inducement to make their peace with that fact in a way that does not necessitate doing nasty things to unbelievers. There isn't a belief out there that someone won't try to shatter just to see the look on the believers' faces; likewise, caring about things invites their graphic, public destruction simply because it will make someone mad or sad and that's funny. Faith demands contempt, equanimity calls for provocation, and stoicism is seen as a personal affront -- but react and it gets infinitely worse, because all attention validates their search for proof they matter.
The world is awash with tiny people with big mouths who would burn it all down just to feel something again, and they'll start with whatever you show them. Accept that, and the trolls wash over you. Fight it, and they fight back, and they will always outnumber you.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 19, 2017, 01:48:45 am
Post by: Descan on November 19, 2017, 11:54:24 pm
the usage of racial slurs being permitted by the slurred racial group(Which succeeds in perpetuating the presence of the slur by perpetuating its use, perpetuating its status as a terrible terrible thing by denouncing its use, and legitimises the slur by being an openly racist policy that is seen as acceptable. It is basically the worst possible thing that you can do if you want to stop the slur from being used offensively. This is mostly off topic but serves to highlight how ridiculous something can seem when viewed externally and thus serves to illustrate the issues presented by my argument.)Wow. You... Really don't understand anything about that, do you?
Post by: RAM on November 20, 2017, 12:35:40 am
Wow. You... Really don't understand anything about that, do you?
Post by: Egan_BW on November 20, 2017, 12:45:31 am
Wow. You... Really don't understand anything about that, do you?
wow look at this intelligent and constructive convo were having
Post by: Descan on November 20, 2017, 01:37:31 am
Post by: Trekkin on November 20, 2017, 01:42:18 am
since like, five seconds of google would tell you why you're wrong, there's no point in saying anything beyond a "wow how do you even survive"
Can I please sig this. Please. This is the Internet in a sentence.
Post by: RAM on November 20, 2017, 01:54:16 am
wow look at this intelligent and constructive convo were havingWell I would love to address actual arguments, but, well, apparently people aren't capable of doing anything more that calling me ignorant, which doesn't really qualify as an argument... I mean, I could maybe counter it by providing my life story, but that isn't really practical and doesn't really make for much of an argument either... I was rather hoping that it would illustrate just how empty the comment really was, but I guess it only half-worked because you seem to have attributed me as having the same lack of interest in rationality and (apparently) further attributing me as having a lack of originality...
But mostly it was off-topic and thus not worth actually engaging formally. I cited an example in the interests of being fair to religion by citing that this was not only a problem with religious issues. It is easy to get into an argument over religion being responsible for a property when the actual argument is that religion merely possesses such a property. People often expect others to be familiar with their culture, even while not a part of, or even directly in contact with that culture. Religion is a particularly potent example of this because bits and pieces of it are heavily distributed, deliberately, and people get extremely sensitive about its portrayal, which is extremely stupid when you put the two facts together. But Discrimination, especially racial, given the cultural separations that tend to surround race, is also a similar case. Not quite so heavily distributed but it still gets around, especially the language separate from its meaning(which yes, if people had much sense they would try to negate that meaning rather than exacerbating it, but I do understand that people lack sense, also, if you had actually read what I wrote you might have noticed that I explicitly cited it as an example of someone's culture not making sense to an outsider. So, ugh, thankyou for agreeing with me? but no thankyou for choosing to insult me instead of, you know, actually carrying on some sort of actual debate, or being on topic, or...) and sometimes slurs can be identical to terms with completely different etymologies and people are perfectly capable of being provoked to violence because they think that someone is being offensive according to their culture even when they are completely immersed in a different part of the world with a different culture in which their racial issues are not relevant.
So yes, this is not just religion being stupid. Lots of things are stupid about expecting people to treat the stuff they ship overseas as though it was the most sacred thing in the world. It is stupid whether it is religious or not. You can place your own standards over people within your own religion, but it is not justified to expect the same of those outside of it. Even if they are tentatively following the same religion but it turns out that they are doing their own flavour of it... so it basically isn't okay ever, because you really can't know if they are part of your group or not because these things splinter off into subgroups all the time, and it is questionable as to how much consistency you can expect even of people who claim to be in the same group.
If you are not actually trying to get people to join your religion, then you can reasonably expect them to treat it with some respect, on account of them actually having to find out about your religion somehow, and if they don't respect it then they probably don't know enough to properly debase it. If your religion has a policy of recruitment though? Then tough luck...
But if you disagree, then feel free to submit angry letters to all the people who abuse the identities of Hades, Hel, Kali, Anubis...
since like, five seconds of google would tell you why you're wrong, there's no point in saying anythingRemoved the things that you did not, in fact, say. It begs the question as to why you would say anything at all.beyond a "wow how do you even survive"
Post by: Toady One on November 20, 2017, 02:21:35 am
Post by: TD1 on December 03, 2017, 02:18:55 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 03, 2017, 02:36:13 pm
Post by: smjjames on December 03, 2017, 03:07:04 pm
Wat. (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/christians-should-pray-for-prince-george-to-be-gay-church-minister-says-a3707996.html)
Given that the church minister is Scottish, I guess it should surprise no one that he's being critical of the monarchy.
That breaks the thread guidelines, yeah, though th4dwarfy1 is just going "what the?" at it.
@ToadyOne there's another religion thread or two floating around I believe.
Post by: Rose on December 03, 2017, 05:21:06 pm
Nice to know there's a name for it.
Post by: redwallzyl on December 03, 2017, 10:15:28 pm
Do I discovered recently that I'm Deist.Whats the difference between deist and theist? There are to many ists to keep track of.
Nice to know there's a name for it.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 03, 2017, 10:32:59 pm
Theists just believe in the existence of God or gods.
Post by: Rose on December 03, 2017, 10:49:23 pm
1: God did create the Universe.
2: Any person or book claiming to contain his word is false.
Post by: Arx on December 04, 2017, 01:36:28 am
Post by: Rose on December 04, 2017, 02:10:47 am
Simplest way to explain my reasoning is this:
Either A: holy book x is the only one out of millions that holds the true word of god.
or B: There is no holy book that actually contains the word of god, all are written by humans.
B seems more likely.
Post by: RAM on December 04, 2017, 03:30:40 am
Did god have a plan as to how things would turn out? Or would that not even matter...
Do you have any thoughts on whether god is coming back?
If none of these, what influence do you think people are likely to get out of this religion?
Post by: Rose on December 04, 2017, 06:03:23 am
Post by: Arx on December 04, 2017, 06:06:08 am
There's a very real possibility that I could be wrong.
Simplest way to explain my reasoning is this:
Either A: holy book x is the only one out of millions that holds the true word of god.
or B: There is no holy book that actually contains the word of god, all are written by humans.
B seems more likely.
That's fair.
Post by: Yoink on December 04, 2017, 06:15:35 am
Which is something that is typically referred to as "agnostic" in everyday conversation, confusingly enough. ??? Of course I could be misremembering.
Not sure why I decided to post in here just now after so long... I suppose it's since I am currently reading a certain religious text for the first time out of idle curiosity and this thread happened to pop up on the front page of GD. Also, I am hungry. My actions often become somewhat irrational when I am effected by either hunger or exhaustion, especially if I am browsing the internet in such a state.
Edit: wait, no, according to my googlings just now the meanings of the term are entirely different from the ones I found in the past.
This is rather aggravating. Why does every site seem to have a different definition for both "gnostic/agnostic" and "theist/atheist"? >:(
Half of the websites in questions are dodgy little forums and such, too. Ugh, Wikipedia, why can't you help me out here? I gave you three dollars just the other day. Jerk.
Can anyone here explain the terms I mentioned above? I thought I had them figured out but apparently not.
Edit2: Good grief, according to a chart I found on one of the aforementioned forums, a "gnostic atheist" is pretty much the opposite of what I am, and probably the type of belief I find most distasteful of all. Ummm. I'm glad I've never thrown around such terms outside of Bay12, despite having done what I thought was reliable research. o_o;
Quote
There is no god. = gnostic atheistIs the above accurate? It seems I am an agnostic theist after all. Although it seems a very clumsy and specific term, really... I think I kinda just prefer the "agnostic" part, with just a moderate leaning towards the "theistic". I don't really know. Any, all or no religions could be correct. It is unknowable to me and until I either die or have some weird Truth revealed to me (whilst not under the influence of psychedelics) it doesn't seem like that will change, so there is little sense in stressing over it.
I don't believe in god. = agnostic atheist
There is a god. = gnostic theist
I believe in god. = agnostic theist
Post by: Arx on December 04, 2017, 07:02:18 am
It's also complicated by the fact that Gnosticism was its own religious movement shortly after the birth of Christianity (or thereabouts, if I'm recalling right).
Typically, though, gnostic implies certainty and agnostic implies uncertainty.
Post by: Trekkin on December 04, 2017, 10:24:22 am
Well, part of the problem is that those terms have been used to mean multiple very different things throughout history and people have gotten sloppy with which term they use for what. Gnosticism, for example, can refer to either a general belief that the existence of one or more gods is knowable or a very specific set of beliefs originating in the second century CE. Thus, it is possible to be small-g gnostic and not at all Gnostic -- and that's just one of the many overloaded terms people throw around.
That said, in general the gnostic-agnostic and theist-atheist spectra you describe get less orthogonal at the atheist/agnostic end, since people who believe that the existence of a god is not only unknown but unknowable also tend to disbelieve in the existence of the kind of interventionist god whose existence would be deducible through things like the rigorous testing of the effectiveness of prayer. On the flip side, many religions are strongly gnostic, believing that the existence of a god is not only knowable but known and proven by whatever set of prophets and revelations they may endorse. Then you get into the question of whether anything about a god may be known beyond their existence, and some people use (a)gnosticism to reflect their beliefs about what can be known about the nature of any given god. It is possible to be both a Deist and an apathetic agnostic in this sense, for example: believing that the world is the product of at least one god and also that their purpose in doing so and opinion on the results is incomprehensible to humans.
With the above in mind, then:
Strong agnostics believe they can't know.
Weak agnostics believe they don't know.
Apathetic agnostics of either stripe believe knowing wouldn't get them anywhere even if they could.
Ignostics believe that the whole question of the knowability of a god depends on having a coherent definition of what a god is, without which the whole business isn't a useful line of inquiry.
Then you have theists and atheists. All atheists don't believe in some aspect of gods generally, but there's variance in whether they simply don't believe (implicit) or actively disbelieve as a result of conscious rejection of belief(explicit). Thus, newborns could be called implicit atheists. Then you have weak and strong atheism. Weak atheists don't believe in any gods, but don't assert that no gods exist. Strong atheists, who are by extension explicit atheists, actively assert that no gods exist. Then there are the apatheists and pragmatic atheists who simply don't believe that the question of the existence of a god is interesting or relevant to their lives. Theists, of course, actively believe in at least one god.
Now, it's also possible to believe in some aspects of a god without others, or to think some are knowable but not others, which is where a lot of the confusion comes in. One can loosely divide beliefs about the existence of a god into three categories:
1. Belief that a god deliberately created the universe (or otherwise began causality)
2. Belief that a god actively influences the universe according to their will
3. Belief that a god has some influence over what (if anything) happens to us after we die.
So you get people who believe in 1 but not 2 and call themselves Deists, or 2 but not 1 and think a god happened upon an existing universe and started manipulating it (this could be considered congruent with the Nasadiya Sukta) and so on and so forth. Then people need a way to describe those beliefs, and so add more terms to an already confusing pile.
Post by: smjjames on December 04, 2017, 10:58:14 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 04, 2017, 11:20:48 am
The early Christians had a myriad of groups who would be condemned for heresy and exterminated over time, most famously Arianism, who's founder was punched in the face by Santa Claus.
Post by: Teneb on December 04, 2017, 11:24:58 am
I thought the Gnostics were those who had a different interpretation of Jesus and were the group that the Early Church really cracked down on while consolidating the bible. Which sounds a bit silly since everybody these days has a slightly different interpretation of Jesus.No. Gnosticism was a non-abrahamic religion that had more than a few similar elements. Simplifying it, Gnosticism states that there is a superior, all-powerful God who divided themself into two, who then divided, and so on and so forth, with every division resulting in weaker spirits. At some point in the chain, one such spirit, the Demiurge, created a world and trapped a bunch of lesser spirits there as mortals - humans - and ruled as the one true god. They, however, had the bad luck of appearing during a time where Christianism was gaining strength... and parallels can be drawn between the abrahamic God and the Demiurge.
Nicaea-era christianity craked down primarily on Arianism (Jesus was not God or his actual son, but was metaphysically adopted) and Nestorianism (There was a human Jesus and a divine Jesus who were not the same Jesus).
Post by: smjjames on December 04, 2017, 11:31:36 am
Anyhoo, I'd fully expect new religions cropping up when we start doing permanent offworld colonies.
Post by: Teneb on December 04, 2017, 11:52:31 am
Anyhoo, I'd fully expect new religions cropping up when we start doing permanent offworld colonies.No need for that, quite a few new ones appeared in the 20th century, plus a bunch of revived ones. Most are in the neo-pagan group, though there are a few that don't match that category, such as some alien cults (not counting Scientology, who is legally a corporation and all-around Bad Stuff).
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 04, 2017, 12:12:08 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 04, 2017, 12:13:37 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 04, 2017, 12:16:52 pm
HOWEVER, since it is technically Christian to the church, if it was settled by those of another belief, it could very well have a crusade called upon it, no? Is that not the inception of the Crusades?
Post by: smjjames on December 04, 2017, 12:24:20 pm
Ah damn. I thought that was a joke, but according to Papal law it does indeed appear they have some claim on the Moon, though it is unclear who specifically has overlordship of it.
HOWEVER, since it is technically Christian to the church, if it was settled by those of another belief, it could very well have a crusade called upon it, no? Is that not the inception of the Crusades?
I think the Crusade thing is only called if it's a holy site. Every single one of those crusades was a disaster anyway.
Still, I wonder what the context behind the declaring the Moon to be under the bishopric of Orlando was. Sounds like something you'd do to pre-empt people being stupid.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 04, 2017, 12:26:29 pm
Post by: Teneb on December 04, 2017, 12:30:25 pm
Ah damn. I thought that was a joke, but according to Papal law it does indeed appear they have some claim on the Moon, though it is unclear who specifically has overlordship of it.Nope. The First Crusade was requested by the Roman Emperor Alexios I Komnenos who wanted to repel the Turkish encroachment on Anatolia. Urban II acquiesced the request, through the Council of Clermont, and made the conquest of Jerusalem a secondary goal. That goal soon evolved to be the primary goal.
HOWEVER, since it is technically Christian to the church, if it was settled by those of another belief, it could very well have a crusade called upon it, no? Is that not the inception of the Crusades?
The Crusade itself was split into two parts: the People's Crusade, that made its way across Europe, massacring Jews along the way, until reaching Anatolia where they were utterly defeated by the Seljuk Turks; and the Princes' Crusade, the official one, that captured Nicea in 1097, Antioch in 1098 (and conducted a massacre of Jews and Muslims there) and finally Jerusalem in 1099 (again killing a bunch of Jews and Muslims). Most of the conquered territories were given to the Latin crusader realms, namely the Principality of Antioch and the County of Edessa. This caused attrition with the Roman Empire, who wanted the Levant returned to them. Of course, most crusaders treated the war as a pilgrimage and soon returne home to Europe, leaving the region poorly-defended and thus giving way to muslim retaliation and the following crusades.
Post by: smjjames on December 04, 2017, 12:36:21 pm
It's all stuff that will have to be dealt with eventually anyway.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 04, 2017, 12:37:33 pm
Post by: Teneb on December 04, 2017, 12:38:53 pm
What if there are multiple home ports though?The first one, of course.
Post by: smjjames on December 04, 2017, 12:42:18 pm
Assuming that the Catholic Church continues to exist...
It seems pretty self sustaining at this point.
Post by: Teneb on December 04, 2017, 12:44:07 pm
Yeah, the Vatican is still the strongest christian group around.Assuming that the Catholic Church continues to exist...It seems pretty self sustaining at this point.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 04, 2017, 12:48:13 pm
It's happened before. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution) Don't count a nonreligious future out just yet.
Post by: smjjames on December 04, 2017, 12:52:58 pm
Edit: Also what MSH said, even if the Catholic Church survives in name, it won't be the same as it is now.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 04, 2017, 01:03:45 pm
The Catholic Church wouldn't be quite the same 200 years from now, just as the church now isn't quite the same as it was 200 years ago. The Catholic Church doesn't like to change, but it does change over time, usually slowly.
Edit: Also what MSH said, even if the Catholic Church survives in name, it won't be the same as it is now.
I mean the Church has very little power nowadays and has had steadily less and less over time. That power has gone to sovereign states who are the ones who have gradually secularized over the years.
EDIT: and as society has secularized as well.
Post by: Teneb on December 04, 2017, 04:41:57 pm
The Catholic Church wouldn't be quite the same 200 years from now, just as the church now isn't quite the same as it was 200 years ago. The Catholic Church doesn't like to change, but it does change over time, usually slowly.
Edit: Also what MSH said, even if the Catholic Church survives in name, it won't be the same as it is now.
I mean the Church has very little power nowadays and has had steadily less and less over time. That power has gone to sovereign states who are the ones who have gradually secularized over the years.
EDIT: and as society has secularized as well.
sovereign states who are the ones who have gradually secularized
society has secularizedGreat joke.
Post by: TD1 on December 04, 2017, 04:55:31 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 04, 2017, 09:13:57 pm
The Catholic Church wouldn't be quite the same 200 years from now, just as the church now isn't quite the same as it was 200 years ago. The Catholic Church doesn't like to change, but it does change over time, usually slowly.
Edit: Also what MSH said, even if the Catholic Church survives in name, it won't be the same as it is now.
I mean the Church has very little power nowadays and has had steadily less and less over time. That power has gone to sovereign states who are the ones who have gradually secularized over the years.
EDIT: and as society has secularized as well.sovereign states who are the ones who have gradually secularizedsociety has secularizedGreat joke.
I mean compared to 100, 200 years ago.
Post by: TD1 on December 05, 2017, 09:00:08 am
Post by: smjjames on December 11, 2017, 04:40:21 pm
No Christian really wants to call out another Christian.As the resident Catholic I'd like to chime in here and say that Luther was an antisemitic, bigoted, kill-the-poor thunderstorm-fearing yellowbelly, while Henry VIII. was a horny bastard who should've been given the Louis XVI. treatment. And don't even get me started on Mormons.
Wouldn't it be correct to say that Christianity began as a cult? The origins of religions that date back before writing was developed are murkier, but Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism all started with one person starting a group and it growing from there. Same and similar for all of the other stuff that have arisen since.
Post by: Rose on December 11, 2017, 10:25:28 pm
Post by: smjjames on December 11, 2017, 10:36:26 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 11, 2017, 10:59:45 pm
The other part was that it promised hella rewards in the afterlife. Live your whole life chaste? Dude, you're like a king in heaven for that shit! Don't kill anyone? Guaranteed mansion on God's street.
Finally, Rome's aggressive religious pluralism was basically like "Yo, you have a different god? That's chill he's part of the pantheon now, just pay your taxes, okay?"
Post by: redwallzyl on December 11, 2017, 11:36:54 pm
Finally, Rome's aggressive religious pluralism was basically like "Yo, you have a different god? That's chill he's part of the pantheon now, just pay your taxes, okay?"Well unless you didn't like them putting statues of the emperor in your holy temple that is.
Post by: Descan on December 12, 2017, 01:17:18 am
Wiki: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_ancient_Roman_religion#religio) "neglecting the religiones owed to the traditional gods was atheism, a charge leveled during the Empire at Jews,[435] Christians, and Epicureans.[436] Any of these moral deviations could cause divine anger (ira deorum) and therefore harm the State."
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 12, 2017, 01:26:27 am
Post by: Rolan7 on December 12, 2017, 02:25:24 am
And yet Christianity overtook the Roman Polytheism.Thanks evidently to one formerly pagan ruler who happened to be in charge of the empire, had a vision, then worked even beyond his already-formidable station to establish his notion as the new official-ne-death religion in an area that spans the globe.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 12, 2017, 02:37:37 am
Post by: scriver on December 12, 2017, 02:39:26 am
Post by: Teneb on December 12, 2017, 06:34:12 am
But Christianity was marginalized for several reasons: their rituals sound horrible if you don't know anything about it (drowning babies (baptism), cannibalism (eucharist), and so on), they went around pissing people off by saying their gods were actually either fakes or demons and that they were going to be eternally tortured over it, being pacifists and as such in conflict with Rome's militarist culture, denying the divinity of the Agustus, and so on.
Once Constantine converted, though, things changed. Everyone in the roman elite who wanted to be in his good graces converted too, and while maybe they didn't truly believe, their descendants eventually did. The oppressed christians became dominant, and, as we all know, the moment you put an oppressed group in power the first thing they do is start oppressing everyone else. Such is life.
Post by: TD1 on December 12, 2017, 11:20:53 am
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 12, 2017, 11:22:57 am
And boy, did they have fun with the oppression. :P
Much oppression, so wow. Very inquisition, yes.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 12, 2017, 02:44:09 pm
Post by: smjjames on December 12, 2017, 03:28:58 pm
And yet Christianity overtook the Roman Polytheism.
And yet somehow Poseidon/Neptune made it in as a saint, or at least theres a saint (greek I think) who seems a heck of a lot like Poseidon.
Might have been this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas who, incidentially, is the same Saint Nick that Santa Claus is based off of.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 12, 2017, 09:52:52 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 13, 2017, 04:42:22 am
Post by: RAM on December 13, 2017, 05:52:03 am
If humanity is not designed to be compatible with worship, it seems rather cruel, and, well, stupid, to expect them to succeed at a task which doesn't match their design specifications.
Now, the exact specifics of such innate discernment of the correct method of worship could be difficult to come up with, assuming that the being doing the designing is limited, especially if the design is supposed to be able to choose not to worship, but it should be possible. A simple mental block to cause them to be incapable of noticing that everyone that sought something to worship found exactly the same thing regardless of their methods ought to suffice... But given the massive range of different methods of worship, many vehemently incompatible, such as whether human life is sacred and must be maintained, sacred and must be offered up in blood rituals, or not sacred at all and it is far more important to die gloriously than to prolong life... Polytheism and monotheism can be two different ways of looking at the same situation, but then some religions ruin that by making direct digs at the alternate concept. Some religions have chosen people and the rest of the world doesn't matter, some have rules against sitting idly by while people need to be converted... it just isn't plausible to believe that humanity falls into the range of beings that can reasonably be expected to successfully worship any one scenario of theology. And if such were the case, it at least rules out the possibility that a sane, or even coherent being designed humanity and intended for them to worship an exclusive religion. religions that are permissive of members espousing the correctness of other religions would still be potentially somewhat viable though...
Post by: Egan_BW on December 13, 2017, 01:42:54 pm
Post by: scriver on December 13, 2017, 03:00:41 pm
Fools, you have no perception! The stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high.
We must crush him completely, so like John before him this Poseidon must die
For the sake of the nation, Poseidon must die
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 13, 2017, 03:07:15 pm
PPPOOOSSSEEEIIIDDDOOONNN!!!
Post by: TD1 on December 13, 2017, 03:21:13 pm
Post by: RAM on December 13, 2017, 04:31:03 pm
Of course. Christians say that you already know who you should be worshipping and if you say otherwise you're lying. -_-But the what of the people who are on the right path, and have god's assistance to be on the right path, but leave it? And what of the parable of the workers who join at different times of the day? The worker who works all morning but gets too much sun and decides that they really aren't going to survive a life of field-work so heads inside to recover, while someone else works for the evening... They both do the same work but only one gets paid. It is a pretty terrible contract that specifies that you don't get any compensation at all unless you completely finish all of your own contributions. Honestly, I kind of suspect that the best argument against religion is "Just assume for a moment that God is a dodgy used-car salesman.". Like, what if Buddha didn't have a great transcendent epiphany, but just got drunk and stumbled blindly into a wad of transcendence energy and has since being trying to sell the world on their nobility when they are more of a drunken lout who is completely full of it... Would Buddhist teachings actually look any different? You never want to go into business with Darth Vader. Sure, he has the money, and pays generously and on time, but he is beyond reproach. If Darth Vader just swoops in and says "I changed the deal, deal with it." then you have no recourse, you can't even review him as a bad client...
Post by: Rolan7 on December 14, 2017, 02:38:19 pm
The painful irony is that they're trying to push this through via *tax plan*, but nobody's considering taxing these political churches.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/10/tax-bills-repeal-johnson-amendment-could-cost-taxpayers-more-than-1-billion/852554001/
^ This is pointing out that political donors would be able to donate to churches (or even "churches"), avoiding tax. I've always seen churches as somewhat political, but that depends a lot on the individual church. This change *would* be abused, by churches-in-name-only if nowhere else.
Taxing churches would solve this, and it's something I've always kinda wanted, but I get that that would technically violate separation of church and state. This change DESTROYS separation of church and state by allowing churches, if they choose, to be tax-exempt lobbying mechanisms.
And I've seen "churches" formed by Libertarians etc simply to prove political points - so I'm not accusing Christians of anything here. This is (more) about lobbyists than preachers.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 14, 2017, 02:50:29 pm
They'll lose this influence battle. God is Dead, after all. Politics is way more actually important to people, and so the churches will be the ones that move, the ones that are sworn off by their internal dissenters whenever an election passes (just look at what happened when Trump was elected!), and the ones that lose all relevance to their communities.
I don't want to see the Johnson Amendment repealed, but if it does...bring it on. I'm ready for American churches to get their last hurrah and then accelerate straight into the ground.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 14, 2017, 03:09:21 pm
Separation of Church and State is very, very necessary.
Post by: TD1 on December 14, 2017, 03:18:46 pm
TBF, though, one of my best friends is devout. They're also rather laid back about it, and whilst they've tried to do conversion-like stuff before, they take no for an answer. I think he tries it because Church tells him he morally has to, which is kinda sad. Anyway, many devouts are crazed, not all :P
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2017, 08:50:27 pm
Meanwhile, my worship of the (non)-gods of the gaps, believing in the forests I grew up in... That's not going to take off. It simply is what is.
I could say that the power is everywhere, that it's where we choose to put meaning. And then make a meaningful claim that that power affects us return.
That it claims us as we created it, and one shouldn't turn their back on the Lands they grew up in. Not fully.
Post by: smjjames on December 28, 2017, 08:58:42 pm
If you want to go with "religions have their own spiritual genetic code and the battle of faiths is just an extension of evolution", go ahead and run with it.
edit: Theres also the possibility you're drunk atm and thus not making complete sense.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2017, 09:08:29 pm
If you want to go with "religions have their own spiritual genetic code and the battle of faiths is just an extension of evolution", go ahead and run with it.This is what I meant. The survival of faiths is almost or entirely the result of selection, in the biological sense. The faiths which survive are good at conversion and resistant to deconversion. Monotheisms, which offer a single vague answer to the MANY questions of the universe. Which absorb the many small gods into lesser ones, into one.
*spit*
edit: Theres also the possibility you're drunk atm and thus not making complete sense.There is also this.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 28, 2017, 09:23:43 pm
Post by: smjjames on December 28, 2017, 09:29:30 pm
If you want to go with "religions have their own spiritual genetic code and the battle of faiths is just an extension of evolution", go ahead and run with it.This is what I meant. The survival of faiths is almost or entirely the result of selection, in the biological sense. The faiths which survive are good at conversion and resistant to deconversion. Monotheisms, which offer a single vague answer to the MANY questions of the universe. Which absorb the many small gods into lesser ones, into one.
*spit*edit: Theres also the possibility you're drunk atm and thus not making complete sense.There is also this.
Doesn't explain how Hinduism survived despite co-existing with at least one monotheistic religion (not sure if Buddhism counts as a religion or as a philosophy for the sake of discussion) for centuries and I don't think Hinduism is big on active conversion. Though it does have a monotheistic aspect to it.
The proccess of Christianity replacing the Roman/Greek pantheon isn't entirely clear (to me at least), however, some of the adoption was political, especially after Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion. Also, Christianity displacing, destroying, and sometimes even assimilating parts of, other religions didn't come about via "which one is better adapted", it was effectively the spiritual version of the zerg since much of the conversion was done at the point of a sword.
Even then, Christianity still picked up a lot of pagan stuff, the signs are everwhere if you know what to look for.
Just because its genetically successful doesn't mean I won't call the obsessive drive to convert people not Fucked Up. Just like there are various creatures and behaviors that are successful in the natural world which I think are pretty Fucked Up!
The obsessive drive to convert people was a critical survival trait early on, obviously.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2017, 09:51:04 pm
The process of Christianity replacing the Roman/Greek pantheon isn't entirely clear (to me at least), however, some of the adoption was political, especially after Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion.To me neither, tbh. How did a cult of a cult achieve such heights? I can't say whether it was sex or simply open-minded chance.
Or I guess, to stay impartial, divine provenance.
How did monotheism replace the inherent obvious default situation that there are many things in the dark?
Post by: smjjames on December 28, 2017, 09:57:32 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2017, 10:07:09 pm
A cult like any other. What impact should they have on what I experienced, by a river, with my mother?
How might they decide that my experience is false?
What revelation reaches so far as to invalidate such personal experience?
And how are we to recognize any such revelation?
Post by: RAM on December 28, 2017, 10:12:38 pm
The obsessive drive to convert people was a critical survival trait early on, obviously.Whic only goes to prove that humans are stupid. If conversion is so important, and god is so powerful, then it would have already happened. Claim free will all you like, God is supposed to have designed humanity, and if a whole mess of humans hear "the good word" and say "nope" then that is a flaw in the programming. It is like blaming nails for not being sharp enough after you bought the cheapest possible moulds for your nail factory...
If "the good word" was so important, then it would have been spread faster. Whole generations went by just waiting for it to reach them. Whole people's lives passed with no chance at salvation, not because the message wasn't out, but because god apparently has no understanding of or preparation for distribution. I mean, entire regions' worth of souls going to waste because god couldn't be bother to so much as get a few bible-bashers lost in a cave only to emerge on the far side of the world? Or washed ashore in a strange land? I mean, the world has all this ocean, it meant that a whole mess of people didn't have the slightest hope of being "saved" for the better-part of two millennia, there are people who still haven't had any meaningful contact with it. God supposedly designed the world, all that isolating ocean included, and couldn't be bothered to so much as lift a finger even though apparently it is really important to spread this message out everywhere. Didn't even send a dream to cross the ocean or anything. A bunch of heathen vikings could figure it out, but god? The lazy liar just doesn't care about souls so long as it has enough to fill its belly in time for tea-time...
For brevity:
The more important evangelism is to a religion, the more dependent it is upon that evangelism to be successful in order to demonstrate its own validity. If it reaches the point that membership is required for even the slightest measure of success, then it becomes necessary for everyone to have access to it in order to demonstrate that the subject of the religion actually cares about universal success. And given that "success" in this instance means avoiding an eternity of torment, or summary execution, at "god's" discretion, it is immediately obvious that the god in question is either feeble or malevolent, neither makes spending an eternity with the thing an attractive offer. At least an eternity of torment leaves me trapped with a self that I can tolerate.
Post by: smjjames on December 28, 2017, 10:27:06 pm
Like John it was rather obviously from Judaism.
A cult like any other. What impact should they have on what I experienced, by a river, with my mother?
How might they decide that my experience is false?
What revelation reaches so far as to invalidate such personal experience?
And how are we to recognize any such revelation?
Dude, you're drunk, and you're walking straight into a landmine that I know you would normally avoid.
At least I think it's a potential landmine, modified by the fact that you're drunk.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2017, 10:33:41 pm
The burden of proof is on anyone trying to promote a general creed.
As I would be, IF I were trying to promote faith in my local observed anomalies.
Which I am not.
Because I didn't record them.
It's personal faith, nothing more.
Post by: smjjames on December 28, 2017, 10:39:57 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2017, 10:45:51 pm
It's a root, or a truth for many people.
And my belief in things which I've actually seen, is a cult.
That's how it is. *shrug*
Post by: TD1 on December 28, 2017, 11:08:38 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2017, 11:21:55 pm
I can simply say that you should observe the things around you, and look for miracles nearby.
And that's just as valid as any of the Abrahamic faiths which have no evidence at all.
They can barely support that Jesus even existed at all, much less that he was the person/god they claim him to be.
Post by: smjjames on December 28, 2017, 11:27:08 pm
Things I observed, which I don't have to describe or prove.
I can simply say that you should observe the things around you, and look for miracles nearby.
And that's just as valid as any of the Abrahamic faiths which have no evidence at all.
They can barely support that Jesus even existed at all, much less that he was the person/god they claim him to be.
Miracles of nature then? Like, for example, how mathematical constants repeat in nature all the time and there are elegant solutions in math that appear like organic things. Which is pretty awesome when you think about it.
Though you can believe whatever the heck you want.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2017, 11:30:30 pm
Miracles of nature then? Like, for example, how mathematical constants repeat in nature all the time and there are elegant solutions in math that appear like organic things.Yes, those might be evidence of some creation/design.
Though you can believe whatever the heck you want.
A divine watchmaker, perhaps. Someone who believes in order or balance in all things.
Doesn't really lend to believing the jews deserved all that shit, but still, maybe? Could be.
Post by: redwallzyl on December 28, 2017, 11:38:27 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2017, 11:44:02 pm
Every scientist I have ever meet has straight up stated that science can not be used to comment on things such as the existence of god as they are out of the realm of the scientific method. I also know quite a few religious scientists of various kinds. So believe what you will and don't let people tell you that God doesn't exist because "science." I hate when people do that.It's fine to believe in a god of the gaps.
I believe in a multitude of fairies of the gaps. I am not being sarcastic, my real-life experiences have supported my faith.
No scientist will ever tell you that science can disprove the things which defy definition.
My fairies, by definition, avoid analysis.
Jehovah et all, the Jewish god(s), doesn't really have such an out. And yet, people believe in him in various ways.
Post by: smjjames on December 28, 2017, 11:49:30 pm
Every scientist I have ever meet has straight up stated that science can not be used to comment on things such as the existence of god as they are out of the realm of the scientific method. I also know quite a few religious scientists of various kinds. So believe what you will and don't let people tell you that God doesn't exist because "science." I hate when people do that.It's fine to believe in a god of the gaps.
I believe in a multitude of fairies of the gaps. I am not being sarcastic, my real-life experiences have supported my faith.
No scientist will ever tell you that science can disprove the things which defy definition.
My fairies, by definition, avoid analysis.
They avoid analysis by definition? How does that work, sounds more like you don't want to analyze them, which is fine if you just want to bask in the beauty of nature or something and not dwell on the 'why is it this way?'.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 29, 2017, 12:37:48 am
Post by: RAM on December 29, 2017, 01:34:07 am
Science will never say that god does or doesn't exist, it can't, it can't say that anything does or does not exist. It CAN say if god is reliable in context. If god refuses to be tested, then science can say that god has reliably failed to be detected by any tests. Now, this is basically the default state for religion, given that people lump it into a big lump, but a lumpy-lump religion is useless, and while people spend a lot of time just enjoying their lumpy-lump religion, there come times when they have to tease a piece off of the lump and deal with something specific. Maybe they need a divine position on a moral quandary. Perhaps they want to perform a religious ceremony. Maybe they are evangelising and someone asks a specific question and they are not in the mood to just politician the question away... There are many reasons why religion would need to be something specific, and in those moment religion is actually defined, and when something is defined, it can be tested. Now, science is a matter of practicality. Not all definitions veer into the realm of the practical, so not everything can be scientifically tested, sometimes we have to use rationality or something instead, but science can do a lot. Science can demonstrate that souls do not account for any known physical phenomena. It can be that the sample size was too small and that person just didn't happen to have a soul, or that the non-biologically-synthesised human does have a soul, thus the need for large sample-sizes and control groups and such. So too might the testing apparatus be faulty, but again, testing can be rigorous to reduce this to a risk that is, from any sensible perspective, not a risk. Science can demonstrate that prayers don't change outcomes, and if you don't think that prayers are supposed to change outcomes, then you won't have a problem with that. Science can demonstrate that a holy relic possesses identical properties to an otherwise identical entity with no religious significance. Does a demonstration equal truth? No! but the rigours that science places upon its demonstrations make them more reliable than human memory or belief, unless you have never, in your whole life, come to believe that a prior belief was flawed. What did you believe when you were 5? Are you familiar with any studies into the reliability of human testimony?
Nobody believes that belief alone is sufficient. They only resort to such extremes when they are pressed. If your receive an E-mail asking for help to smuggle money away from a Somali Warlord, do you dismiss it because it is spam, or read it and judge if you believe them to be sincere, with no regard at all for your past experience or the knowledge that you have accumulated from your surroundings? Of course you base your decision on observed phenomena from your life. You may do so not-consciously. You might just embrace a truth that bubbles up from your instincts honed over al life of cautions and regrets. That doesn't mean that you are willing to accept belief in the compete absence of corroboration from consistent sources.
So no, science will never say that your worship is not accepted by a being that you have chosen. But it might just hint that you don't worship a being that exactly matches the description of what you thought yourself to worship, and if science ever does so, then it will do so with far more veracity than most any other source you could hope to find.
The existence of religious scientists is meaningless. Religions that have any hint of sanity have, like everyone else with a hint of sanity, learned that a fight with something that can make nukes is not going to be fun. Religion and science just don't have many points of contention anymore. Imagine a scientific study on torture in the midst of The Inquisition claiming that confessions were all completely unreliable. What of a study into infections that demonstrated that contributing factors had only vague correlation to religious virtues or vices, and some where outright inverted? It is extremely rare that religion will have any position at all on practical matters, it wasn't always this way...
Post by: Rolan7 on December 29, 2017, 02:23:48 am
They are literally the gods of the gaps!Every scientist I have ever meet has straight up stated that science can not be used to comment on things such as the existence of god as they are out of the realm of the scientific method. I also know quite a few religious scientists of various kinds. So believe what you will and don't let people tell you that God doesn't exist because "science." I hate when people do that.It's fine to believe in a god of the gaps.
I believe in a multitude of fairies of the gaps. I am not being sarcastic, my real-life experiences have supported my faith.
No scientist will ever tell you that science can disprove the things which defy definition.
My fairies, by definition, avoid analysis.
They avoid analysis by definition? How does that work, sounds more like you don't want to analyze them, which is fine if you just want to bask in the beauty of nature or something and not dwell on the 'why is it this way?'.
And I want to analyze them, or even let others analyze them. They are the space which we, as a species, don't yet know. The ever decreasing space.
And they are the snake I encounter while walking, too.
I seek to reduce the thing(s) I worship, and I know there will always be more.
How horrible, if there was an end.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 29, 2017, 03:12:33 am
Full of stuff that makes sense, but more of it than you could possibly count, and put together perfectly. No mere fairies could do that. It's nature.
Post by: Putnam on December 29, 2017, 07:02:00 am
Things I observed, which I don't have to describe or prove.
I can simply say that you should observe the things around you, and look for miracles nearby.
And that's just as valid as any of the Abrahamic faiths which have no evidence at all.
They can barely support that Jesus even existed at all, much less that he was the person/god they claim him to be.
Miracles of nature then? Like, for example, how mathematical constants repeat in nature all the time and there are elegant solutions in math that appear like organic things. Which is pretty awesome when you think about it.
I should note that mathematical constants in nature tend to either be overblown (phi), tautological (e in exponential decay, pi in circles) or straight up misunderstood/fabricated (phi again, mostly as relates to fibonacci spirals)
Post by: wierd on December 29, 2017, 07:11:17 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 29, 2017, 07:36:38 am
USA has completed its railgun project, producing a working railgun. However, it has not met Pentagon's standards for implementation and will not see use in combat, at least until more years or research and optimization takes place. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/) Key failures were: Its power consumption being too large for most US navy ships to feasibly use (being fitted on only 3 Zumwalt class destroyers), its rate of fire being 4.8 shots per minute instead of 10 shots per minute, and maintenance being grim with the gun wearing itself down too quickly after use.
Interestingly despite the failure of the railgun project, the High Velocity Projectile developed for the railgun is turning out to be a great success - as it can be fired from the howitzers and guns the US Army and Navy respectively already use. (https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Pentagon-to-Accelerate-Rail-Gun-Hypervelocity-Projectile-Fires-From-Army-Howitzer-101455330)
Thus by widening the platform range of the HVP, the spiritual legacy of the railgun lives on, until it is reborn in season II of railguns and spirituality
Post by: Teneb on December 29, 2017, 08:07:19 am
PLA Naval University developing railgun technology for China. (http://www.defenseworld.net/news/20900/Chinese_Naval_University_Develops_Electromagnetic_Railgun_Weapon)Finally, some true spirituality in this thread!
USA has completed its railgun project, producing a working railgun. However, it has not met Pentagon's standards for implementation and will not see use in combat, at least until more years or research and optimization takes place. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/) Key failures were: Its power consumption being too large for most US navy ships to feasibly use (being fitted on only 3 Zumwalt class destroyers), its rate of fire being 4.8 shots per minute instead of 10 shots per minute, and maintenance being grim with the gun wearing itself down too quickly after use.
Interestingly despite the failure of the railgun project, the High Velocity Projectile developed for the railgun is turning out to be a great success - as it can be fired from the howitzers and guns the US Army and Navy respectively already use. (https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Pentagon-to-Accelerate-Rail-Gun-Hypervelocity-Projectile-Fires-From-Army-Howitzer-101455330)
Thus by widening the platform range of the HVP, the spiritual legacy of the railgun lives on, until it is reborn in season II of railguns and spirituality
Post by: smjjames on December 29, 2017, 09:58:06 am
Things I observed, which I don't have to describe or prove.
I can simply say that you should observe the things around you, and look for miracles nearby.
And that's just as valid as any of the Abrahamic faiths which have no evidence at all.
They can barely support that Jesus even existed at all, much less that he was the person/god they claim him to be.
Miracles of nature then? Like, for example, how mathematical constants repeat in nature all the time and there are elegant solutions in math that appear like organic things. Which is pretty awesome when you think about it.
I should note that mathematical constants in nature tend to either be overblown (phi), tautological (e in exponential decay, pi in circles) or straight up misunderstood/fabricated (phi again, mostly as relates to fibonacci spirals)
It's still neat though.
PLA Naval University developing railgun technology for China. (http://www.defenseworld.net/news/20900/Chinese_Naval_University_Develops_Electromagnetic_Railgun_Weapon)Finally, some true spirituality in this thread!
USA has completed its railgun project, producing a working railgun. However, it has not met Pentagon's standards for implementation and will not see use in combat, at least until more years or research and optimization takes place. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/) Key failures were: Its power consumption being too large for most US navy ships to feasibly use (being fitted on only 3 Zumwalt class destroyers), its rate of fire being 4.8 shots per minute instead of 10 shots per minute, and maintenance being grim with the gun wearing itself down too quickly after use.
Interestingly despite the failure of the railgun project, the High Velocity Projectile developed for the railgun is turning out to be a great success - as it can be fired from the howitzers and guns the US Army and Navy respectively already use. (https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Pentagon-to-Accelerate-Rail-Gun-Hypervelocity-Projectile-Fires-From-Army-Howitzer-101455330)
Thus by widening the platform range of the HVP, the spiritual legacy of the railgun lives on, until it is reborn in season II of railguns and spirituality
lol
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on December 29, 2017, 11:58:52 am
Examples for the Example God! Groceries for the Groceries Throne!
Post by: Egan_BW on December 29, 2017, 03:19:13 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 04, 2018, 03:57:10 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Reading up on the taking of the Promised Land is rather interesting. Their justification for the taking of the land in particular.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 04, 2018, 04:08:18 pm
'We can take the land because it is feasible. We have the railgun technology. Goliath will fall.'Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Reading up on the taking of the Promised Land is rather interesting. Their justification for the taking of the land in particular.
Old Testament: Attack on Jericho
Post by: Rolan7 on January 04, 2018, 08:16:21 pm
Railguns, like ray spells, target touch AC. Probably do aggravated damage, too.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2018, 03:35:02 pm
That said, I am interested in when the "religion bubble" in the US is going to pop, if it hasn't already. When we'll see the heroic story of "save the old church" end with it getting sold off to be made into a gay nightclub instead of the bakesale coming through, and such. If you've got falling numbers, that's eventually got to reach a number where it spontaneously fails as an organized religion. So what number is it?
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on January 28, 2018, 04:19:00 pm
Post by: McTraveller on January 28, 2018, 04:35:12 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on January 28, 2018, 05:22:06 pm
That's the thing that would make you leave?
Ya. Fucked up shit may happen in the US of A, but nothing so ideologically clashes with my personality than modern organized religion, and seeing a resurgence in that would probably destroy what little faith I have left in humanity.
Post by: smjjames on January 28, 2018, 11:42:24 pm
As for the 'religion bubble', did it already pop for Europe or something?
Post by: Teneb on January 29, 2018, 08:17:20 am
Gen Z? Is that like post millenials or which group is that?Yeah, it's post-millenials. Seems to be 90s+. Which I thought was actual millenials, but what do I know.
As for the 'religion bubble', did it already pop for Europe or something?
Post by: Descan on January 29, 2018, 07:44:47 pm
But generations aren't real; they're lumps of people defined by birth period when births are a continual process that are unable to be seperated into distinct periods; there's no reason to separate people born 1 year apart into different "generations" and yet people act as if everyone born in 1 twenty-year period are all THIS way, and people born in a different twenty year period are entirely some OTHER personality.
Post by: TD1 on January 29, 2018, 07:58:51 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 29, 2018, 08:07:19 pm
I really fucking hope we don't see another great awakening. Count me out of the US if that happens.Why would you want to leave the USA? Shit's a dank continent unto its own
Post by: Descan on January 29, 2018, 11:27:26 pm
Not really? The idea is that different youth hoods define them generally, but not in an absolute sense.That's certainly not how (non-academic) people use them :V
Post by: TD1 on January 30, 2018, 04:08:02 am
Post by: Maximum Spin on January 30, 2018, 04:14:52 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 30, 2018, 04:31:54 pm
Here's a trailer if you don't want to spend the two hours. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qirjv48C55M&feature=youtu.be)
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 05, 2018, 09:03:22 am
Post by: IndigoFenix on February 05, 2018, 09:37:22 am
Post by: TD1 on February 05, 2018, 11:23:00 pm
More, even, because the Bible encourages selfish morality. "To achieve the kingdom of heaven you must..." "Give us this day our daily bread". It is a system whereby morality is offered as a service and salvation as payment. Meanwhile, Stormlight teaches honour for the sake of others. Goodness despite internal conflict. A selfless morality.
I wonder what would happen in a society encouraged to dwell on that with full dedication? Not that particular book, necessarily, but one with the same theme. Would it make a better nation than Christianity doctors?
Post by: Egan_BW on February 06, 2018, 12:47:16 am
Post by: TD1 on February 19, 2018, 08:03:19 am
Nowadays we also have technology which narrows that ability for credulity, so books can't proliferate it in the same way. Some obviously do make claims, but conveniently never verified ones. In the older days, they both knew they happened and believed miracles had suitable evidence, which obviously made belief more practical and grounded in reality. [/random]
Post by: Teneb on July 16, 2018, 01:05:33 pm
To kick things off, I'm rather concerned with the wave of religious fanaticism that is gripping my country. You got evangelicals (neopentescopals) actively attacking non-Christians and, the newest and more suprising devellopment, Pope-hating catholic fanatics that combine the US satanist/communist scare with plain old religious intolerance and neoliberalism because why not. I'm wondering if any other countries with a sizable catholic population are having similar stuff happen.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 16, 2018, 01:15:47 pm
For now, I'll just echo your concerns. As always I want to acknowledge that *most* Christians aren't like that. That's wonderful, and I want us all to get along. But too much of Congress is unabashedly using personal religion to choose legislation.
The Supreme Court has always been the main check on that, even when it's otherwise Conservative (to the credit of the Justices). I'm worried that newest latest Justice will weaken that check.
Post by: Doomblade187 on July 16, 2018, 01:22:15 pm
Post by: Teneb on July 16, 2018, 01:32:13 pm
I hadn't heard anything about the shift in Catholic behavior in Brazil thoughmTo be honest, you don't really hear anything about Brazil in general if you aren't in South America.
Post by: Telgin on July 16, 2018, 02:28:45 pm
I'm bumping this to the first page because people keep bemoaning that there is no religion thread, but here it is: Glorious Railgun Thread.
To kick things off, I'm rather concerned with the wave of religious fanaticism that is gripping my country. You got evangelicals (neopentescopals) actively attacking non-Christians and, the newest and more suprising devellopment, Pope-hating catholic fanatics that combine the US satanist/communist scare with plain old religious intolerance and neoliberalism because why not. I'm wondering if any other countries with a sizable catholic population are having similar stuff happen.
I don't really know enough about Catholicism to have an in depth discussion, but I can say that I heard a coworker (in the United States) get into a heated discussion with another coworker about the pope's authority over him as a Catholic. Evidently, as far as he's concerned the pope has no authority over his religious beliefs whatsoever, which came as a surprise to me and pretty much everyone else present.
Admittedly, having grown up in a Protestant community, just about everything in Catholicism seems mysterious, but as an outsider I was under the impression that the Catholic church had a very strong notion of religious authority, where the pope could (in grossly oversimplified terms) say one day that women could be priests and that would be that. That's opposed to most Protestant denominations, where there's almost no central authority, and any individual church can always decide to just do things their own way if they don't care about leaving the conference they're part of (if they're even part of one).
Clearly, this is not a correct understanding of how Catholicism works.
Post by: Grim Portent on July 16, 2018, 03:00:40 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclavism
You also get some Catholic groups that are just weird about when they care about Papal authority, or who accept the idea the Pope is in charge of the faith but don't care at all about anything he says.
Post by: Arcvasti on July 16, 2018, 03:03:41 pm
Post by: dragdeler on July 16, 2018, 03:20:06 pm
Post by: Teneb on July 16, 2018, 03:34:24 pm
My impression is that even old people don't give a damn about the pope in general, any sane person would advise their teen grandchildren to contracept in the unlikely scenario they ever happen to talk about that The pope's just part of the whole arcane ceremonial show; you get it over with because afterwards you're just glad it's over, like chores. And that's just all there is to the deal: guilt and absolution.The current Pope seems to be more than alright with contraception, so that's not really the issue here. Main complaints I've heard is that he's too liberal, not condemning homosexuals just for existing, leaning a bit towards socialism over capitalism, being ok with other religions and, of course, being argentinian.
Post by: Telgin on July 16, 2018, 03:37:04 pm
I'm fairly sure that that is a correct notion of how Catholicism works, but I'm just as sure that is mostly true because the Pope doesn't do that sort of thing very often.
This part is true enough, I guess. I know that there is some notion that the pope can't say anything that contradicts God's will, or something like that, but it only applies under extremely specific circumstances that I imagine no pope ever puts themselves in anymore for many reasons. Likewise, I imagine they don't try to change the rules in general very often for similar reasons.
It's interesting that there would be Catholic sects that disregard papal authority like that, though. As an outsider, that seems to be severing its ties with one of the things that makes it Catholic in the first place, but I guess you can still follow the traditions and claim that that's what makes someone Catholic, not the authority of a distant church figurehead.
Post by: Teneb on July 16, 2018, 03:40:33 pm
The Papacy knows better than to contest this, though.
Post by: dragdeler on July 16, 2018, 03:49:46 pm
Post by: Persus13 on July 16, 2018, 03:50:41 pm
I don't really know enough about Catholicism to have an in depth discussion, but I can say that I heard a coworker (in the United States) get into a heated discussion with another coworker about the pope's authority over him as a Catholic. Evidently, as far as he's concerned the pope has no authority over his religious beliefs whatsoever, which came as a surprise to me and pretty much everyone else present.Your coworker is probably exaggerating things to make a point, but he's largely correct (Disclaimer: I'm not a Catholic, I just read a lot about Christian religious history, and know some Catholics). The main power of the pope is that he's the head of a religious denomination and bureaucracy that over a billion people are members of. So what he says about religious matters is taken seriously, and he has some control over who gets appointed bishop and money matters. But the Catholic Church isn't and never was a one-man show, so there are plenty of people under the Pope who are also influential and counsel the pope and have their own jobs, like Vatican treasurer, or archbishop of Los Angeles, etc. So your coworker may or may not pay attention to what the pope is doing, but if he attends a church, his priest probably pays attention. And like Teneb and Grim Portent, said, Catholicism is not a monolith, and is very different in different places, because that's what happens with people.
Admittedly, having grown up in a Protestant community, just about everything in Catholicism seems mysterious, but as an outsider I was under the impression that the Catholic church had a very strong notion of religious authority, where the pope could (in grossly oversimplified terms) say one day that women could be priests and that would be that. That's opposed to most Protestant denominations, where there's almost no central authority, and any individual church can always decide to just do things their own way if they don't care about leaving the conference they're part of (if they're even part of one).
Clearly, this is not a correct understanding of how Catholicism works.
There is a doctrine of Papal infallibility that says the Pope can make statements that are without error, or ex cathedra. But those are pretty rare and there's limits over what this can be applied to. Wikipedia cites a list of 7 or so papal documents that are considered infallible, with the caveat that its not a comprehensive list. But the most recent of the 7 was from 1950. I think this is what Arcvasti is talking about.
I know pope Francis has been getting a lot of flack from conservative Catholics in the United States, some of whom are part of the Religious Right, because he's too liberal for them (mainly over the issue of divorced Catholics). I've also seen criticism of him for not doing more about reforming the papacy to prevent corruption and covering up sexual abuse, but I don't know enough about that to make a judgement on that.
Again, I'm also not a Catholic, so if any of this is wrong, feel free to correct me.
Post by: dragdeler on July 16, 2018, 03:54:25 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on July 16, 2018, 05:23:23 pm
The pope has not had the declarative power over policy for a long time. An influence sure but that power protestants imagine he has was broken centuries ago. There is however a mechanism to make large scale decisions that must be accepted, an ecumenical counsel. That has been the accepted mode of resolving disputes in the church since the beginning. When large scale reforms happen it's usually through agreements that come out of counsels.I don't really know enough about Catholicism to have an in depth discussion, but I can say that I heard a coworker (in the United States) get into a heated discussion with another coworker about the pope's authority over him as a Catholic. Evidently, as far as he's concerned the pope has no authority over his religious beliefs whatsoever, which came as a surprise to me and pretty much everyone else present.Your coworker is probably exaggerating things to make a point, but he's largely correct (Disclaimer: I'm not a Catholic, I just read a lot about Christian religious history, and know some Catholics). The main power of the pope is that he's the head of a religious denomination and bureaucracy that over a billion people are members of. So what he says about religious matters is taken seriously, and he has some control over who gets appointed bishop and money matters. But the Catholic Church isn't and never was a one-man show, so there are plenty of people under the Pope who are also influential and counsel the pope and have their own jobs, like Vatican treasurer, or archbishop of Los Angeles, etc. So your coworker may or may not pay attention to what the pope is doing, but if he attends a church, his priest probably pays attention. And like Teneb and Grim Portent, said, Catholicism is not a monolith, and is very different in different places, because that's what happens with people.
Admittedly, having grown up in a Protestant community, just about everything in Catholicism seems mysterious, but as an outsider I was under the impression that the Catholic church had a very strong notion of religious authority, where the pope could (in grossly oversimplified terms) say one day that women could be priests and that would be that. That's opposed to most Protestant denominations, where there's almost no central authority, and any individual church can always decide to just do things their own way if they don't care about leaving the conference they're part of (if they're even part of one).
Clearly, this is not a correct understanding of how Catholicism works.
There is a doctrine of Papal infallibility that says the Pope can make statements that are without error, or ex cathedra. But those are pretty rare and there's limits over what this can be applied to. Wikipedia cites a list of 7 or so papal documents that are considered infallible, with the caveat that its not a comprehensive list. But the most recent of the 7 was from 1950. I think this is what Arcvasti is talking about.
I know pope Francis has been getting a lot of flack from conservative Catholics in the United States, some of whom are part of the Religious Right, because he's too liberal for them (mainly over the issue of divorced Catholics). I've also seen criticism of him for not doing more about reforming the papacy to prevent corruption and covering up sexual abuse, but I don't know enough about that to make a judgement on that.
Again, I'm also not a Catholic, so if any of this is wrong, feel free to correct me.
Post by: Grim Portent on July 16, 2018, 05:47:56 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_ecumenical_councils
The last one was in the 60s and was the beginning of the modern Catholic church era and estranged a modest chunk of Catholics who hold that the reforms are not binding and some of them even went as far as to declare bits of them heretical.
Post by: redwallzyl on July 16, 2018, 06:01:25 pm
Post by: Persus13 on July 16, 2018, 06:26:40 pm
The pope has not had the declarative power over policy for a long time. An influence sure but that power protestants imagine he has was broken centuries ago. There is however a mechanism to make large scale decisions that must be accepted, an ecumenical counsel. That has been the accepted mode of resolving disputes in the church since the beginning. When large scale reforms happen it's usually through agreements that come out of counsels.Thanks for the mention of councils. Although the Pope does have a major role in ecumenical councils, since he's the one that usually calls for the council.
Post by: redwallzyl on July 16, 2018, 06:28:56 pm
I'm a fan of church history. It's a very interesting subject.The pope has not had the declarative power over policy for a long time. An influence sure but that power protestants imagine he has was broken centuries ago. There is however a mechanism to make large scale decisions that must be accepted, an ecumenical counsel. That has been the accepted mode of resolving disputes in the church since the beginning. When large scale reforms happen it's usually through agreements that come out of counsels.Thanks for the mention of councils. Although the Pope does have a major role in ecumenical councils, since he's the one that usually calls for the council.
Post by: Persus13 on July 16, 2018, 06:32:27 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on July 16, 2018, 07:38:45 pm
Post by: RAM on July 16, 2018, 07:59:18 pm
Most Catholic church major doctrinal decisions are made by the Ecumenical Councilhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TQuacxEjAU
Post by: TD1 on July 17, 2018, 05:46:09 am
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on July 17, 2018, 07:04:25 am
I'm a fan of church history. It's a very interesting subject.The pope has not had the declarative power over policy for a long time. An influence sure but that power protestants imagine he has was broken centuries ago. There is however a mechanism to make large scale decisions that must be accepted, an ecumenical counsel. That has been the accepted mode of resolving disputes in the church since the beginning. When large scale reforms happen it's usually through agreements that come out of counsels.Thanks for the mention of councils. Although the Pope does have a major role in ecumenical councils, since he's the one that usually calls for the council.
Church history is awesome. Up there with Dune when it comes to drama!
Post by: Rolan7 on July 17, 2018, 03:58:00 pm
Good points both.
Post by: IndigoFenix on July 18, 2018, 08:34:39 am
What are the specific circumstances that make a religion start focusing more on the afterlife? Nowadays it's near impossible to find people who believe in God but no afterlife, to the extent that most people assume that the two are intrinsically intertwined, yet history implies that this was not always the case.
Post by: Rowanas on July 18, 2018, 08:46:13 am
Fun fact that few are aware of: the Torah (Bible: Episode 1) never mentions any kind of afterlife whatsoever.
What are the specific circumstances that make a religion start focusing more on the afterlife? Nowadays it's near impossible to find people who believe in God but no afterlife, to the extent that most people assume that the two are intrinsically intertwined, yet history implies that this was not always the case.
Probably that if there is a god and they can't be observed to do anything, then their only purpose must be post-mortal management. If god's not helping us or handing out miracles, what else is it for?
Post by: Descan on July 18, 2018, 11:11:40 am
Post by: Arcvasti on July 18, 2018, 11:48:39 am
Fun fact that few are aware of: the Torah (Bible: Episode 1) never mentions any kind of afterlife whatsoever.
What are the specific circumstances that make a religion start focusing more on the afterlife? Nowadays it's near impossible to find people who believe in God but no afterlife, to the extent that most people assume that the two are intrinsically intertwined, yet history implies that this was not always the case.
It doesn't explicitly mention one, but there are parts of it that could be read as referring to an afterlife. Job's reward after all of his trials seems pretty in the spirit of an afterlife to me. There's also the one time where Samuel's spirit comes and talks to Saul, which definitely implies the persistence of the soul after death, if not an organized afterlife.
Post by: IndigoFenix on July 18, 2018, 12:00:38 pm
Fun fact that few are aware of: the Torah (Bible: Episode 1) never mentions any kind of afterlife whatsoever.
What are the specific circumstances that make a religion start focusing more on the afterlife? Nowadays it's near impossible to find people who believe in God but no afterlife, to the extent that most people assume that the two are intrinsically intertwined, yet history implies that this was not always the case.
It doesn't explicitly mention one, but there are parts of it that could be read as referring to an afterlife. Job's reward after all of his trials seems pretty in the spirit of an afterlife to me. There's also the one time where Samuel's spirit comes and talks to Saul, which definitely implies the persistence of the soul after death, if not an organized afterlife.
That's why I specified the Torah (Five books of Moses). Samuel comes a few hundred years later (and moreover even that doesn't really suggest any kind of reward or punishment in the afterlife, which is generally the crux of the issue when people talk about the afterlife in relation to religion).
As for Job, that refers to worldly reward (and is a pretty weird book any way you look at it, since it implies that divine justice can be a bit of a screwy and incomprehensible thing).
Post by: Telgin on July 18, 2018, 12:42:38 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on July 18, 2018, 02:00:41 pm
Fun fact that few are aware of: the Torah (Bible: Episode 1) never mentions any kind of afterlife whatsoever.
What are the specific circumstances that make a religion start focusing more on the afterlife? Nowadays it's near impossible to find people who believe in God but no afterlife, to the extent that most people assume that the two are intrinsically intertwined, yet history implies that this was not always the case.
It doesn't explicitly mention one, but there are parts of it that could be read as referring to an afterlife. Job's reward after all of his trials seems pretty in the spirit of an afterlife to me. There's also the one time where Samuel's spirit comes and talks to Saul, which definitely implies the persistence of the soul after death, if not an organized afterlife.
That's why I specified the Torah (Five books of Moses). Samuel comes a few hundred years later (and moreover even that doesn't really suggest any kind of reward or punishment in the afterlife, which is generally the crux of the issue when people talk about the afterlife in relation to religion).
As for Job, that refers to worldly reward (and is a pretty weird book any way you look at it, since it implies that divine justice can be a bit of a screwy and incomprehensible thing).
Ah, fair enough. I still think there's an argument to be made that Job's "Persevere through your troubles and God will reward you" deal is really close to the "modern" notion of an afterlife. There's a more tenous argument that Job's reward is a metaphor for an afterlife, but that's more my personal interpretation then how it was likely perceived before the advent ot Christianity.
Post by: TD1 on July 18, 2018, 03:28:42 pm
Who knew.
Post by: IndigoFenix on July 19, 2018, 04:12:42 am
It's probably harder to find something that wasn't sacred to anyone than to find something that was.
Post by: Descan on July 19, 2018, 01:43:15 pm
So like, "this one dog in Talbuk with a gnarly toe" or "angler fish."
Post by: Frumple on July 19, 2018, 08:37:50 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 19, 2018, 08:49:41 pm
Post by: RAM on July 20, 2018, 02:35:49 am
Post by: Egan_BW on July 20, 2018, 03:00:36 am
Post by: KittyTac on July 20, 2018, 03:11:37 am
Post by: dragdeler on July 20, 2018, 06:28:24 am
Post by: redwallzyl on July 20, 2018, 08:53:03 am
I suppose that the earliest humans were irreligious.as far as we know they were shamanistic.
Post by: KittyTac on July 20, 2018, 08:58:55 am
I meant the very earliest humans. Before any real culture formed.I suppose that the earliest humans were irreligious.as far as we know they were shamanistic.
Post by: Teneb on July 20, 2018, 09:10:07 am
Still a form of crude shamanism/animism. Unless you mean pre-sapient hominids, in which case they would be as religious as any other primate (which is to say: probably not at all, but hard to tell).I meant the very earliest humans. Before any real culture formed.I suppose that the earliest humans were irreligious.as far as we know they were shamanistic.
Post by: KittyTac on July 20, 2018, 09:14:12 am
Post by: Reelya on July 20, 2018, 09:27:47 am
From a cognitive evolution point of view however, some sort of ritual phenomena probably started growing at some point, perhaps as a group bonding thing. However, it's probably not right to call that the point of "first hominids" because all the things we take to define hominids probably started at quite different times, all gradually.
Post by: Hanslanda on July 20, 2018, 09:54:36 am
Post by: smjjames on July 20, 2018, 10:04:48 am
I'unno, you might not be able to get away with anything living, depending on how you look at it. There's some radical pacifist groups that consider basically everything alive to be sacred, iirc, so both talbukian gnarldoggo and angler fish would be included. Might have better luck with inanimate/unliving stuff, maybe.
There are sacred places, which tend to be geographical features though unless associated with things people built.
From a scientific point of view, there isn't going to be a clear "line" anywhere between pre-hominids and hominids. There was nothing special that happened at that generation compared to any other generation.
From a cognitive evolution point of view however, some sort of ritual phenomena probably started growing at some point, perhaps as a group bonding thing. However, it's probably not right to call that the point of "first hominids" because all the things we take to define hominids probably started at quite different times, all gradually.
Fun fact I saw on a nature show. Chimpanzees may 'worship' certain trees or locations. They take turns throwing rocks at the tree til all of them have done it, then move on. Could be the formation of proto-religious rituals.
Yeah, theres pretty good evidence of proto-culture and proto-religion among some non-human primates, so, theres probably no clear line anywhere as it would have been a gradual development.
Post by: RAM on July 20, 2018, 04:36:09 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on July 20, 2018, 05:14:38 pm
Post by: RAM on July 20, 2018, 10:00:26 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on July 20, 2018, 10:44:01 pm
There was this really interesting documentary that I watched about Baboons. The Baboons were fairly normal Baboons, that is to say dicks. Then all the assholeish Baboons at the top of the social ladder died due to disease. The whole culture of the group permanently changed. Suddenly they were all nice to each other and even when new Baboons came in to the group acting like assholes they now nice Baboons reformed them to be nice as well. So yes, primates do have massive behavioral influences from what you might call proto-culture. As a side note this is well known in the biological anthropological community at this point. That behavior is heavily effected by past influences even down generations. I had a professor who wanted to try and find some monkeys free from human behavioral influences in an uninhabited part of the Amazon until he realized that there had been people living their in the far past.I'unno, you might not be able to get away with anything living, depending on how you look at it. There's some radical pacifist groups that consider basically everything alive to be sacred, iirc, so both talbukian gnarldoggo and angler fish would be included. Might have better luck with inanimate/unliving stuff, maybe.
There are sacred places, which tend to be geographical features though unless associated with things people built.From a scientific point of view, there isn't going to be a clear "line" anywhere between pre-hominids and hominids. There was nothing special that happened at that generation compared to any other generation.
From a cognitive evolution point of view however, some sort of ritual phenomena probably started growing at some point, perhaps as a group bonding thing. However, it's probably not right to call that the point of "first hominids" because all the things we take to define hominids probably started at quite different times, all gradually.Fun fact I saw on a nature show. Chimpanzees may 'worship' certain trees or locations. They take turns throwing rocks at the tree til all of them have done it, then move on. Could be the formation of proto-religious rituals.
Yeah, theres pretty good evidence of proto-culture and proto-religion among some non-human primates, so, theres probably no clear line anywhere as it would have been a gradual development.
Post by: hops on July 21, 2018, 12:38:10 am
"this one dog in Talbuk with a gnarly toe"Dude, have you ever been to Thailand? We worship any animals with interesting features.
Post by: Descan on July 21, 2018, 06:13:20 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 21, 2018, 06:14:22 pm
That does explain your cult.This
Post by: Rolan7 on September 26, 2018, 06:53:25 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on September 26, 2018, 07:01:44 pm
It doesn't make sense to say that it's just nature when it is, in fact, partially us humans' fault.
Post by: Rolan7 on September 26, 2018, 07:11:23 pm
Post by: Teneb on September 26, 2018, 10:27:33 pm
Our power was just struck down, Gaia Thank You For the Rain.Bah, everyone knows that technology, and thus power distribution, is governed by spirits unaffiliated to any deity or divine power and who must be propitiated for them to maybe not fuck you over.
The rain on the roof...
Yeah, I think I deserve this.
Gaia isn't responsible for those we leave in the rain.
II've talked to a lot of people including new age crystal-healing types and though they may sound heavier on the mysticism, I've actually seen the most of... let's call it "superstition", on computer techs. IT work is a combination of work-arounds, wishful thinking and "have you turned it off and on again?".
Post by: MrRoboto75 on September 26, 2018, 10:35:36 pm
Post by: Teneb on September 26, 2018, 10:43:25 pm
Some economics is powered by animal spirits...Economics is something else entirely and worthy of a larger theological discussion that I am too tired to engage in.
Post by: smjjames on September 26, 2018, 10:51:34 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on September 26, 2018, 10:56:43 pm
Post by: MrRoboto75 on September 26, 2018, 11:05:53 pm
The theology of what in economics? or vice versa. Though it really just sounds like he was making a joke on something about economics, either the stock market or maybe Ayn Rand stuff or just economic theories that involve lots of wishful thinking in general.
Has to do with Keynesian Economic Theory, as animal spirits being the vague guts driving human behavior or something.
Post by: ggamer on September 27, 2018, 10:05:01 am
It has something to do with how predestination (the idea that God has already decided who goes to heaven) is a seperate idea than God knowing everyone who's going to hell? I think.
Post by: Teneb on September 27, 2018, 10:23:26 am
The economy thing was a joke based on how Stock Exchange economists might as well be priests trying to appease the God of Shares to keep numbers going up.
Post by: Telgin on September 27, 2018, 12:25:46 pm
I don't know if this is what Calvinists believe, but one way I've seen it handwaved is that while God knows what you'll do in the end, it's not an excuse to be a terrible person because you don't know what the end result will be, but if you're a terrible person you're definitely going to Hell. Better to try to be good and hope you were one of the chosen before time began who makes it, whatever circumstances may conspire to make that be the case or not.
These days I look at it in a different light, but with the same fundamental message. I believe in a deterministic universe (and to be sure this is almost religion since all of our evidence points to the contrary..), which means that I don't actually make decisions at all. When I decide to do something, it's for a reason. I'm writing this post because I want to share my opinion and it's relevant. I just ate something because I was hungry. I just committed some code to Git because it's my job. You can chase these "becauses" all the way back to the beginning of time and to whatever resolution you choose, and if you set them up in the same fashion and let them unfold then they should come out to the same conclusion, right? And all of my future actions are going to be based on my current situation and previous experiences, so what choice do I really have?
Of course, you can try to inject quantum mechanics and uncertainty into the mix, but I feel like that would at best add randomness, and randomness isn't really making decisions either, is it?
The only way around this that I see, which some religious people probably do ascribe to, is that there really is some supernatural element that imparts free will through quantum fluctuations that appear to be random. But... well, if you believe that God knows everything and the future then we end up back at square one of my post.
Post by: Persus13 on September 27, 2018, 02:21:35 pm
I don't know what my future looks like, so I have no idea if my choices are set or not. And while I am religious, that doesn't give me special knowledge of the future that empowers me to to make a decision on that.
Post by: Egan_BW on September 27, 2018, 06:58:23 pm
So far as I'm concerned, you can be free even if deterministic, unfree even if random, unfree if deterministic, free if random. Separate concepts, right? And if you had a soul subtly manipulating your thoughts through seemingly random quantum effects, wouldn't this make you not free? Your own natural thoughts would be controlled by something else, not physically or biologically a part of yourself.
Post by: Rowanas on September 28, 2018, 10:08:52 am
Egan, if you believe in a soul, then the soul is an element of you and is an actor in your expression of free will, rather than an external manipulator of it.
Post by: Descan on September 28, 2018, 11:13:25 pm
Post by: TD1 on September 29, 2018, 11:50:42 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 29, 2018, 02:12:25 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on September 29, 2018, 02:20:13 pm
Which is basically just Anglican
Cue Henry VIII memes.
Post by: TD1 on September 29, 2018, 04:14:37 pm
Which is basically just AnglicanWhich is basically just CoI.
Post by: Hanslanda on October 02, 2018, 09:59:25 am
Post by: Rowanas on October 02, 2018, 10:02:07 am
I meant to ask. Railguns are several sequentially activated electromagnets and a coilgun is just one long curly one right?
Exactly. Although a railgun can use a single pair of magnets, or plasma, apparently, which is pretty cool.
Post by: Teneb on October 02, 2018, 10:11:32 am
Post by: wierd on October 02, 2018, 10:14:44 am
The physics says it is possible-- I DONT CARE that it will quickly turn into a wall of searing hot gas that ceases to be magnetically confining, and thus killing its range-- I want a freaking high energy plasma shotgun! That it might burn my face off is A-OK, that's what a mylar suit is for!
/joke
Post by: Hanslanda on October 02, 2018, 11:31:21 am
I meant to ask. Railguns are several sequentially activated electromagnets and a coilgun is just one long curly one right?
Exactly. Although a railgun can use a single pair of magnets, or plasma, apparently, which is pretty cool.
Now in wiki-diving on mass drivers and plasma Railguns.
Post by: IndigoFenix on October 03, 2018, 02:38:11 am
You know, the old "Ship of Theseus" question; if you break someone into atoms and reconstruct them elsewhere, are they the same person or did you just kill them? What if you make a second copy?
Since no "vital principle" that gives matter the ability to "experience" qualia has ever been observed, Occam's Razor would suggest that it does not exist, and that anything that behaves like an "aware" being is, in fact, just as aware as anything else regardless of where it came from. However, since the ability to experience things definitely does exist (in fact, it is the only thing we can truly be certain about) it must derive from something. This suggests that awareness is a property of reality itself, and that anything with a bare minimum of certain traits has a degree of awareness.
These traits are, I believe, an ability to absorb stimuli and also to retain information about the stimulus it receives over a period of time. This would include any bit of matter, even a single atom (an atom can absorb a photon and this boosts its energy state for a time). The only difference between a human being and an atom is one of complexity; unless we assume an arbitrary threshold of complexity that spontaneously generates awareness, it stands to reason that an atom also possesses a unique view of reality, if one orders of magnitude simpler than what we are capable of experiencing.
The next bit is a bit complicated, so I'll try and simplify it by using single massive particles as "observers".
Imagine a universe with three entities: Particle A, Particle B, and Photon C. Photon C is emitted, and may be absorbed by either Particle A or Particle B. Particles A and B are both observers who represent a particular "viewpoint" of the universe; each one "perceives" a universe in which it either did or did not absorb Photon C. (If it did absorb the photon, it "experiences" a heightened energy state.)
This universe has now split into not two, but four unique perspectives, depending on which particle's perspective we are using and which event actually occurred.
Universe A-A, where A observes that it absorbed C.
Universe A-B, where A observes that it did not absorb C.
Universe B-A, where B observes that it absorbed C.
Universe B-B, where B observes that it did not absorb C.
As long as Particles A and B never interact, all of these universes can exist without any contradiction. However, once the particles interact, any mutually exclusive universes must collapse. Universe A-A cannot coincide with B-A, and A-B cannot coincide with B-B.
Now, here's the leap in logic that the bizarre theory requires: Nature abhors mutually exclusive universes. The simultaneous existence of perspectives that cannot be allowed to interact places a form of "stress" on the fabric of reality, encouraging timelines in which mutually exclusive perspectives do not occur. (I will call the force that collapses mutually exclusive universes "Arel").
The solution to this problem is to generate more complex structures that are capable of perceiving and remembering a greater slice of reality. A universe of independent atoms has little need for consensus reality; every atom can perceive the universe more or less independent of each other. But complex, living structures do not operate this way; each possesses a vast amount of information which swiftly collapses multitudes of potentially exclusive universes before they are allowed to form, lest they create a contradiction in the mind of the organism.
In order to ensure that such entities exist, the laws of physics as well as individual events are retroactively manipulated in order to bring them about in the future. This creates a universe that is conductive to the development of intelligent life. (I will call the force that retroactively manipulates the past in order to bring about a given future "Ophan").
However, it is not over yet. Humans are a crowning achievement for this cosmic drive that causes the universe to try and perceive itself in its entirety, but are far from the crowning achievement, which will not come to fruition for an unfathomable amount of time in the future. Therefore, our present is still being manipulated in order to bring about the event in which a single entity perceiving all of reality is able to be brought into existence.
Post by: KittyTac on October 03, 2018, 02:49:43 am
Post by: wierd on October 03, 2018, 02:54:35 am
This is not to say that I suggest consciousness is quantum in nature or something, just that the existence of the phenomenon (consciousness) is at least partly derived from the unpredictable dissolution of superpositioned states by the act of observing, coupled with the ability to observe.
Post by: IndigoFenix on October 03, 2018, 04:24:22 am
People just like sticking poorly understood quantum mechanics into things because it sounds sciencey. This is a philosophy question, not a physics one.
I'm for the anthropic principle. The universe is hospitable to sentient life because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here and thus, obviously, would not be able to perceive it. Makes sense and does not require anything supernatural to explain.
True. The "Nature abhors mutually exclusive universes" premise that this theory rests on is not required for an understanding of the universe as it is, and defies Occam's Razor to suggest it. However, it does allow a belief in God which is more sophisticated than "old man in the sky", more relevant than "abstract force that created the universe and then left" and has semi-predictable sapience-like properties while also being entirely inhuman and mostly ineffable. It is therefore a belief that can be used to formulate a proper religion that works in the modern age.
Post by: Egan_BW on October 03, 2018, 01:51:17 pm
If you can't prove to other people that you are actually real, then how can you prove it to yourself? If you can get a rock to say "cogito ergo sum", then how is it significant that you can say it?
Post by: Rolan7 on October 03, 2018, 03:28:08 pm
It's like the idea of being a brain in a jar, I guess. It seems possible, but I don't choose to live my life as if it's true.
Post by: Teneb on October 03, 2018, 03:39:04 pm
Solipsism is lonely, but it's all we've got /sWhat if you could be a brain in a jar with a sweet robot body?
It's like the idea of being a brain in a jar, I guess. It seems possible, but I don't choose to live my life as if it's true.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 03, 2018, 03:40:46 pm
Post by: KittyTac on October 03, 2018, 09:14:27 pm
Post by: wierd on October 04, 2018, 01:12:54 am
Is this sweet robot body fully self-repairing, and a complete Von-nueman probe type machine? (EG, is it capable of fully manufacturing and assembling all of its component parts?) Does it have some fault tolerance? How durable is it? (will I be fixing broken parts all the damn time, or is that a once ever few centuries type thing?)
Does this process fix the endemic problems with organic nervous systems? (eg, does the self-repair feature cover in-situ incremental replacement of damaged or destroyed components, such that it is transparent to the resident intelligence?)
I have a pretty high bar set on where I would be willing to sign up for body replacement, you see.
Also, is this feature set compatible with long-haul space vehicle construction requirements? (EG, is it capable of interstellar voyage, with sufficient durability to endure protracted (hundreds of thousands of earth years) periods in interstellar space without dangerous levels of degredation from ionizing radiation, and does it down-cycle the intelligence's process while undertaking the long voyage to avoid boredom induced madness? etc.)
You see, I had often contemplated what would happen if say, you took a human intelligence, plugged it into a sufficiently large neural simulation capable of redundant hosting of that human's brain, and planted that inside a suitable spaceship type body that has true self-manufacture capabilities. Since the major issue with interstellar travel is that humans just dont live long enough, and that they need too many resources en-route, doing this would fix nearly all of them.
Post by: TD1 on October 04, 2018, 06:15:13 am
Post by: wierd on October 04, 2018, 09:20:15 am
In such a circumstance, I would take quality cryonics over inferior body replacement. That would give me the time I need for treatment to become available.
But none of that "just a frozen head" bullshit. Full cryo.
Post by: dragdeler on October 04, 2018, 10:57:11 am
Post by: smjjames on October 16, 2018, 07:57:53 pm
The Russian Orthodox church is undergoing a major split with the Patriarchate of
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/world/europe/russia-orthodox-church.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20181015-russian-orthodox-church-cuts-ties-with-constantinople
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/10/16/the-russian-orthodox-church-has-broken-ties-with-orthodoxy-s-leader-here-s-what-that-s-all-about
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45870939
Also, why do people keep referring to Constantinople, there is no modern city called Constantinople, it's called Istanbul? Shouldn't the Patriarchate of 'Constantinople' be called the Patriarchate of Istanbul?
Post by: redwallzyl on October 16, 2018, 08:21:50 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 16, 2018, 08:39:40 pm
Also, why do people keep referring to Constantinople, there is no modern city called Constantinople, it's called Istanbul? Shouldn't the Patriarchate of 'Constantinople' be called the Patriarchate of Istanbul?Istanbul is literally just the Turkish transliteration of Constantinople, while the name Constantinople is the original and was an uncontroversial usage until the Turkish Republic thought Constantinople wasn't as Turkish as Istanbul and wanted everyone to use Istanbul instead on maps/post addresses 100 years ago. Constantinople and Istanbul are literally the same city
Regarding naming of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchate takes from Greek traditions, and so uses the original Greek name. Swedes had Konstantinopel, Slovenians had Konstantinopel, Hungarians had Konstantinápoly, Catalans had Constantinoble, Spanish & Portuguese had Constantinopla, Persians had Qostantaniyeh, the Maltese had Kostantinopli, Poles had Konstantynopol, Croations had Konstantinopo, Romanians had Constantinopole or Stambul (again both names for the same city), Italians had Bisanzio (Byzantium) or Costantinopoli, France had Constantinople or Stamboul (same again), Greeks call it Konstantinoupoli, Turks call it Istanbul, English call it Constantinople or Istanbul depending on who you're trying not to offend
-Note basically that the countries which have had alliances with Greece AND Turkey in the past 100 years will probably have Constantinople and Istanbul as their language's term for the city, otherwise they will have one or the other
It wasn't until it wasIt's an autocephaly dispute not a theological one so not really the same as a schism.The East-West Schism wasn't really a theological dispute either, to my knowledge.
Post by: smjjames on October 16, 2018, 08:41:46 pm
It's an autocephaly dispute not a theological one so not really the same as a schism.The East-West Schism wasn't really a theological dispute either, to my knowledge.
The wiki article section on the event that broke the proverbial camels back (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Mutual_excommunication_of_1054) is rather inadequate in describing why the two popes excommunicated each other (other than just pure yelling at each other) or what led up to the event, but it does hint at political tensions at the time.
@LW: I am perfectly aware that it's the same city, I was just venting about it being not logical to call it Constantinople when that's not the modern name, at least to me anyways.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 16, 2018, 09:01:29 pm
Post by: smjjames on October 16, 2018, 09:14:26 pm
Post by: KittyTac on October 16, 2018, 10:40:12 pm
It was a dispute over the Pope's authority.It's an autocephaly dispute not a theological one so not really the same as a schism.The East-West Schism wasn't really a theological dispute either, to my knowledge.
Post by: Descan on October 16, 2018, 10:43:43 pm
One of the more common theories behind the names origin, because honestly we don't actually know, is that it stems from the medieval Greek phrase "To/In The City," "εἰς τὴν Πόλιν," which is pronounced as [is tim ˈbolin]. At any rate, before 1928 it was basically a coin toss which word was used, but the official name was Istanbul after the Turkish Republic... Gave it an official name. Before then, the Ottoman empire used Be Makam-e Qonstantiniyyah al-Mahmiyyah, or "The protected location of Constantinople," and "İstanbul" basically interchangably - they didn't have an official name for it.
After 1928, the Turks settled on İstanbul and promoted it to other countries. It's only really since the Turks took a definitive stance on it that it's become a hot-button topic, because both words were used interchangeably by both Greek and Turkish people before then.
Post by: Persus13 on October 17, 2018, 09:22:34 am
The East West Schism was lot of different things, but theological disputes was definitely part of it. Issues like the authority of the pope and the use of filioque in the Nicene Creed and icons in worship were all theological issues. Political and cultural tensions also played a role, but then, they usually do.It's an autocephaly dispute not a theological one so not really the same as a schism.The East-West Schism wasn't really a theological dispute either, to my knowledge.
Since this goes into religio-political news from time to time....
The Russian Orthodox church is undergoing a major split with the Patriarchate ofConstantinopleIstanbul over the decision to grant independence to the Ukraine Orthodox church. It's mentioned there was a smaller split in the 1990s that lasted only a few months, but this one is bigger, supposed to be the biggest since the 1054 schism.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/world/europe/russia-orthodox-church.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20181015-russian-orthodox-church-cuts-ties-with-constantinople
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/10/16/the-russian-orthodox-church-has-broken-ties-with-orthodoxy-s-leader-here-s-what-that-s-all-about
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45870939
Also, why do people keep referring to Constantinople, there is no modern city called Constantinople, it's called Istanbul? Shouldn't the Patriarchate of 'Constantinople' be called the Patriarchate of Istanbul?
It's an autocephaly dispute not a theological one so not really the same as a schism.News headlines can be fond of hyperbole, but calling this the biggest split in Orthodox history since the Schism seems accurate, considering the size of the Russian Orthodox church.
As for Constantinople vs. Istanbul, there are locals who still refer to Ho Chi Minh City as Saigon. Names are important to people because of the meaning they carry.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 17, 2018, 04:07:39 pm
Eh, the Turkish translation of "Constantinople" is "Konstantiniyye," not "Istanbul." It's like saying "New York" is the American translation of New Amsterdam.Transliteration, not translation, though I got it wrong - it was a transliteration of εἰς τὴν Πόλιν, not Constantinopolis. I got tricked by crafty Georgians and you are correct
One of the more common theories behind the names origin, because honestly we don't actually know, is that it stems from the medieval Greek phrase "To/In The City," "εἰς τὴν Πόλιν," which is pronounced as [is tim ˈbolin]. At any rate, before 1928 it was basically a coin toss which word was used, but the official name was Istanbul after the Turkish Republic... Gave it an official name. Before then, the Ottoman empire used Be Makam-e Qonstantiniyyah al-Mahmiyyah, or "The protected location of Constantinople," and "İstanbul" basically interchangably - they didn't have an official name for it.
News headlines can be fond of hyperbole, but calling this the biggest split in Orthodox history since the Schism seems accurate, considering the size of the Russian Orthodox church.See also the dispute between Derry vs Londonderry, or Burma vs Myanmar
As for Constantinople vs. Istanbul, there are locals who still refer to Ho Chi Minh City as Saigon. Names are important to people because of the meaning they carry.
Post by: TD1 on October 17, 2018, 04:26:12 pm
As an aside, they've taken to calling it Derry/Londonderry (actually saying 'slash' when giving the name), a phrase which stirs revulsion in the hearts of all but the politically correct.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 17, 2018, 04:38:19 pm
Wait, there's a place called Derry? :PThere is unironically a Derry in the USA that was split off from another town called Londonderry in the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derry,_New_Hampshire)
As an aside, they've taken to calling it Derry/Londonderry (actually saying 'slash' when giving the name), a phrase which stirs revulsion in the hearts of all but the politically correct.
RECURSIVE MEMES
Post by: TD1 on October 17, 2018, 04:43:41 pm
Quote
The first potato planted in the United States was planted here in 1719.
Frickin' typical.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 17, 2018, 04:52:47 pm
Post by: hector13 on October 21, 2018, 12:57:30 am
Wait, there's a place called Derry? :PThere is unironically a Derry in the USA that was split off from another town called Londonderry in the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derry,_New_Hampshire)
As an aside, they've taken to calling it Derry/Londonderry (actually saying 'slash' when giving the name), a phrase which stirs revulsion in the hearts of all but the politically correct.
RECURSIVE MEMES
Drove past that a few weeks ago.
A double-take was had at the sign as we passed it.
My take away from that journey is that New Hampshire is awful, don’t go there. Except Concord. Concord was alright.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 19, 2018, 01:23:28 am
"I reserve that power for myself."
"Vengeance is thine", sings the sword
"Only come and take me off a shelf. Take me down, take me down, take me down." (https://youtu.be/QNerjnwhbts?list=RDfNdMC6_eUGk)
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 19, 2018, 02:03:08 am
"Vengeance is mine", sayeth the Lord,A song for Ahab
"I reserve that power for myself."
"Vengeance is thine", sings the sword
"Only come and take me off a shelf. Take me down, take me down, take me down." (https://youtu.be/QNerjnwhbts?list=RDfNdMC6_eUGk)
Post by: TD1 on November 19, 2018, 09:28:23 am
Ahab's karma broke down.
He had a whale of a time in his next life, though.
Post by: A Thing on November 19, 2018, 12:14:31 pm
"Vengeance is mine", sayeth the Lord,
All happy families are alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way?
Post by: Rolan7 on December 23, 2018, 11:00:12 pm
When we barely respect the gods before, there is still a little belief which lingers. And targets... the deity of the longest night.
We all are glad that the nights are shorter, that the days are no longer brief.
I mean no offense against the Church of god, Jehovah, which keeps trying to kill us whenever it's able.
But the festival of the days returning - we recognize it. More than most supposed believers.
Wanting only to exist, and accept people who disagree with us.
Post by: smjjames on December 24, 2018, 12:37:55 am
Post by: Rolan7 on December 24, 2018, 01:14:56 am
Yea, actually, a lot of pagan winter festivals and cultural elements got incorporated into Christmas as it spread through Europe. Pretty much everything outside of the nativity itself got incorporated from elsewhere.Indeed, we fire faith in
Post by: Castlecliff on December 24, 2018, 01:28:03 am
Ohhh baby
Post by: TD1 on December 24, 2018, 05:11:14 am
Post by: Persus13 on December 24, 2018, 09:10:38 am
That's Saturnalia or Yule to you, donkey worshipper.Saturnalia ended yesterday actually.
Yea, actually, a lot of pagan winter festivals and cultural elements got incorporated into Christmas as it spread through Europe. Pretty much everything outside of the nativity itself got incorporated from elsewhere.Frankly, if anything that's an exaggeration.
Post by: Teneb on December 24, 2018, 09:12:55 am
Yeah, today's the eve of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti.That's Saturnalia or Yule to you, donkey worshipper.Saturnalia ended yesterday actually.
Only slightly. The success of the latin christianity was it's ability to compromise with folk customs and festivals.Yea, actually, a lot of pagan winter festivals and cultural elements got incorporated into Christmas as it spread through Europe. Pretty much everything outside of the nativity itself got incorporated from elsewhere.Frankly, if anything that's an exaggeration.
Post by: Persus13 on December 24, 2018, 09:33:29 am
Well to be fair, its a statement generic enough to be a matter of opinion. For instance, Dies Natalis Solis Invicti began being celebrated about the same time as Christmas, so its up for debate whether one tried to coopt the other or they just happened to coincide. As for the success of Latin Christianity, that's a nice book thesis you got there.Only slightly. The success of the latin christianity was it's ability to compromise with folk customs and festivals.Yea, actually, a lot of pagan winter festivals and cultural elements got incorporated into Christmas as it spread through Europe. Pretty much everything outside of the nativity itself got incorporated from elsewhere.Frankly, if anything that's an exaggeration.
Post by: smjjames on December 24, 2018, 12:07:47 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 28, 2018, 11:21:31 pm
(This part compiled into a pyramid for convenience)
This was my point, of course. I was pithily describing religion as claiming to explain everything, yet being unfalsifiable.On the contrary! The use of tortured logic to create a-priori arguments that revolve around an unassailable axiom (which is a core component of the faith), are a prominent feature in many religions!...So not religion.Anything where you have all the answers, and cannot be proven wrong.If you're going atheist then aura of conviction is a necessity to defend against other people's reasoning. Necro Mastery in an Atheist build is fairly meek, it only gives you the ability to post in old threads on the internet.What do I take for maximum /r/iamverysmart?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslogion
I was being snappy, but I stand by it.
I still dabble in "the occult" occasionally, though not as much recently. I find meaning in warm, fierce rainstorms with thunder. Less so winter's lazy drizzle/sleet. Snow is something else, but it's very limited here.
My belief seems equally unfalsifiable: I posit natural spirits, with agency, who are responsible for certain things. But they cannot be tested. In my belief system, they are literally "gods of the gap": They live exactly outside of scientific understanding.
They cannot be disproved, though an attempt to do so may reduce them. Rigorous study of reality shrinks their realm. And that's okay - they're jerks. And patient.
Initially this was an experiment of mine to understand faith (and religion to an extent, though I think religion as a social construct is easier to criticize). I took something which I'd always felt was true, growing up near a fearsome wilderness, and... opened my mind to the idea that the things I imagined as a child had were in some way real. Untestable, outside, comforting and frightening. It was an experiment, several years ago, but it quickly felt real. The feelings are real, I did not stand in rain for an hour for a meme or joke. I felt a meditative zen.
It almost bothers me that I'm losing connection with this feeling. In past years I would truly dread winter ice storms and the power outtages, now I have a mobile computer in my pocket with plenty of power. I no longer fear the night.
And that feels like a loss of something I had.
...I meant to reply to Eschar, but I got distracted by a crisis of faith I suppose.
Post by: Hanslanda on December 29, 2018, 06:08:27 am
I'm a so called 'weak atheist' or 'agnostic atheist'. I am not sure there is no god(s) but I feel like there probably isn't. Religion seems a silly, misused superstition to me, that is mainly used to separate the weak-minded from their money. Which conflicts with my knowing a great many very intelligent people who are devout.
I would agree that atheism of the strong variety is a belief system and especially those somewhat objectionable New Atheists (most of them are antitheists which is even more of a belief system than atheism) whom I don't always agree with.
That said... I have no imaginary friend and I never have but I don't mind if others do.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 29, 2018, 06:41:38 am
Agnostics take this opportunity to point out that I can't be sure of that. Sure, I'm not sure there's no god, because I can't be sure about anything. But come on, if I'm as close to being sure as I can get, I may as well drop the "agnostic" label and be an atheist.
I think that religion is an unhealthy habit at best and handy excuse to commit atrocities at worst, but I suppose if it's not hurting anyone it's none of my business what shit people believe in. Many americans have an unsettling habit of shoving it in everyone's face, though.
Really though, if religion didn't exist I'd have no reason to believe in god. Why should I give up that inch of "well it's technically possible that you're right" just because it's popular?
Post by: Hanslanda on December 29, 2018, 09:32:08 am
Post by: TD1 on December 29, 2018, 09:59:29 am
Christianity - the persecuted cult which grew to persecute in turn.
Anyway, I'm an atheist much as Egan is. Also, I don't see how a lack of belief is a belief system. A vacuum is not matter.
Post by: Hanslanda on December 29, 2018, 10:22:33 am
Post by: hector13 on December 29, 2018, 10:27:14 am
Post by: Hanslanda on December 29, 2018, 10:57:15 am
Post by: Teneb on December 29, 2018, 11:17:51 am
Anyway, I'm an atheist much as Egan is. Also, I don't see how a lack of belief is a belief system. A vacuum is not matter.A vacuum is not matter, true, but we can prove that vacuum. We cannot prove that a god or gods or other divine power do or do not exist. As such, one could argue that atheism is the belief that there is no divine power. Believing in not believing, if you will.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 29, 2018, 11:33:23 am
Post by: Teneb on December 29, 2018, 11:36:38 am
But like. An infinite number of potential things exist in the same undisprovable place as god, and I don't believe in any of them. An agnostic doesn't believe in any of them but believes in god just a little bit more than any of the others. Why?I dunno man. I may be a priest, but I'm not exactly a good one.
Post by: Max™ on December 30, 2018, 09:53:39 am
I don't have a favorite country song, I don't listen to it. I don't care about the pros and cons of various table saws, I only use hand tools. I couldn't tell you which xbox one game I want to play the most, I don't have or intend to get one. In much the same way I've found I don't need to answer a question which implies acceptance of certain conditions and categories: this question does not apply to me, nor do the categories which one can sort various answers into. The intersection of my set and that of any answer to "what religion are you" isn't even empty, it doesn't exist in any sense because they use different axioms than I do which leads to incompatible frameworks entirely.
Accepting the label atheist or agnostic requires conceding that the question should be answered, which allows a framing of the discussion such that all presented options are valid, even if you mark "none of the above" you're still doing so on an artificially flattened playing field.
If someone came after you demanding you pick a favorite hockey team when you've never even cared to watch a game in your life, it would be understandable to look at them like a nutcase, but calling yourself an apuckeist or something is equally nutty.
Why is it any different when people do this with a belief system?
Post by: Criptfeind on December 30, 2018, 09:58:39 am
Just because there's a word for an idea it doesn't mean the idea is different, if hockey was a very widespread default interest and considered important we could probably would have a word the equivalent of apuckeist that people who didn't care could use as shorthand.
Post by: Max™ on December 30, 2018, 10:13:04 am
Don't mark "none of the above", fold the test into a paper airplane and chuck it out a window. You don't need to answer the question, why agree to be sorted into those categories if they don't apply at all?
Being an atheist means you felt it deserved an answer, what purpose does it serve to legitimize the question if you claim to disagree with the options?
Post by: Criptfeind on December 30, 2018, 10:55:31 am
In an actual conversation your "no answer" is the "no answer" option on the test.
Post by: Frumple on December 30, 2018, 04:42:47 pm
Don't worry folks, people have been talking this shit long enough there's probably some sort of label for you even if you think you don't want it.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 30, 2018, 06:38:15 pm
I think your metaphor starts to fall apart a bit at this point. The most common time you're asked about your faith isn't on a test or something like that, but a conversation. If someone asks you casually what your faith is and you say "I REJECT YOUR QUESTION! YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT I HAVE ANY OPINION ON THIS EXTREMELY COMMON ASPECT OF LIFE OFFENDS ME! OUT THE WINDOW WITH YOU!" you'll look absolutely insane (and will be). Especially since "no answer" is already a commonly accepted thing that people know by a specific word.'So are you like spiritual or religious?'
In an actual conversation your "no answer" is the "no answer" option on the test.
'The universe is a yawning chasm filled with emptiness and the puerile meanderings of sentience. Why should you deserve special consideration within it, above all else?'
I'm referencing Eternal Darkness's Ulyaoth btw. Great game, a rare gem really
Post by: Hanslanda on December 30, 2018, 08:16:12 pm
I think your metaphor starts to fall apart a bit at this point. The most common time you're asked about your faith isn't on a test or something like that, but a conversation. If someone asks you casually what your faith is and you say "I REJECT YOUR QUESTION! YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT I HAVE ANY OPINION ON THIS EXTREMELY COMMON ASPECT OF LIFE OFFENDS ME! OUT THE WINDOW WITH YOU!" you'll look absolutely insane (and will be). Especially since "no answer" is already a commonly accepted thing that people know by a specific word.'So are you like spiritual or religious?'
In an actual conversation your "no answer" is the "no answer" option on the test.
'The universe is a yawning chasm filled with emptiness and the puerile meanderings of sentience. Why should you deserve special consideration within it, above all else?'
I'm referencing Eternal Darkness's Ulyaoth btw. Great game, a rare gem really
That is a great quote.
Post by: Max™ on December 31, 2018, 06:26:07 am
It doesn't matter if it seems absurd to some that I specifically address the action of asking the question rather than the content, if I did give an answer of any sort it would be a lie. Accordingly, someone declaring my actions to count as some sort of response to the "what do you believe in" question is easily determined to be false from the start. You're welcome to define the terms within which you choose to respond to a question or not, and you can be certain that I'm not going to try to force your statements to conform to my definitions and axioms. Do me the same favor?
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 31, 2018, 07:02:46 am
The actual response would be mu, indicating that the question should be unasked.The important question is do you have time to talk about Armok?
It doesn't matter if it seems absurd to some that I specifically address the action of asking the question rather than the content, if I did give an answer of any sort it would be a lie. Accordingly, someone declaring my actions to count as some sort of response to the "what do you believe in" question is easily determined to be false from the start. You're welcome to define the terms within which you choose to respond to a question or not, and you can be certain that I'm not going to try to force your statements to conform to my definitions and axioms. Do me the same favor?
Post by: smjjames on January 02, 2019, 08:31:58 pm
In all seriousness, there probably are walls from medieval times, but the function of those is not what Trump thinks.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on January 02, 2019, 08:36:45 pm
Post by: hector13 on January 02, 2019, 08:39:46 pm
Would be wary of suggesting that just because a religious authority does it that it’s moral *glances at Pope Alexander VI*
Post by: smjjames on January 02, 2019, 08:44:39 pm
I did a tour of the Vatican (or bits of it anyway) when I was in Rome via a tour group, which allowed me to skip the lines of people waiting.
Would be wary of suggesting that just because a religious authority does it that it’s moral *glances at Pope Alexander VI*
It's Trump who said that, not me.
Post by: hector13 on January 02, 2019, 09:12:09 pm
Post by: Teneb on January 02, 2019, 09:35:39 pm
I know, just generally commenting, but I’m rather distasteful of organized religion.But what is your stace on disorganized religion?
Post by: Trekkin on January 02, 2019, 09:43:09 pm
Question to you oh pious christians, does the Vatican have walls?
Yes. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Plan_of_Rome_in_the_Middle_Ages_-_Historical_Atlas_by_William_R._Shepherd%2C_1923.jpg) That said, the Leonine Wall was built in 846 and the Janiculum in 1643, and both served legitimate military purposes; the Janiculum in particular was essentially a work of urban renewal (pun intended) since the Aurelian wall was falling apart.
That said, they don't actually restrict travel into the Vatican.
Post by: hector13 on January 02, 2019, 10:44:28 pm
what’s the difference m81 lilI know, just generally commenting, but I’m rather distasteful of organized religion.But what is your stace on disorganized religion?
Post by: Rolan7 on January 02, 2019, 11:15:33 pm
Religious leaders hate that, of course, and try to stomp it out. Threats to their control are "heresy", like Catharism.
Even the most selfless and enlightened religious leaders are trying to invent general solutions for diverse individual spiritualities. It's an impossible and unnecessary problem even without all the temptations of power.
Post by: smjjames on January 02, 2019, 11:40:00 pm
Off to the terrible jokes thread!
Post by: Hanslanda on January 13, 2019, 06:54:50 am
He didn't have a good answer, but I suspect not many would.
Post by: wierd on January 13, 2019, 07:46:22 am
I posed this question to my Christian friend: of all the sects and denominations of your faith... Who's going to heaven? Obviously you think you are, but will Catholics? Presbyterian? Methodists? Etc.
He didn't have a good answer, but I suspect not many would.
**Is agnostic, but comes from a strong non-denom christian family.
The answer to this question is not "but OUR sect is the ONLY, REAL, TRUE one!!". Not if you read the bible. Jesus is very clear what the requirements for salvation are.
1) Salvation through faith in the Christ. Nothing else will get you in.
2*) Demonstration of that faith, through repentance and abstainment from sin. (And even general impropriety.)
So, if your denomination has some strange dogmatic practice, but preaches the core tenets above, Jesus says you get to go to heaven. (he will sort you out when you get there regardless.) This means Jesus cares precisely DICK about which church you attend, as long as it says "Only Jesus can get you into heaven, so read your bible to read his teachings, and let them instruct your life." Barring a few very outlandish sects that claim the christian moniker, this is pretty much all of them.
Now, I asterisked #2 there for an important reason. The second follows from the first, and is the identifier that you have indeed done the former. Jesus is pretty clear on this in the bible. Works do not save you, but yet, "By their fruits, you shall know them." This includes all the ordinary things, like how they conduct their speech, how they treat other people, etc. The premise being, that if you have accepted Jesus as the Christ in this fashion, he sends you the Holy Spirit, which then causes personality and mind changes on you, to give you a new nature. That nature causes you to act a certain way, which is very conspicuous to people that know what they are looking for. Simply emulating that behavior, without the acceptance of the Christ, will not get you into heaven.
Post by: Hanslanda on January 13, 2019, 12:27:47 pm
Post by: dragdeler on January 13, 2019, 03:33:58 pm
Post by: Telgin on January 13, 2019, 04:29:46 pm
I posed this question to my Christian friend: of all the sects and denominations of your faith... Who's going to heaven? Obviously you think you are, but will Catholics? Presbyterian? Methodists? Etc.
He didn't have a good answer, but I suspect not many would.
I want to say that if I asked that question the answer I'd get would be "Basically nobody, including most of the people in this very church" but in truth even the most hard line Pentecostal Holiness Christians I know of think that other denominations can be okay. Methodists and Baptists might be okay, but some have problematic beliefs.
Most think Catholics are deluded, but I actually don't know if they think they won't make it to heaven. I imagine most think that 99% of the Catholics are out of luck for various reasons ranging from them drinking alcohol to "worshiping the pope," depending on who you ask and how misinformed they are. And Episcopalians are wannabe Catholics, so they're in trouble too.
Post by: dragdeler on January 13, 2019, 04:48:58 pm
Post by: McTraveller on January 13, 2019, 04:51:57 pm
There are lots of Biblical texts to support that view, it's not just touchy-feely stuff.
Post by: dragdeler on January 13, 2019, 05:15:40 pm
Post by: Castlecliff on January 13, 2019, 11:21:35 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 04, 2019, 11:45:13 pm
Spoiler alert: They ruled against it. And for action against any minister who defies the judgement, of course.
What makes the decision interesting is the talk about a schism. Our US NPR report yesterday was largely talking about the divide between African Methodists and other (Western), more progressive, Methodists. Guests were insisting that this wasn't the stance of American Methodists. More power to them!
Edit:
Lets all eat some mushrooms and dance around a fireI do love mushrooms, and have an amorous hatred of fire. Let's dance.
Post by: smjjames on March 04, 2019, 11:55:34 pm
Post by: Persus13 on March 05, 2019, 12:17:33 am
They should schism away. They don't have to answer to a pope, and they don't have to answer to some arch-priest of the United Methodist Church either. :DThat's not how the United Methodist Church works. Unless you were making a joke.
Post by: smjjames on March 05, 2019, 12:20:03 am
They should schism away. They don't have to answer to a pope, and they don't have to answer to some arch-priest of the United Methodist Church either. :DThat's not how the United Methodist Church works. Unless you were making a joke.
I was trolling somewhat, so, yes, it's a joke. Thought it would have been somewhat obvious, but ok.
Post by: Persus13 on March 05, 2019, 12:40:58 am
Post by: wierd on March 05, 2019, 12:42:54 am
Post by: Castlecliff on March 05, 2019, 05:01:18 am
Post by: Gentlefish on March 06, 2019, 12:39:49 am
Post by: Castlecliff on March 06, 2019, 04:27:37 am
Post by: Frumple on March 06, 2019, 08:53:29 am
I mean... joking aside, it works however the hell the people involved want it to work. If they want to schism, or backflip and invent a pope or arch-priest, the only thing stopping them is themselves. Save for where they run into criminal/civil laws or the laws of physics, religious organizations can do pretty much whatever they can convince themselves to do, at the end of the day.They should schism away. They don't have to answer to a pope, and they don't have to answer to some arch-priest of the United Methodist Church either. :DThat's not how the United Methodist Church works. Unless you were making a joke.
Post by: Persus13 on March 06, 2019, 09:32:20 am
I mean... joking aside, it works however the hell the people involved want it to work. If they want to schism, or backflip and invent a pope or arch-priest, the only thing stopping them is themselves. Save for where they run into criminal/civil laws or the laws of physics, religious organizations can do pretty much whatever they can convince themselves to do, at the end of the day.Any organization can have the organizational structure they want. I assumed the joke was about the current structure of the the UMC, but its certainly possible that the UMC could reorganize that way. Its just not the current way the organization is structured.
Post by: smjjames on March 06, 2019, 10:22:38 am
I mean... joking aside, it works however the hell the people involved want it to work. If they want to schism, or backflip and invent a pope or arch-priest, the only thing stopping them is themselves. Save for where they run into criminal/civil laws or the laws of physics, religious organizations can do pretty much whatever they can convince themselves to do, at the end of the day.Any organization can have the organizational structure they want. I assumed the joke was about the current structure of the the UMC, but its certainly possible that the UMC could reorganize that way. Its just not the current way the organization is structured.
The line I was trolling on is that Protestants rejected the Catholic Church leadership (that is, the pope) long ago, so, they just as much don't have to follow church leadership or care about being punished. I may have been too subtle about it and I threw the arch-priest bit in to be tongue-in-cheek and humorous.
Post by: Persus13 on March 06, 2019, 10:41:49 am
Post by: McTraveller on March 11, 2019, 10:02:02 am
the two big ones are Romans 1:24 and Leviticus... 8? Peter absolved the faith of any obligation towards the old law (there was a famous bit in the bible about circumsision, this is also why a lot of reformed christians don't believe in things like tithes, prohibition, evangelicalism, etc.), and also the old testament was the civic and moral guidelines for an entire nation that sucked at following said regulations, so of course the law would go into exhaustive detail about how no, you can't cheat on your spouse that way. With full context, Romans 1:24 reads more as a condemnation of Pagans in Rome to establish clear lines between said Pagans and those former Jews and newly converted gentiles in the city. Paul also very famously wrote a dick ton of letters to different churches, so he might have been experienced enough by then to know that new converts would use whatever means possible to integrate themselves into local religions.
I need more secondary historical sources to back up that conclusion, which i'm working on. Outside of explicit proscription, a few handfuls of theologians see things like primieval man being man+woman and the marraige of the lamb to be an implicit proscription on gay marraige. But I highly doubt that. Some people point to Sodom and Gamorrah as an example of God hating homosexuality, and it's like... yeah bud, sure. the people of the city try to rape a literal angel, and homosexuality was just a bridge too far.
I've always personally believed gay marriage is holy in the eyes of God as long as it's ordained, & as long as sex before marriage doesn't taint the vow. Personally it's hard for me to practice what I preach, since i have a lot of cravings (sex, nicotine, men) that won't ever go away, but biblical study leads me to believe it's the striving towards God that redeems, rather than any sort of redemption that no man or woman could ever possibly learn.
(I use the word reformed christian here; fun fact, when someone describes themselves as that it means their faith is taken directly from scripture, out of a basic distrust of the 'telephone game,' as well as a personal charge from God to adhere to the word of God.)
I think this is almost where I'd fall theologically. Some random points:
1. The most important point is that, at the end of the day, sexuality is orthogonal to salvation. You can be straight, LGBTQ, asexual, whatever, and that doesn't have any bearing on your relationship with God. What does matter is if Christ is first, and God is first, over your own personal desires, whatever those desires might be. It's also important to note that, whatever is classified as a sin and what isn't - that's not the issue at all. The issue is that everyone sins - and the gospel is that Christ covers us from whatever those sins are. Now there are lots of aspects about how that gospel demonstrates itself in our lives of course - as Paul famously said (my paraphrase), "If grace abounds when there is sin, should we sin more so that we get more grace? By no means!" So even as Christians, we don't get a free pass to keep sinning (however its defined) just because we are covered by grace.
1a. Speaking of 'sin' - I actually wish we would stop using this word but instead used it's definition: missing the mark. Sin is too loaded a word these days. Sin really is just missing the mark of what God intends for us. Ultimately it all boils down to the Fall and the original sin: acting like we could be the arbiters of good and evil, not God. It's no irony then that even today we still as humans claim to have "the final word" on the "rightness or wrongness" of a particular sexuality. We will still be sinning even if we all agree on a particular view, because it is "our view" and not God's. I mean look at the words people use "the Bible says X - because we have interpreted it that way through our academic efforts..."
2. The sin of Sodom wasn't even the attempted gang-sexual-violence. This is actually explicit in Ezekiel 16:49-50 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me." Basically, the people of Sodom did whatever they wanted. The sin of Sodom was people putting themselves in the place of God.
3. There are at least two separate but intertwined issues that get caught up in the marriage/LGBTQ conversation: sexual promiscuity versus marriage. I think that many affirming Christians (those that think same-sex marriages are acceptable) would agree with non-affirming that any sexual activity outside marriage is sinful. This includes porn, sleeping around while not married, adultery, indulging in sexual fantasy, etc. A key thing to note there that it is sexual activity and not sexual attraction. There is nothing sinful about finding someone attractive - the sin comes when we act inappropriately on that attraction. The Bible is very clear that there is a distinction between temptation and sin.
The arena for debate, then, is what is the Biblical definition of marriage? What type of marriage relationship is in line with what God intends for us? I think ggamer rightly identifies some of the relevant points: when the Bible talks about marriage, references are usually from Genesis 2 where it states "male and female". Jesus also references those Genesis passages when he is asked about marriage (see Matthew 19: 4-6). So there is pretty strong evidence that marriage is defined as being between opposite sexes. There is also much about the marriage relationship is an example between Christ and the Church, and there's a lot of academic debate about how this ties in with sexuality.
4. The worst part is whole debate here loses some important things. It just tends to dehumanize people regardless of their views on the issue. This is the worst part of the "debate" or "dialog" or whatever we call it. We have lost "love God, and love your neighbor" and replaced it with "this is the right view". There is a severe devolution back to works-based salvation instead of grace-based. Many of the New Testament letters were written to combat unfounded adherence to Old Testament law - because it's not adherence to the law that saves us, but grace from Christ.
Post by: ggamer on March 11, 2019, 11:32:35 am
If you asked 95% of the congregation at any given church what things like covenant theology or the reformed confession are, they'd have no idea. Most church goers only care about the visible health of the church through things like ministry or getting people "fired up for jesus" (I heard this literally yesterday and I still have no fucking clue what it means). As long as people are coming into church (note: not staying) and money is coming in through tithe (which the christian church isn't supposed to require people give nnnnnnngh), people could give less of a fuck. and based off of this imperfect theology, people will act incredibly zealously towards problems identified, not by the scripture, but by those conservative values that inform whatever ignorant dipshit preacher they've heard last sunday.
definitely agree on the "sin" point you made. there's a lot to be lost from the greek/aramaic > > > modern english, it's something that a conscientious christian has to pay very very close attention to.
Sorry if I've been on the warpath today and yesterday ya'll. My church that i've gone to my whole life (less so recently) is two steps from defaulting on a ginormous debt, and not only has the church leadership been willfully misdirecting the church body, but most of the body just doesn't care. It's really disheartening and it makes me, well, fucking furious.
(also, I think doomblade asked if i'm in seminary; i'm very flattered, but I'm an international affairs major. I just try to take my faith as seriously as it should be taken by everyone who ascribes to it.)
Post by: TD1 on March 11, 2019, 11:41:35 am
I wouldn't disown a LGBT child. But I'd be pretty deeply disturbed.
Post by: wierd on March 11, 2019, 11:44:58 am
People get bent out of shape over the strangest things, I swear.
Post by: Trekkin on March 11, 2019, 02:21:50 pm
Why? Why should the desire for more of what they have, the desire to have what they were not born with, or even-- the lack of desire at all (as in my case) be anything to be disturbed over?
People get bent out of shape over the strangest things, I swear.
I'm curious as well. Apart from concern for them if you're living somewhere that discriminates against their identity, I can't think of a reason to be concerned about your kids being LGBT, let alone disturbed by it. I mean, what are you doing with/to your kids that somehow depends on who they're attracted to?
Post by: Arx on March 11, 2019, 02:23:49 pm
Post by: ggamer on March 11, 2019, 02:39:50 pm
Do what you want, dwarfy, but remember in our society lineage in spirit is the exact same as lineage in fact. A child being adopted - and therefore not related by blood - would not make them any less of a grandchild.
Post by: Trekkin on March 11, 2019, 02:46:05 pm
Obviously I am not Dwarfy, but IIRC he's fairly traditional and would like a biological legacy, something that is, not always, but frequently, incompatible with LGBT children, one way or another.
I've certainly heard that reasoning before, but I can't say I've ever understood it. Genes don't control nearly as much as people like to think, so even if someone's arrogant enough to think they embody all the best heritable traits of humanity, their kids are still going to regress toward the mean as often as not, even if they were clonally propagated. We've got all kinds of stupid biological imperatives left over from our evolutionary history; why preserve this one?
Post by: Teneb on March 11, 2019, 03:25:23 pm
Do what you want, dwarfy, but remember in our society lineage in spirit is the exact same as lineage in fact. A child being adopted - and therefore not related by blood - would not make them any less of a grandchild.Historically, in many societies (mainly non-Abrahamic ones), adopted children were often seen as better than biological ones. The reasoning being that a biological child was simply born into your family, while an adopted one had to have some worth in order to join it.
What I mean is: I think it's a silly stance, but I doubt I'm changing anyone's mind.
Post by: TD1 on March 11, 2019, 03:33:28 pm
Obviously I am not Dwarfy, but IIRC he's fairly traditional and would like a biological legacy, something that is, not always, but frequently, incompatible with LGBT children, one way or another.
Nicely remembered! I often think this generation does not suit me. In fact, I think my family jumped a generation anyway. My paternal granny was, after all, born in 1904.
Biological legacy is very important to me. As ggamer points out, however, I know that one can be just as emotionally attached to an adopted child - indeed, I'd say that, personally, I would absolutely love any child. I'm a bit of a compassionate sucker - but in the grander scheme a biological line matters to me. I'd suggest part of that is the fact that my family has held the same land (with some bits added) for over four hundred years. The same name, the same line, my family. The oak tree in front of the house was planted by a direct ancestor.
Actually, that reminds me of something I wrote a few years ago. No need to read it, don't worry :P
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
We've got all kinds of stupid biological imperatives left over from our evolutionary history; why preserve this one?
Do as thou wilt, but hurt no one.
Why? Why should the desire for more of what they have, the desire to have what they were not born with, or even-- the lack of desire at all (as in my case) be anything to be disturbed over?
People get bent out of shape over the strangest things, I swear.
So yes, biology is a very large part of it. Another part is my personal philosophy. Religion, for me, is a lie. I would never attempt to change the opinions of others in this regard - religion does not necessarily hurt people, and if someone wants to be religious then by all means. Any argument I engage in concerning religion is purely motivated by academic interest.
I do not agree with the central premise of much LGBT culture - namely, that one can change sex. If you define gender as an internalised view of oneself, then sure you can change gender. But sex is a physical attribute. "I identify as a woman, ergo I am a woman" makes as much sense to me as "I identify as a dog, ergo I am a dog."
If a child of mine were to be deeply religious, it would disturb me. I don't agree with many faiths' central tenets demanding obedience or expulsion. It is built on a lie. Likewise, if my child were to be transgender then they would be, to me, living a lie. It would make me uncomfortable.
So - the L, G and possibly B of LGBT have their own problems. Likewise with the T.
I understand that this is akin to going onto a Christian forum and posting "God doesn't exist!" but I'll trust to Bay12's maturity and ability to tolerate multiple points of view.
The Chinese (Japanese, maybe?) did that, didn't they? Anyway, my reasons for wanting a biological lineage are outlined above. It's not a case of valuing the child. I'd happily adopt, so long as my family line continues with its inheritance as well.Do what you want, dwarfy, but remember in our society lineage in spirit is the exact same as lineage in fact. A child being adopted - and therefore not related by blood - would not make them any less of a grandchild.Historically, in many societies (mainly non-Abrahamic ones), adopted children were often seen as better than biological ones. The reasoning being that a biological child was simply born into your family, while an adopted one had to have some worth in order to join it.
What I mean is: I think it's a silly stance, but I doubt I'm changing anyone's mind.
Post by: Trekkin on March 11, 2019, 03:48:57 pm
I do not agree with the central premise of much LGBT culture - namely, that one can change sex. If you define gender as an internalised view of oneself, then sure you can change gender. But sex is a physical attribute. "I identify as a woman, ergo I am a woman" makes as much sense to me as "I identify as a dog, ergo I am a dog."
What's it a physical attribute of, though? If it's the ability to bear children, then sex is conditioned on fertility, and I think we'd agree that, say, a postmenopausal woman is still a woman. If it's chromosomes, we're going to run into problems with Klinefelter and Turner syndromes among all the other ways to adjust the pathway from genes through development to secondary and even primary sexual characteristics, and for the same reason we probably don't want to pick any specific type of anatomy to condition sex on. There's just no clear way to say what does and does not define sex, so ultimately we're making an arbitrary decision either way.
If someone says they're a woman because that's what their brain tells them, how is neurochemistry less physical than endocrine chemistry?
Post by: McTraveller on March 11, 2019, 04:18:16 pm
However - when it comes to defining physical sex, we should use this test: If an anthropologist dug up your bones, how would they classify your skeleton?
Using corner cases like infertility I think is disingenuous; it's just throwing up smokescreens. I mean, prepubescent humans aren't sexless, and they aren't fertile.
Post by: TD1 on March 11, 2019, 04:34:15 pm
either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
"adults of both sexes"
synonyms: gender
XXX
I suppose I'd define it as the reproductive role one would perform, if all else were well. Though I suppose some thought concerning outliers should be made.
Post by: smjjames on March 11, 2019, 04:37:38 pm
I will lead with I do think there there is value in making distinctions between physical sex/gender and social gender. They are different concepts.
However - when it comes to defining physical sex, we should use this test: If an anthropologist dug up your bones, how would they classify your skeleton?
Using corner cases like infertility I think is disingenuous; it's just throwing up smokescreens. I mean, prepubescent humans aren't sexless, and they aren't fertile.
If you're looking for a 'perfect' test, even that isn't perfect. Telling the sex of a pre-adolescent is much harder because the dimorphism hasn't shown up yet or is subtle. (https://www.google.com/search?ei=ptGGXNy1AtfJ-gSxko-wAQ&q=how+do+you+determine+sex+of+a+skeleton+child&oq=how+do+you+determine+sex+of+a+skeleton+child&gs_l=psy-ab.3...357902.358948..359166...0.0..0.141.613.3j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i22i30j33i299j33i160.Iy-OYtrP7Lg)
If someone has some genetic disorder, that might cloud it. I don't know if and I don't think there ever has been a study of the sex of skeletons of people who were gender ambigous or homosexual.
Plus, I feel like that method is going to run into an ethics wall because it starts encroaching onto eugenics once you start using that to justify things like religion and politics.
Post by: Trekkin on March 11, 2019, 04:53:05 pm
I suppose I'd define it as the reproductive role one would perform, if all else were well. Though I suppose some thought concerning outliers should be made.
Not to be a pedant, but if all else were well, wouldn't a trans woman have ovaries and a uterus and so forth and therefore be able to fulfill a female reproductive role?
Post by: smjjames on March 11, 2019, 05:07:00 pm
I suppose I'd define it as the reproductive role one would perform, if all else were well. Though I suppose some thought concerning outliers should be made.
Not to be a pedant, but if all else were well, wouldn't a trans woman have ovaries and a uterus and so forth and therefore be able to fulfill a female reproductive role?
You mean male to female or female to male? For male to female, that'd be no. Tthough there was a successful uterus transplant some while ago, I doubt it's a common thing at this point and theres the usual problems/risks associated with a transplant. For female to male, I have no idea, removing the uterus and ovaries might be part of the procedure.
What about those who are infertile for various reasons, how would that be handled? No matter what method is chosen, theres always going to be some outliers because nature doesn't operate on an absolute binary.
Post by: TD1 on March 11, 2019, 05:17:03 pm
I suppose I'd define it as the reproductive role one would perform, if all else were well. Though I suppose some thought concerning outliers should be made.
Not to be a pedant, but if all else were well, wouldn't a trans woman have ovaries and a uterus and so forth and therefore be able to fulfill a female reproductive role?
All else is well with a "transwoman." They have all the features required to place them as male or female under the aforementioned definition.
A few examples following your example - "all else being well, a lion would be a tiger." "All else being well, the man who thinks himself to be Einstein would be Einstein."
Post by: Trekkin on March 11, 2019, 05:30:18 pm
And what of a woman who has had all of those parts removed for medical purposes rather than gender matters?
We brought that up earlier. Those are "outliers" not to be considered, apparently.
You mean male to female or female to male?
As a point of clarification, a trans woman is a woman who was assigned a different gender at birth -- and it is two words.
Post by: ggamer on March 11, 2019, 05:31:31 pm
Basically, I don't get it and I don't think I need to, for me to respect and support someone going thru that process. I get where you're coming from though, dwarfy. it's a pretty complicated issue. I figure as long as your views don't affect anyone trans then it's all copacetic.
Post by: TD1 on March 11, 2019, 05:52:11 pm
And what of a woman who has had all of those parts removed for medical purposes rather than gender matters?I actually don't understand your question. Would you mind clarifying? A woman with all her parts removed (heavens forbid) does not become sexless, or somehow change sex. The reproductive role one would follow naturally and which forms the basis for ascribing sex has been interrupted, that is all. A transitioning transexual has often similarly interrupted their path in an attempt to make the outer body conform to the inner gender. Another example is elderly women. Because they are incapable of bearing children (indeed, because a great physical change has overtaken them, including the absence of ova) they do not become sexless.
But I don't know if that answers your question - sorry. I'm probably just being dense :P
We brought that up earlier. Those are "outliers" not to be considered, apparently.I explicitly said that outliers should be considered, but... sure?
Quote
I figure as long as your views don't affect anyone trans then it's all copacetic.Oh, certainly. It can discomfort me as much as it is capable of, but people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. I suppose the question is at what age people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies.
Post by: Trekkin on March 11, 2019, 05:54:46 pm
A few examples following your example - "all else being well, a lion would be a tiger." "All else being well, the man who thinks himself to be Einstein would be Einstein."
There's a critical difference here, and I feel like people overlook it a lot: we know what lions and tigers are well enough to produce a set of criteria under which 100% of what we think are lions are classified as lions and the same for tigers. (Before someone brings up ligers, there's a genetic way around that, but forgive me for not going into molecular genetics right now.) Similarly, we can define Einstein such that only Einstein is demonstrably Einstein.
We can't do that with sex; every time people propose a way to classify humans into two sexes, there's always someone who falls outside those categories. Intersex people are the usual example because they're about 1 in 1500-2000 births, although it's not always obvious; if your theory has four million outliers, it probably needs work. So the way I look at it is this: if someone knows they're a gender other than the one they're assigned at birth, and they know that with such certainty that they're willing to go through all the crap transgender people go through, I'm inclined to have some humility and take them at their word, not being in their head.
We brought that up earlier. Those are "outliers" not to be considered, apparently.I explicitly said that outliers should be considered, but... sure?
I meant McTraveller's claim that it's disingenuous to point them out. Looking back,he called them corner cases; apologies for the confusion.
Post by: smjjames on March 11, 2019, 06:08:15 pm
The point being that you can't get rid of outliers no matter what, it's just not mathematically possible. It also wouldn't be the first time people (not you guys specifically as I know this is just a philosophical argument) erroneously used science to justify things.
Post by: Trekkin on March 11, 2019, 06:17:42 pm
One could use multiple criteria to reduce the number of outliers that would completely fall outside the set, but then it starts becoming, as trekkin implied, 'how many outliers are acceptable for this system?'. Then it'll probably start going into the ridiculous zone with people going 'okay, how many boxes need to be checked off for x to be y gender'. Or maybe you start going weird stuff like a% y gender and b% z gender.
There's also the behavioral component to consider if you go down that route; if we're going to posit a natural reproductive role, there are of course people who are attracted exclusively to people with whom they're anatomically incapable of procreating, and whose "natural" reproductive role would logically therefore be not to reproduce. Are they sexless?
At what point is assuming that everyone naturally has one of two sexes as defined reproductively to allow for classifying people into two sexes begging the question?
Post by: TD1 on March 11, 2019, 07:11:28 pm
Quote
I'm inclined to have some humility and take them at their word, not being in their head.That's our key difference, then. If someone tells me their religious experience, I smile, nod .... and don't buy a word of it. Similarly, [name] at work who is a perfectly rational fella yet also often mentions that he's repeatedly haunted (the freezer at work in particular seems to be the place for a supernatural visitation) gets treated as a reliable source up to (but not including) said stories.
As for the example of intersex people, it should be noted that the figures are by no means concrete. It's certainly an issue which challenges the definition of sex, but the extent to which this is so is not clear-cut. I'm no biologist, but the term 'intersex' seems to be an umbrella term for many different things. So, yes, a number of people, many (most?) of whom are intersex, pose a challenge to the typical binary. It's just such a large and varied grouping that I'm at a loss trying to make a general statement concerning it.
It is also the case that LGBT people are not intersex as a general rule, of course. A transgender person, typically, fully fits within the aforementioned male/female divide, one which it is impossible to fluctuate between.
Perhaps we should add a third sex? Male, Female, Neuter (intersex)? The question is how many people truly fall into something which deserves its own category, and how many have something like Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, which appears (again, me no Biologist, hyuck hyuck) to be a hormonal imbalance that would fall under "all else being well..." or, similarly, Vaginal Atresia (for lack of a better description, 'vaginal obstruction'). It's a tricky issue, that's for sure, and one which requires more thought and time than I'm currently willing to dedicate. It also seems to require more (and more accurate) studies.
Though, it should be noted that if 'Intersex' were to be acknowledged as a separate sex-definition (perhaps defined as a natural lack of reproductive capabilities?) it would likewise not be strictly (though idealistically, sure!) possible for someone who is intersex to become someone who is male, or female. Perhaps the reason we don't have such a three-way sex system is because it's rare.
Post by: smjjames on March 11, 2019, 07:25:44 pm
I'm not sure how common cultures that accept intersex and culturally have a third gender are, but they're out there.
If you mean biologically, it just happens to be the dominant system that evolved. Theres certainly a few other systems out there, like some fungi for example.
*random keyboard spasm to represent every other variation
Post by: Frumple on March 11, 2019, 07:51:10 pm
If you mean biologically, it just happens to be the dominant system that evolved. Theres certainly a few other systems out there, like some fungi for example.There's also a good few that actually are straight up capable of changing sex under the right circumstances, iirc. The first rule of (non-micro) biology club is fuck your heuristics, I do what random mutation hasn't stopped me from doing hard enough.
Post by: TD1 on March 11, 2019, 07:56:05 pm
Post by: McTraveller on March 11, 2019, 08:32:08 pm
Laws of large numbers come into play with the current human population - 0.1% is still close to ten million individuals. Even if you're talking just pure biological fitness functions, you can have a huge absolute number of non-reproducing members of a population and have a stable or even growing overall population number. So I agree that just considering "reproductive fitness" is a non-starter because it is irrelevant. Moreso it just gives people an avenue to alienate people instead of develop meaningful relationships.
Post by: Trekkin on March 11, 2019, 08:51:19 pm
QuoteI'm inclined to have some humility and take them at their word, not being in their head.That's our key difference, then. If someone tells me their religious experience, I smile, nod .... and don't buy a word of it. Similarly, [name] at work who is a perfectly rational fella yet also often mentions that he's repeatedly haunted (the freezer at work in particular seems to be the place for a supernatural visitation) gets treated as a reliable source up to (but not including) said stories.
I don't either, but I do believe that they believe it, and in the specific case of LGBT issues, that's enough for me. I don't need to search for a scientific reason to call some people's identities invalid, which is good, because as you correctly point out, that's a tricky and exhausting thing to have to do, and furthermore it doesn't really help anyone. By the time you're done shoehorning people into different genders there are so many caveats that it's stopped being an informative distinction.
Funnily enough, I am a biologist, although my PhD isn't in endocrinology or anything immediately relevant. That's why I have the view I do: about the only relevant thing I can say is that if you're uncertain of your premises but certain of your conclusion, you're going the wrong way, so I'm nowhere near confident enough in the uncertainty of the science surrounding the cognitive aspects of gender and the less-than-concrete figures and the inadequacy of every proposed classification scheme to tell someone their identity is a lie.
What I meant by the "outliers" was that, for instance, we say that humans have 5 fingers on each hand, even though there are many people who do not have 5 fingers on each hand.
That's certainly better than I'd feared. I still say that it isn't disingenuous to insist that a concrete definition of finitely many human genders either accommodate all humans or admit that it's incomplete -- and, in the latter case, it's not a great basis for telling trans people what their gender is. If we're going to tell people they're wrong, we need to be provably right, and we can't be about this yet.
Post by: Rolan7 on May 02, 2019, 05:25:43 pm
Trump said a few words, thanking himself for massively expanding religious freedom (Now people can use that beautiful word "God" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/02/national-day-prayer-speech-trump-falsely-claims-there-was-little-religious-freedom-before-his-election/?utm_term=.6ddf4ce0fb58)!) and pushing the expansion of laws letting people deny life-and-death services based on personal revelation, or at least state-recognized religion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/05/02/trump-touts-new-faith-based-protections-health-care-workers-national-day-prayer-ceremony/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.49b23dc0427f).
But Trump antics aside, this is a day when all Americans are inspired (by our federal government) to pray or meditate. So let us do so.
...
...Hrm, no daemonettes yet. Maybe next year.
Post by: Egan_BW on May 02, 2019, 06:49:08 pm
Does that count?
Post by: TD1 on May 03, 2019, 04:16:17 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on May 03, 2019, 04:27:37 pm
Post by: TD1 on May 03, 2019, 04:51:49 pm
Hail the resulting Anti Christ!
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on May 03, 2019, 05:05:21 pm
[leans in real close]
"Hail Hydra."
Post by: Egan_BW on May 03, 2019, 05:07:20 pm
Post by: Frumple on May 03, 2019, 05:43:33 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on May 04, 2019, 12:02:15 pm
Hydras tend to be dragon-adjacent. All you'd be doing is spreading a plague of demi-hydras.
Are you shaming my religious beliefs? What if I WANT the world to end in a tidal wave of multi headed snake dragons?
Post by: Frumple on May 04, 2019, 03:47:14 pm
Post by: Castlecliff on May 05, 2019, 04:11:23 am
Post by: Gentlefish on May 07, 2019, 10:20:50 am
Post by: hector13 on May 07, 2019, 07:35:43 pm
Post by: KittyTac on May 08, 2019, 12:14:59 am
The first part about rabbits and burning skin off was DF adventure mode. Not sure what the rest is about.Well, that's what a drunkpost/highpost looks like.
Post by: Castlecliff on May 08, 2019, 01:52:23 am
Post by: Magistrum on May 08, 2019, 05:50:35 pm
Post by: Frumple on May 08, 2019, 06:21:42 pm
By Beholster Eye, Dragun Tooth,
Gungeon Wind do whisper One Truth.
Body the floor, Bullet through roof,
Ammo Willing, Past-killing Gun Shall Shoot.
Post by: Rolan7 on May 25, 2019, 01:51:43 am
First, we (the family) saw each other and had time to chat catch up. In some cases we hadn't really talked in a long time. It was somewhat enlightening.
Then we drove to the church and congregated there, just family and the clergy. Basically the same situation, but in a Christian setting. I helped with the AV setup, and showed a younger-cousin a romhack of Pokemon Crystal Gen 2 (after listening to him describe Fortnite till he literally ran out of things to say).
Then we went into a small room, then filed back out ceremoniously to sit in the same pews. A line of the deceased acquaintances and friends filed past, giving condolences to his direct family who were seated front-row.
I have been in that front row. I don't know what to say about the experience. You shake the hand of dozens of people you don't know, who your close family member supposedly knew. What can you do? Take them at their word, and accept their condolences. Be grateful that they remember your family member. Grieve in secret.
After an astoundingly long time (my uncle was gregarious, and socially-active) we had a service. And, I guess, this is where I get thread-relevant.
The service was split between three members of the church. And I have to credit their art, they customized their speeches to different aspects of my family member's life. By formal and informal name, his outward self and his personable self. Sharing anecdotes from a decade ago, around the time he met my aunt.
Around the time he found the church, and wasn't interested. They skip over that, mostly, though they did make light of how he got along with the women.
He would have laughed, but still...
This is where I get salty, I guess. They spun his life as a redemption arc, like they saved him from a life of sin at the *bowling alley* and such. Again, he would have laughed. He never cared for all that, he didn't even go to church for his wife my aunt.
Until he had trouble breathing, and went in. And he had cancer everywhere.
And in utter desperation, he accepted the church, and Jesus, and whatever would save him from what he was going through.
I have been in dark fucking places, separated from his situation by degrees. I wanted any supernatural thing to get me through. I sought God, and hearing nothing, I sought devils. Also nothing.
But his family is devoutly Christian, and that's how his story is told now.
A lie.
The clergy remembered him well, talking about his generosity and joviality. He was kind and generous, particularly to us kids. He had a rough upbringing but shared happiness with everyone he met.
He volunteered for a youth basketball game- and they took a sizeable aside to, literally, encourage everyone to witness Jesus to young kids through such programs.
He wasn't
fucking
Christian
...But he begged at the end, and I guess I will too. Again.
Post by: HmH on May 25, 2019, 09:25:11 am
Not nearly as easy when you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Spirituality is tempting when your life sucks.
But that doesn't mean I'll ever embrace any of the mainstream religions.
Not even when I'm helpless and desperate for a way out. Not even when everything in this world seems to turn against me.
I was in a bad place before, and while I failed to stay a staunch atheist during that trial, I did not stoop any lower than self-indulgent escapism.
It's not even a matter of principle: I wouldn't be so sure about it if it were. Life is sometimes very good at making you break your principles.
It's fear, pure and simple.
I'd rather believe in a nice afterlife of my own devising, as I have done before in my darkest moments so far, than accept any of the utterly horrifying afterlives the mainstream religions have to offer their believers.
What's so horrifying about, say, going to Heaven? It's an eternity of chilling out amidst the righteous... and being helpless to rescue anyone you care about from an eternity of torture.
People usually dismiss that idea, because no one really thinks that could happen to them - but almost everyone has a friend who killed himself, or an atheistic relative who died before they could be converted, someone they wouldn't want to hurt but still believe would hurt in the afterlife.
Let's liven it up with a concrete example. Nothing as hard to conceive of as burning forever, let's go for something that hits closer to home.
Suppose you had a kid, and he went off the straight and narrow. Killed somebody in a bar brawl, or maybe got into drug trafficking and did poorly enough to get caught.
Would you enjoy it if your wayward, wicked kid served life in a really, really tough prison, getting beaten up for the guards' amusement and dropping the soap for the burliest guys in the lockup, while being televised so everyone in your idyllic well-to-do neighborhood could watch and make lewd comments?
And if you were in such a situation, would you want everyone to be immortal so he'd suffer forever but you'd get to enjoy all that life has to offer?
If it's yes to both, then congrats, you'll probably like it in heaven.
As for me, I think I'd rather be dead.
...Whatever, I'm probably too cynical for my own good. Lack of imagination is bliss.
UPD: Whoops, got carried away here.
Believe it or not, Rolan7, my initial intention was to cheer you up about this:
Quote
...But he begged at the end, and I guess I will too. Again.And then somehow I got derailed.
Funny how bearing good news so often turns into yelling about fire and brimstone.
My point, or at least the point I initially wanted to make, is that you have a choice even when life has you cornered and you see no escape.
And that choice isn't just "atheism or religion"; there are other options, some of them less harmful to your emotional well-being.
The choice between spirituality and (spiritual) nihilism won't have much effect on what happens, obviously. When shit hits the fan, convincing yourself it's chocolate won't make you smell any nicer.
But it will affect how you process what happens, which might be important in deciding your actions. (There's no reason to point out that your actions during any particular shitstorm do determine the outcomes of said shitstorm; we're all adults here, after all.)
And, of course, your choice in the moment of weakness will affect how much you will be ashamed of it if you actually survive the shitstorm despite all odds.
Sometimes having irrational beliefs makes enough of a difference to increase your chances of succesfully getting through the bad stuff.
Humans have somehow evolved to irrationally grasp for any happy belief in reach, and somehow they evolved to do it all the time.
We can, therefore, infer that it significantly increased their chances of survival: not because it's necessarily true, but because it made the first irrational believer of a caveman more stubborn, less likely to just lie down and die, and thus more likely to survive and procreate. It seems to do the same for people in recorded history, too.
Irrational belief isn't the only solution, of course. There are other weird instinctive behaviors that do the same. I won't bore you by trying to list even some of them.
I'm not saying it's always right to convert to a religion when all seems lost.
I mean, yuck. If you genuinely believe doing something is wrong, then try to find another way. You'll thank yourself later, if you survive the attempt.
What I'm saying is that if you already expect to falter in your convictions either way, then it might be reasonable to temporarily utilize the benefits of irrational beliefs, if only to make the situation feel less unbearable than it is.
I'm also saying that there are plenty of ways to go about it; some are more harmful in the long term, some are less.
(The part of this post that goes after this is long and suspiciously preachy-looking, even to me - and I'm the guy who wrote it.
Since I can't edit it to be any less preachy, and can't really delete it without making the rest of the post meaningless, I'll just put it all under a spoiler.
It's your choice whether to read it, and whether to dismiss it. Hell, I'd probably dismiss it all myself if I wasn't desperate back then; and later I'd have dismissed it if it hadn't managed to work out in my particular case.
Poke holes in my reasoning if you see any and feel like it. I'd rather say something that might be helpful or might be crazy and be proven wrong later on, than to let fear of ridicule govern my actions.)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: smjjames on May 25, 2019, 09:27:51 am
Post by: Egan_BW on May 25, 2019, 12:37:16 pm
Post by: smjjames on June 22, 2019, 11:23:41 pm
Pfft, Netflix shouldn't cave to demands just because religious people don't like it, Galileo didn't cave in either!
'god is voiced by a woman', do they seriously have a hangup on that? Maybe God and Gaia are one and the same, WHAT A HERETICAL CONCEPT!!!! Or maybe it's Mary speaking as she's since merged with god! HERETICAL CONCEPT!!!!!
Or maybe God should sound like Cthulhu. IA! IA! CTHULHU FTAGHN!
Thank you! I'll be here all week! Enough trolling for tonight!
Hopefully I didn't overplay my hand here....
Though seriously, most christians are familiar with the concept of Gaia/Mother Earth/Mother Nature and are accepting of it, so, I fail to see why god having a female voice should offend people, you already worship Mary, mother of Jesus (Catholics do, at least), maybe it's her speaking? Though ideally the voice should be genderless or gender ambigous in the sense that you can't really tell for sure if it's female or male because it falls in between. Or maybe ideally it should sound like a robot, that'd be funny.
Post by: Egan_BW on June 22, 2019, 11:30:11 pm
Post by: smjjames on June 22, 2019, 11:43:57 pm
Post by: hector13 on June 23, 2019, 02:43:00 am
The real travesty is having a Scottish and Welsh actor act like they’re English. Totes.
Post by: HmH on June 23, 2019, 04:43:06 am
Quote
“This is another step to make Satanism appear normal, light and acceptable. We must show our rejection,” the group adds.Well, they're kinda right about that, but only if you take this statement completely out of context.
Putting pressure onto companies to cancel a pretty good series partway through the making does, indeed, make Satanism appear acceptable by comparison.
Post by: TD1 on June 23, 2019, 04:50:12 am
The problem is that it is a light and humorous story based on the Bible, which for them is incredibly serious. I don't think laughing at them is appropriate, especially considering that this show does (albeit in a light hearted way) mock their core beliefs.
Personally I see it as subjective. On one hand, I have no faith-based baggage when watching the show. So God is voiced by a woman? It's not like He existed in the first place - who cares.
And that is the crux of the issue. Because for them, He does exist. And they most definitely care.
Post by: wierd on June 23, 2019, 06:01:50 am
Their creation figure invented gender, after first creating an entire culture of genderless beings. (angels are genderless yo.) it is implied quite strongly that the big guy on the throne is likewise genderless, since the concept of gender is one this being invented. The issue is purely one of linguistics with gendered nouns, and the imposed patriarchal attitude that was presumably instituted by the big guy on the holy throne.
EG, authority was given to men; but the concept that the highest authority is neither male for female does not sink in, because they have settled on the lower branch of "Male==authority", thus "Authority==male".
If you ask me, they should have made a polyphony voice like bethesda did for Asura in morrowind, where the voice is an auditory collage of several voices, both male and female, overlaid on top of each other.
You are not supposed to understand the mind of god. You are not supposed to understand how or what god is. Giving a voice to something that is ineffable like that means giving it one that causes confusion and awe at the same time. Hence, my suggestion.
But meh.
Post by: Egan_BW on June 23, 2019, 10:00:31 am
Post by: Castlecliff on August 02, 2019, 06:17:00 pm
I dont understand the fixation on maleness for the abrahamic god.
Their creation figure invented gender, after first creating an entire culture of genderless beings. (angels are genderless yo.) it is implied quite strongly that the big guy on the throne is likewise genderless, since the concept of gender is one this being invented. The issue is purely one of linguistics with gendered nouns, and the imposed patriarchal attitude that was presumably instituted by the big guy on the holy throne.
EG, authority was given to men; but the concept that the highest authority is neither male for female does not sink in, because they have settled on the lower branch of "Male==authority", thus "Authority==male".
If you ask me, they should have made a polyphony voice like bethesda did for Asura in morrowind, where the voice is an auditory collage of several voices, both male and female, overlaid on top of each other.
You are not supposed to understand the mind of god. You are not supposed to understand how or what god is. Giving a voice to something that is ineffable like that means giving it one that causes confusion and awe at the same time. Hence, my suggestion.
But meh.
Its quite funny. I talked to god the other day i could explain it simply but I know it won't be respected. So instead I will match my imperial army into your homes and take (y)our woman and culture and change it to suit a new world that is easy to dominate by unsettling the balanced humanity.
Play their roles against one another and doubt each other.
Doubt is the first step to suspension of believing and creation of illusionary realities. Kinda like impromptu acting but on a will creates reality level. Like a djinns wish bent slightly by an authority
Post by: Egan_BW on August 02, 2019, 07:18:50 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2019, 12:34:45 am
I dont understand the fixation on maleness for the abrahamic god.Interestingly, the medieval scholar Eriguena would agree. He saw 'one' to be the perfect number, and division to be less perfect. The more unity in something, the more it resembles god. The division of mankind into two genders is thus a distancing from God, who is One.
Their creation figure invented gender, after first creating an entire culture of genderless beings. (angels are genderless yo.) it is implied quite strongly that the big guy on the throne is likewise genderless, since the concept of gender is one this being invented. The issue is purely one of linguistics with gendered nouns, and the imposed patriarchal attitude that was presumably instituted by the big guy on the holy throne.
EG, authority was given to men; but the concept that the highest authority is neither male for female does not sink in, because they have settled on the lower branch of "Male==authority", thus "Authority==male".
If you ask me, they should have made a polyphony voice like bethesda did for Asura in morrowind, where the voice is an auditory collage of several voices, both male and female, overlaid on top of each other.
You are not supposed to understand the mind of god. You are not supposed to understand how or what god is. Giving a voice to something that is ineffable like that means giving it one that causes confusion and awe at the same time. Hence, my suggestion.
But meh.
Post by: Frumple on August 03, 2019, 09:54:58 am
Post by: Teneb on August 03, 2019, 12:08:52 pm
Less perfect than zero, though. One is still divisible even if it's not divided :PThe text that Th4DwArfY1 is referencing might (I dunno and am too lazy to check) have been written before the concept of zero caught on. But we now, in our totally enlightened times, know zero is the best number.
Post by: hector13 on August 03, 2019, 12:31:30 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2019, 01:55:26 pm
The text in question is the Periphyseon, btw. Widely regarded as the defining theological work of its time and, of course, a border-line heretical text too. Its core concern is ouisia (Essence in Greek, probably spelled incorrectly here, can't recall.) God reveals himself in his creations, so on so forth, the Division of Nature is a circle.
I spent some time trying to decipher his work for an essay last year. I can't say I fully succeeded, but the man was undoubtedly a shining intellect.
Post by: smjjames on August 04, 2019, 02:05:17 am
Post by: wierd on August 04, 2019, 02:10:38 am
While they all integrated parts of each other, into each other, they all seemed to universally revile each other-- So, my guess is that he would find the comic contemptible, but interesting. :P
Post by: TD1 on August 04, 2019, 02:48:31 am
Ah, imagine his mates' faces :P
The Gottschalk controversy might interest you lot, by the way. It was the idea of predestination - Gottschalk believed that we are predestined to badness and predestined to goodness. Though he was shunted to various monasteries (see "house arrest") and was denied the sacraments on his death, he didn't recant. Hence Eriugena's biting response, the Treatise on Divine Predestination, in which God only predestines the saved and not the damned. I believe the analogy of two drowning men is used (either by Eriugena or someone supporting him - again, can't recall). One man is trying to swim, and so freely chooses to be in a position in which he can be saved. The other is not trying, and so is freely choosing to die. In other words, the believer reaches for salvation consciously as his own choice and is therefore saved. The non-believer chooses damnation.
Gottschalk emphasised inevitability; Eriugena (albeit in a novel and non-conformist way) emphasised free will as a force interacting with, rather than opposing, predestination.
I don't know if that made sense, actually. I tried to pare it down, but Eriugena always made my head tie into knots.
Post by: smjjames on September 01, 2019, 04:01:57 pm
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/politics/texas-state-rep-praying-for-protection-shooting/index.html
When are religious people, politicians in particular, going to realize that god does not work like DnD?
Edit: I wonder how many of those shooters were ‘god-fearing christians’? That’d put a stake right into his ‘godless people that need saving’ argument.
Post by: IndigoFenix on September 03, 2019, 01:39:54 am
The theory of prayer is that by aligning yourself with God's will and making it more likely that your willing actions will advance God's plan, your existence, survival and success will benefit God's plan and therefore you have a better chance of getting those things, rather than being used as a pawn and getting discarded when you've outlived your usefulness.
God isn't a magical sky fairy that gives you stuff because you want it. Philosophically and theologically that doesn't even make sense.
Post by: TD1 on September 03, 2019, 07:42:29 am
My argument is that people don't really care about the theological implications. Throughout their lives, they have been encouraged to build a relationship with God. A natural facet of any such relationship is that of obligation - a father is obliged to help his child, a friend their friend. Their prayers do not go to the Almighty, who will measure their pleas on a silver scale and find them wanting. Their prayers go to the being whom they love, and whose love they feel assured of in return.
Indeed, people don't think of God as a magical sky fairy who will indulge their whims. They think of him as a friend or father who loves and wants the best for them... and when calamity strikes, a genuine friend would say 'screw it' to their own plans, no matter the consequences, and help.
In other words, prayer in such cases is an emotional outpouring - one which seeks reciprocation. It is not a rational or logical action in which people consider theology or, indeed, logic.
Post by: Gentlefish on September 03, 2019, 10:29:05 am
Some nuns even go so far as to claim their relationship to Jesus may be likened to marriage.
Wait - I thought that was the point. Like, in the vows of nunnery and all it's a wedding and devotion to Jesus over real, actual people.
Post by: TD1 on September 03, 2019, 10:42:49 am
Post by: smjjames on September 03, 2019, 05:25:43 pm
*Though it’s possible they meant it as a joke or something, I don’t remember if they were actually serious in that belief.
Post by: Rolan7 on September 03, 2019, 07:33:16 pm
It's no worse than clicking a reaction emoji on Facebook. It doesn't help the victims, but very few people expect it to. It's a traditional way to contemplate/meditate. We think about what happened and try to integrate it into our understanding of the world.
Some people might feel comforted afterward and put the tragedy out of their mind, trusting that greater powers will handle it. That's not unique to prayer. Skeptics and atheists are also overwhelmed by things which deserve outrage, and often allow the news cycle to spin on. Any contemplation which helps us process these issues and form calm opinions about them is helpful, as it prepares us for taking actual action.
Post by: smjjames on September 03, 2019, 08:21:21 pm
The whole ‘thoughts and prayers’ is tired and I’m sure everybody on both sides (even the gun toting ppl who want a focus on mental health and have their own views) are frustrated with no concrete movement while this keeps happening, but it’s the whole double facepalm groan level of dumbness (especially when it falls right into the stereotype) that gets me. It’s sort of like trying to ask god to physically (or psychically) intervene (which is what I was trying to imply with the DND reference earlier) when he doesn’t actually exist... at least not in the way that one would be able to physically throw thunderbolts or imbue clerics with spells.
In reality, it’s going to be the word of humanity, people, (or the voice of god speaking through people if you want to take that route) that ‘transforms the hearts of those with evil intent’ not god.
Post by: TD1 on September 04, 2019, 08:48:26 am
Post by: Frumple on September 04, 2019, 09:15:11 am
Post by: TD1 on September 04, 2019, 09:18:45 am
Post by: Gentlefish on September 04, 2019, 11:05:11 am
Because those people actually believe that reading the pseudolatin aloud summons literal demons and bad spirits.
Post by: TD1 on September 04, 2019, 11:09:57 am
Priest: Pater noster, qui es in cœlis; sanctificatur nomen tuum: Adveniat regnum tuum; fiat voluntas tua, sicut in cœlo, et in terra. Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie: Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris: et ne nos inducas in tentationem: sed libera nos a malo.
Me, confused: Av...avada kedavra?
Priest: :o
Post by: Teneb on September 04, 2019, 12:15:11 pm
that the books are heresy or that the banning of the books is heresy?According to Catholic dogma, only their god is capable of doing magic. So if a Catholic says someone other than their god can do magic, it's heresy.
Because those people actually believe that reading the pseudolatin aloud summons literal demons and bad spirits.
Post by: smjjames on September 04, 2019, 12:22:00 pm
that the books are heresy or that the banning of the books is heresy?According to Catholic dogma, only their god is capable of doing magic. So if a Catholic says someone other than their god can do magic, it's heresy.
Because those people actually believe that reading the pseudolatin aloud summons literal demons and bad spirits.
Who says those in Harry Potter books aren’t channeling gods magic? ;)
Post by: wierd on September 04, 2019, 12:32:53 pm
that the books are heresy or that the banning of the books is heresy?According to Catholic dogma, only their god is capable of doing magic. So if a Catholic says someone other than their god can do magic, it's heresy.
Because those people actually believe that reading the pseudolatin aloud summons literal demons and bad spirits.
Who says those in Harry Potter books aren’t channeling gods magic? ;)
Nonsense! Those spells are all murdered latin and greek. I never ONCE saw the tetragrammaton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton)! Not even a passing mention of the merkava (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah_mysticism)!
Old testament mysticism would have melted poor harry's brains! The closest they had was the "Arithmancy" class, and that would have only barely scraped the surface. Ancient Hebrew numerology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Judaism), Kabbalah, and co (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_mysticism) are things I doubt JK Rowling would have wanted to even touch with a 100 foot pole in her books.
:P
Post by: TD1 on September 04, 2019, 01:05:13 pm
Post by: smjjames on September 04, 2019, 01:17:42 pm
Seriously though, she wouldn’t have touched the stuff that people would consider really serious because it’s not actually serious magic, and if she did, they’d be calling out misuse. I mean, do Catholics cry for the heads of magicians who use words like hocus pocus, alakazam, and abracadabra or use stage magic? Probably not.
It’s really just idiots being idiots.
Edit while typing: You know, I can’t help but wonder if the reaction would be different if JK Rowling was a man
Post by: TD1 on September 04, 2019, 01:21:56 pm
Post by: wierd on September 04, 2019, 01:23:39 pm
She wanted to create a setting that could be both light-hearted and fun, sufficiently similar to the daily grind of modern children so that the characters were relatable, and still be able to mature into a dark and dramatic work of fiction later. You don't get that with dusty and well-trodden magical traditions.
(EG, waxing philosophically about the numerological meaning behind Lord Voldermort's chosen name, and on the seferical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot) construct, and how it relates to the creation of a horcrux, would not be interesting to anyone except somebody who is just really fucking into studying realworld mysticism. It would get in the way of "Voldermort hated his own heritage, could not experience or feel love, and the exact mechanics of the spell he used to make the horcrux is only important in that he had to murder somebody to make it work." Doing the latter pretty much requires one to abandon actual examples of magic from our real world, and invent a new magic from whole cloth, and only convey narratively meaningful information.)
Post by: Egan_BW on September 04, 2019, 01:42:12 pm
Post by: wierd on September 04, 2019, 01:47:32 pm
She pointedly demonstrates this in her books with the references to 'Tales of Beedle the Bard', which have muggle nobles trying to force captured witches and wizards to teach them magic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tales_of_Beedle_the_Bard#%22Babbitty_Rabbitty_and_her_Cackling_Stump%22) (It never works.)
So, while we might have access to stuff that would blow us all up super duper good if we actually had magic, since we DONT, it doesn't do a damn thing for us. :P
Post by: Egan_BW on September 04, 2019, 01:53:22 pm
If there were a magic system out there, I don't doubt that we muggles would have figured out how to use it. By which I mean it's called electricity and we have figured it out.
Post by: wierd on September 04, 2019, 01:57:12 pm
AND-- things like electricity confound the magical world. (Ron weesely's dad has quite the collection of electrical plugs and appliances, and muses impotently about how they actually work. Magic is more of a "impose your will onto reality" thing, rather than an "exploit the rules of reality to get a desired effect" thing.)
Post by: Egan_BW on September 04, 2019, 01:59:35 pm
Post by: smjjames on September 04, 2019, 02:03:52 pm
Post by: wierd on September 04, 2019, 02:04:36 pm
(link fixed. Damnit, I hate technology some times. Would never be a problem if magic were fucking real. :P)
Post by: smjjames on September 04, 2019, 02:08:34 pm
Post by: wierd on September 04, 2019, 02:15:57 pm
It was only mentioned in passing as background color; Arthur Weesely mentions to his wife that they were "No closer to catching Sirius Black than to inventing self-spelling wands", with a slight exposition to explain the statement to the reader. (The ministry had been doing experimental research on the subject to assist squibs, who could perceive the magical world, but could not use magic.)
Post by: Frumple on September 04, 2019, 02:27:15 pm
Would never be a problem if magic were fucking real. :P)You'd hope, but even with fiction I've seen people touch on how wrong that could be. Imagine bugfixing and typos when errors could turn you into a chicken, or self-animate and walk off with whatever you're doing. Misplace a semicolon and letter golems jump out and try to shank you. In some ways it'd probably be pretty rad but in others things would probably be much, much worse than we deal with the our own tech base.
Post by: TD1 on September 04, 2019, 02:41:01 pm
I think rad is how to describe it :P
Post by: Trekkin on September 04, 2019, 03:07:08 pm
If I had to guess, if we actually had magic that its study would be very similar to current studies in mathematics.
Which is to say, impenetrable to anyone other than an expert, using a bunch of terms that just sound horribly contrived and made-up (ultrafilters, surreal numbers, symplectic group, univalence) to say nothing of the symbols, and 99% of it being created for its own sake with practical consequences being happy accidents.
Or science, in the sense that it's presumably going to spend a long time as a bunch of discrete facts given a quasi-mystical ad hoc explanation before being more rigorously systematized into something with predictive value. That is, in the loosest possible sense, what happened to alchemy.
Post by: TD1 on September 04, 2019, 03:30:01 pm
If I had to guess, if we actually had magic that its study would be very similar to current studies in mathematics.
Which is to say, impenetrable to anyone other than an expert, using a bunch of terms that just sound horribly contrived and made-up (ultrafilters, surreal numbers, symplectic group, univalence) to say nothing of the symbols, and 99% of it being created for its own sake with practical consequences being happy accidents.
That's part of why I liked Rothfuss' system. On one hand, the laws governing sympathetic bonds and energy transferal had been established and were taught in much the same way as one would a science - namely, at university and with some effort.
On the other hand, Names lay ineffable and somehow present, completely ungoverned and explicitly defying the understanding of the conscious human mind.
Rothfuss used both forms of Sanderson's magic-definition here - hard and soft.
Post by: Rose on September 05, 2019, 09:25:29 am
Post by: Magistrum on October 02, 2019, 08:49:27 pm
I know. He is saying Onesimus is a swell guy and would be more useful helping out the congregation than serving as someone's slave. The bible is very clear in saying that a slave os unable to serve god thoroughly.Not at all. He says "Do not punish him, and forgive his debts, because you owe me this one."
Tn the letter: 17 "If you think of me as a true friend, take him back as you would take me. 18 If he has done anything wrong or owes you anything, send me the bill." - sounds good.
19 I will pay it. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will not talk about how much you owe me because you owe me your life. " - sounds not good. "I won't talk about it, but I am talking about it right now, in case you don't remember it."
20 "Yes, Christian brother, I want you to be of use to me as a Christian. Give my heart new joy in Christ. 21 I write this letter knowing you will do what I ask and even more." - Sounds like a mob boss. "I'm writing this because I need you to be useful somehow. Do me a solid. I trust won't make a fuss and mess this up."
Firstly, he literally uses those words. I'm not paraphrasing. "16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
Second, that is the NLT translation. It's unsuitable for study, and honestly for any kind of reference. It's is openly a translation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Living_Translation)of a paraphrasing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Living_Bible)of the Bible. I believe it is also used by *ahem* modern Evangelicals, likely due to it's dumbed-down phrasing of basically everything.Yeah, sorry for that one, I just copied the text from the first search result. What do you recommend? NIV is the usual go-to, do you use anything else?
There is no context in the more detailed texts that Philemon actually owed Paul anything in terms of debt. He specifically came to him as a friend. The only "debt" that can be inferred, and this is very speculatively, is that of Paul converting Philemon. In that sense, there is no debt, and the phrase is reduced to a simple banter. He also had no real authority whatsoever for Philemon to be afraid of, he was hardly a King. He was sitting in a Roman Prison. His supposed "authority" was wholly born of a perception of wisdom and morality.I mean, he ordered people around and they they followed his orders. That's authority. For reference, check every cult leader ever. He was literally sending people around the whole time he was imprisoned.
Philemon has no debt to Paul. Paul is saying that he is going to forgive the debt. Paul isn't going to pay either. That's why he is saying Philemon owns him his life. The debt is surely smaller than his life, so forgive it for Paul's sake.
[/quote]
Believe what you want about God and the meaning of our existence, but there is no case for Christianity as a religion of slavery.It is not. It is just not against it. At least not enough to eliminate it inside it's own ranks.
It does make sense, since slavery is basically second only to sacrificial law in detail, so it is natural that the people of Israel would not be too bothered about a brother owning slaves.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 02, 2019, 08:54:46 pm
Probably. I generally think of Christianity as founded on the Old Testament, since it's the same God and the prophecies and stories of that time were supposed to be leading up to the climax, Jesus.Christianity is totally the Religion of Love, nevermind that it was founded on genocide, hatred and bigotry.Dunamisdeos already commented at length on this but... WTF? Are we having a miscommunication on what 'founded' means? I feel like there is a major fundamental disconnect - taking it all the way to WTF levels.
I was initially confused when Dun spoke of The Founder of Christianity. I would have said Jesus, but from context it was Paul. And fair enough, Paul did found the Church. Was just somewhat confusing, maybe my Baptist family background.
So yeah, miscommunication looks like.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 02, 2019, 09:05:42 pm
I guess to put it simply: God's chosen ethnic group is commanded to take slaves. Young women that is, while murdering the boys.
Mysteriously changing course once Jesus arrives doesn't explain why God commanded all that previous stuff.
I wonder what Christianity would be like if it wasn't tied to that tribal conqueror god? Could have been truly great.
well, there's always Catharism ha
Post by: smjjames on October 02, 2019, 09:11:43 pm
And shoot, since I'm here, I do find it hard to see the Old Testament as much other than "genocide, hatred and bigotry". With some decent adventures and aesops, even love stories. But overall I have serious problems with it as a guidebook.
I guess to put it simply: God's chosen ethnic group is commanded to take slaves. Young women that is, while murdering the boys.
Mysteriously changing course once Jesus arrives doesn't explain why God commanded all that previous stuff.
I wonder what Christianity would be like if it wasn't tied to that tribal conqueror god? Could have been truly great.
well, there's always Catharism ha
Wouldn't stop people from conquering under the name of religion. Even Buddhism which seems like the most anti-violence of the major world religions has been used as a pretext or as a backing for violence.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 02, 2019, 09:14:51 pm
Post by: Magistrum on October 02, 2019, 09:17:02 pm
Post by: smjjames on October 02, 2019, 09:20:33 pm
fakeedit: Kinda ninja'd by magistrum.
Post by: scourge728 on October 02, 2019, 09:23:37 pm
Post by: McTraveller on October 02, 2019, 09:35:00 pm
The point most people cite as the "founding" of Christianity is the Pentecost immediately after Jesus ascension. The accounts of this event in Acts are pretty unique: it was a spreading of the story of Christ and his resurrection, simultaneously, to a multinational, multi-ethnic, and multi-gender group. This is essentially unprecedented in all of religion: the 120 or so people who received the tongues of fire included women, "sinners", educated, laypeople, etc. No "select group". The initial message that reached thousands (if 3000 were "added to their number" then way more than that heard it) was done in multiple languages, simultaneously - no people group was therefore able to say "hey look we got it first!"
In a historical context this is radical - even contrasted with the Old Testament, where usually there was only a single "anointed" person at a time (Moses, the Kings, the Prophets). Instead you get 120 people "anointed" by the Holy Spirit all at once. They then spread it out essentially across the entire known world (in contrast to the specificity of the Israelite people group in the Old Testament). It was markedly an inclusive message, not an exclusive one.
So regardless of what history did with it after that event, that initial event was about the most inclusive thing ever, something arguably never seen before or even since. That event and the first sermon in Acts 2 - it's really a "for everyone" thing. That's why it was called the "good news" - so even if you think it was made up, that's the most astonishingly progressive thing to make up you could imagine.
That's one of the reasons why I feel so sad when I hear people today complain (and often rightly so) that "Christianity" has become bigoted and exclusive and hateful. Because it definitely didn't start out that way - with everyone sharing everything, in unity.
Side note: I'm still... struck by the fact that there is this idea that the Old Testament God is different from the New Testament God. If you take the OT and NT as a whole, not as a set of different stories, there is always this common thread underneath all the "fire and brimstone" of "Hey humanity (and often, specifically Israel), you keep trying to earn your salvation. If you want to try and earn it, fire and brimstone is what that looks like. That doesn't work people - so I have a plan and I will redeem you." Then Jesus comes, and does redeem all of humanity. Not under the law (which is fire and brimstone) but under grace. That's the story that stirred the hearts of those initial 3000 people. It wasn't a story about "God is going to conquer Rome" or "God is going to give you a comfortable life." It was merely the story that God has done all the work to get people in a restored relationship with God and ultimately conquered death itself, so we don't have to worry about "did we do enough good?" while we're alive.
Not having to worry about that is, some of us think, a great freedom. Not to justify any action we may take, but to not be fearful that our mistakes will irredeemably destroy our relationships with other people or, ultimately, God.
Post by: Frumple on October 02, 2019, 10:00:55 pm
Still, religious pacifism seems to last more or less exactly as long as it takes to get into power... if that. Moral of the story is keep your religion way the fuck away from the levers of secular government, I guess.
Post by: Magistrum on October 02, 2019, 10:07:35 pm
The point most people cite as the "founding" of Christianity is the Pentecost immediately after Jesus ascension. The accounts of this event in Acts are pretty unique: it was a spreading of the story of Christ and his resurrection, simultaneously, to a multinational, multi-ethnic, and multi-gender group. This is essentially unprecedented in all of religion: the 120 or so people who received the tongues of fire included women, "sinners", educated, laypeople, etc. No "select group". The initial message that reached thousands (if 3000 were "added to their number" then way more than that heard it) was done in multiple languages, simultaneously - no people group was therefore able to say "hey look we got it first!"Do you think miracles are possible, and do you think all the ones described at the bible happened? Since that matters a lot for the outlook we get on this.
Because the Pentecost stuff was very much a Jewish thing, and they only preach to Judah and Samaria until later so...
About the side note: It was very much about "god is going to conquer rome". Most the people thought the Messiah was going to be king on earth. That's why he is of Davidic lineage. Everyone was expecting for a Messiah at that time. That was so popular that not one, but multiple showed up at same time. Our Jesus is the one that stuck. Some of them got a small army and got wrecked right after. One is even mentioned in the bible in Acts 21:38.
Post by: smjjames on October 02, 2019, 10:21:06 pm
Post by: McTraveller on October 03, 2019, 06:46:55 am
About the side note: It was very much about "god is going to conquer rome".
Jesus' teaching was indeed in a culture where people were looking for that "conquering" king. I think you really have to stretch, though, to say that Jesus teaching was about that kind of kingdom.
That's what makes it interesting that Jesus teaching "stuck" - it was such a different teaching.
Quote
... they only preach to Judah and Samaria until later so...
Not really - the fact that Paul and his crew were able to set up churches in so many gentile places was testament to the fact that those people from Pentecost really did go back to their homelands and put down the seeds of those churches. Many congregations were already there when Paul visited.
Regarding miracles: yes they can occur, from small to astonishing. I'm not an expert on the study though, but I'm sure you can find scholarly articles out there about what miracles are and aren't, and perhaps why we don't see them today the way they were depicted in the first-century literature.
Post by: Magistrum on October 03, 2019, 07:38:33 am
In the pentecost event only disciples of christ receive the blessing. They were all Israelites. Accordingly, since it was Pentecost, the people there to hear them were also Israelites and proselytes, not regular foreigners, but Jewish converts.
Presumably Jesus found it easier to explain only what changed to jews in the very short time he had on earth, as opposed to everything from the start to foreigners.
Realistic speaking, Jesus was a jew and he never planned for gentiles to be converted. He was an Israelite Messiah to Israel, and you can see that in the early congregation by their rejection of uncircumcised (non-proselyte) gentiles. They were jews and the message was for jews.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on October 11, 2019, 12:27:52 pm
Post by: Frumple on October 11, 2019, 01:29:57 pm
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on October 11, 2019, 02:01:09 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on October 11, 2019, 02:06:11 pm
I do think that irrational beliefs inherently justify irrational behavior, but that doesn't mean that belief in the talking honey badger (his example) is only different from violent extremism by degree. He's blurring the lines... like, very literally, at 10:45. Those are real lines.
So I strongly disagree with that point. Religion doesn't inherently lead to violence. Violence-filled holy books which condemn nonbelievers do. Not every religion is like the Abrahamic ones.
Edit: most probably, but not all.
Edit2: Oop I didn't see the Ameripol discussion this probably came from, guess I need to catch up
Post by: thompson on October 11, 2019, 04:50:47 pm
The key qualities of leadership in my view are integrity and wisdom. Religion really shouldn't come into it unless you're forced to choose between two idiots. Which happens, of course.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on October 11, 2019, 05:22:20 pm
I can understand why religion is such a great source of frustration for many in the US, but it's important to keep things in context. I'd argue that the #1 issues in politics at the moment is corruption and the revolving door between congress and lobbyists. The motivation there is pure self-interest, no ideological conviction required. This undermines the integrity of the entire system and fuels serious social problems like the opiod crisis. The most consequential thing religious politicians might do is overturn Wade vs Roe, which would lead to abortion bans in some states. That's a significant consequence, but it's only really possible because the link between the 4th amendment (or was it 8th) and abortion was tenuous at best.Yes, corruption is the issue, and religion is used as a tool for said corruption. I agree that ideology isn't required, but it does help those in power stay in power because "don't question God"
The key qualities of leadership in my view are integrity and wisdom. Religion really shouldn't come into it unless you're forced to choose between two idiots. Which happens, of course.
Post by: smjjames on October 11, 2019, 05:42:19 pm
I can understand why religion is such a great source of frustration for many in the US, but it's important to keep things in context. I'd argue that the #1 issues in politics at the moment is corruption and the revolving door between congress and lobbyists. The motivation there is pure self-interest, no ideological conviction required. This undermines the integrity of the entire system and fuels serious social problems like the opiod crisis. The most consequential thing religious politicians might do is overturn Wade vs Roe, which would lead to abortion bans in some states. That's a significant consequence, but it's only really possible because the link between the 4th amendment (or was it 8th) and abortion was tenuous at best.Yes, corruption is the issue, and religion is used as a tool for said corruption. I agree that ideology isn't required, but it does help those in power stay in power because "don't question God"
The key qualities of leadership in my view are integrity and wisdom. Religion really shouldn't come into it unless you're forced to choose between two idiots. Which happens, of course.
I haven't heard 'don't question God' being used as an excuse in the political corruption that's the #1 issue atm. That kind of excuse is more likely to be used by those within the religious institution itself and those that claim divine mandate.
Post by: thompson on October 11, 2019, 05:43:19 pm
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on October 11, 2019, 06:44:07 pm
I respectfully disagree. Religion aids corruption insofar as it keeps people talking about religion rather than the real issue of corruption. When a religious person hears someone criticising a politician for being religious they aren't going to interpret that as a concern about corruption, but rather as religious bigotry. This will inspire them to show solidarity with the politician. Focus on the issues and don't let them shift the narrative. Never allow yourself to become someone else's "useful idiot".Thank you
Post by: TD1 on October 12, 2019, 12:59:36 am
A religious institute is as susceptible to corruption as any other. Money, young boys, stealing babies for adoption. You name it and some religious institution has done it.
Post by: wierd on October 12, 2019, 02:08:31 am
1) It is based exclusively around concepts that are at best only tenuously connected to objective reality (meaning just about anything goes).
2) Due to the above, it is amazingly vulnerable to Voltaire's statement about absurdities. (Objectively false things can be axiomatically true within the context of a religious dogma, and thus, can be used as the tool to make people believe absurdities, and thus to commit atrocities.)
Religions (The sets of ideals or precepts that are held in this special class of axioms as being truths, regardless of physical reality) are not in and of themselves things that are nefarious. But they sure do function super-duper-good as tools for nefarious people and nefarious agendas.
Post by: TD1 on October 12, 2019, 03:05:26 am
Post by: Trekkin on October 12, 2019, 04:16:35 am
Likewise in the other direction, of course, when the absurdity is of societal benefit.
That's not entirely equivalent, though. What all society needs from any given person at any given time is necessarily variable, and dogma is by nature fixed. Certainly we can both point to any number of precepts in the Bible that rest on outdated understandings of disease and so forth as examples of the dangers inherent in relying on any fixed doctrine in navigating the changing demands of modernity, but we can also look at even the most apparently enduring moral lessons contained therein and find cases where they do not apply. "Thou shalt not kill", for example, precludes lethal violence in self-defense (admittedly due to a loss of specificity in translation, but still) that modern society finds acceptable in extreme cases. If you'd like a non-Christian example, there's a proscription against a specific millennia-old ritual involving blood and milk behind why Jews can't eat cheeseburgers, which most people in modern society would agree is not an inherently less moral act than eating meat and cheese separately.
There's a certain amount of einheit required for society to work smoothly, and axiomatic dogma discourages the understanding of the reasoning behind the rules necessary to develop it.
Post by: wierd on October 12, 2019, 04:38:16 am
Ones that have come about because of "organic evolution" of a society's views or culture, and ones that were synthetically engineered.
For an example of the latter, I present Scientology. It was literally created by Hubbard, and is literally designed to be nefarious. (It purposefully incorporates the sunk cost fallacy to entrap its members, among a host of other features, specifically for the purposes of locking them into a cycle of eternal payment to the organization. See also, the kinds of onerous "contracts" (https://www.scientology.org/faq/church-management/is-it-true-that-people-in-the-sea-org-sign-a-billion-year-contract.html) the central organization of that religion has instituted in its subordinate org, Sea.org. The religion is designed, from the ground-up, to be nefarious.)
This distinction is very important if there is to be coherent discussion about how, if, and when a religion is in and of itself nefarious. (Such as scientology-- With apologies to earnest scientologists. There *IS* a movement to make that religion, and pull it away from its engineered condition, and make it into an organically practiced one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Zone_(Scientology))-- but the official organization behind Scientology (and its originating structure) (https://www.scientology.org/faq/what-scientology-does-for-the-individual/scientology-open-to-anyone.html) is staunchly against such practices. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#Free_Zone_suppression))
Engineered religions were/are engineered with specific objectives and goals in mind. If those goals or objectives are nefarious, then the resulting religion is inherently nefarious.
Post by: smjjames on October 13, 2019, 10:36:08 pm
Also, why is Cain paranoid of being murdered out there, IF NOBODY LIVES THERE?!Well, animals are a thing, and many have big teeth and claws
Also, why is Cain paranoid of being murdered out there, IF NOBODY LIVES THERE?!Well, animals are a thing, and many have big teeth and claws
IIRC, Cain specifically mentioned people.
Also: PAGING DUNAMISDEOS
Post by: Rolan7 on November 12, 2019, 07:24:27 pm
Spiritualist/Materialist is interesting because it's not just a religion thing, or doesn't have to be. I'd argue it's more generally a question of arts versus hard sciences. Respecting feelings or only hard facts. A Spiritualist society excels in building culture, sharing ideas about the future and making them happen through group dynamics. Materialists... well, feel pretty materialistic, with an appreciation for what the individual is able to produce. In hard materials OR reliable (testable) truths, maybe even useful ones.
As soul-crushing as capitalist-materialism can be, I'm somewhat more horrified by the idea of being in a chorus of minds (metaphorically or psionically). I mean, that's arguably the wonder and horror of our current information age. At least in reality I can retract myself, at least for a little bit... and also have a technical understanding of the architecture making all that possible.
where was I
Obviously both those functions have trump cards: Psionics for Spiritualists, and tolerance of synthetic life for Materialists. You could say that they're each objectively wrong in regard to one of those concepts. Materialists (I picture) can't let their guard down enough to access that shared subconscious space, the Shroud... without a very special guide at least, in current patch. Whereas Spiritualists can't accept... hm.
Sorry, AI rights are something I care about a lot. In a sci-fi sense of course, we're far from "there", though I think animal rights are similar. The thing is, Spiritualists might technically have a point. The synthetics they so abhor do objectively lack that Shroud connection shared by all... "real" species, as they would say.
The question is whether that connection is necessary for someone to be "a person". If some cyborg makes that final step into digital existence, they definitely stop existing in the Shroud. But was that a deletion, or a mere disconnection? Does the Shroud host the very souls of organics, or does their existence merely echo in it?
Spiritualists see the Shroud-less as anathemas. Potentially tolerated, but inherently wrong. I think a person should be allowed to exist by themself. Perhaps the Shroud disagrees.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 12, 2019, 07:30:33 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 12, 2019, 08:08:52 pm
*cough* androsynth *cough*
The fact that that attempt led to brutal warfare and mass death (human nukes, and synthetic farming) doesn't change the original calculus. What humanity... human governments tried to do was wrong.
There's something horrible about acknowledging the suffering of other beings. It makes the world a distractingly bleak place if you overthink it. "I don't like to be hurt" "It's wrong to hurt people like me" "Is that entity like me?"
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 12, 2019, 08:23:10 pm
Post by: Telgin on November 12, 2019, 09:27:22 pm
That said, I'm not sure we'll see androids or robots like them become super common, since it's an unnecessary design feature for such robots to have a humanoid appearance. I'm expecting a lot of AIs to be entirely virtual. Those will probably end up with the same rights, but it's hard to imagine how they'll really fit into our societies right now.
Post by: scourge728 on November 12, 2019, 09:35:55 pm
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 12, 2019, 09:42:03 pm
Post by: Telgin on November 12, 2019, 09:53:47 pm
Post by: thompson on November 16, 2019, 06:12:28 am
Post by: Egan_BW on November 16, 2019, 06:25:44 am
Also, an AI designed to get a hit every time they accomplish a specific task is a lot more terrifying than one designed with humanlike desires.
Post by: wierd on November 16, 2019, 06:30:32 am
Yeah...SHE was supposed to be an AI that was designed to get a high every time she accomplished a scientific exploit...
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 16, 2019, 06:50:23 am
Post by: Egan_BW on November 16, 2019, 06:51:45 am
Post by: wierd on November 16, 2019, 06:53:52 am
Quote from: Merriam Webster
exploit noun
ex·ploit | \ ˈek-ˌsplȯit
, ik-ˈsplȯit
\
Definition of exploit
(Entry 1 of 2)
: deed, act especially : a notable or heroic act
EG, when she made a specifically notable scientific breakthrough, she would get a direct stimulation of pleasure. It was a plot point in Portal 2, when Wheately takes her spot.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 16, 2019, 07:58:52 am
Post by: Reelya on November 16, 2019, 08:10:31 am
It's not a specific scientific exploit, it's each time she achieved a scientific exploit.
Basically, she'd get high any time she made a scientific discovery. It wasn't pre-ordained which discovery that was for. The point was she was designed to make discoveries and was rewarded whenever she did.
Your interpretation is like interpreting the sentence "if you run over a person you will go to jail" and asking "which person is that, specifically?"
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 16, 2019, 08:12:08 am
Post by: Reelya on November 16, 2019, 08:14:45 am
I haven't even played the games, but I can work that much out.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 16, 2019, 08:16:58 am
Post by: Grim Portent on November 16, 2019, 02:45:13 pm
In Portal 2 she devises new 'test' rooms, but they're basically made out of a spiteful desire to kill Chell for revenge. She spent a long time doing basically nothing but kill people for pleasure like a rat pressing a button to get food until someone started to beat her.
Post by: hector13 on November 17, 2019, 02:00:45 am
Post by: dragdeler on November 17, 2019, 04:13:22 am
Post by: TD1 on November 17, 2019, 04:35:55 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: ChairmanPoo on November 17, 2019, 07:47:31 am
How can an AI be a she?Excuse me, are you assuming the AI's gender???
Post by: Teneb on November 17, 2019, 09:47:36 am
How can an AI be a she?I mean, the same way it works for humans. If someone identifies as a particular gender, then they are that gender since, y'know, gender is not sex and all that.
Post by: itisnotlogical on January 01, 2020, 11:49:46 am
So far, what I've gotten from it is that Jacob did wrong and made out like a bandit because God liked him better than Esau for some reason, and the women introduced thus far are generally catty or otherwise make life miserable for the families they're introduced to. I'm up to Genesis 37 so far.
Is there something I'm missing in locations being named after people, or vice-versa? Practically any time anybody is born it mentions that the name sounds like some Hebrew word, is something similar happening with people and place names?
Post by: McTraveller on January 01, 2020, 12:41:44 pm
The Bible does have a single narrative, it is simply that God created the universe and humanity, humanity decided they would do their own thing which put a rift between God and humanity (and between humanity and itself), and God constantly works to try and resolve that rift despite how humanity keeps doing its own thing, including the ultimate act of redemption (of the relationship between God and man, and also man and man) through Jesus.
Regarding Jacob: yes Jacob was a schemer but God favored him not because of the scheming but because of God's previous promise to Abraham.
Post by: itisnotlogical on January 01, 2020, 12:56:29 pm
What bugs me about the Jacob story so far is that it seemed like God just picked Jacob over Esau rather arbitrarily, unless God was hitting up Esau with the wives and cattle and slaves off-screen or in a part that gets explained later. Where I left off Esau and Jacob had just met up, and he's doing fine but I get the impression that Esau was a self-made man whereas Jacob gets to walk around with angels and God in the flesh.
Unless you're referring to a different promise between God and Abraham that I somehow missed, as opposed to the main one about having many descendants and coming to own the entire land. I was under the impression that that one applied to all his descendants, not just one at a time.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 05, 2020, 08:39:34 pm
Whereas reality is completely in line with my world view of hateful Unseelie.
Post by: wierd on April 05, 2020, 08:50:44 pm
"Get out of the cities lest ye become partakers, with them, of my wrath."
and all that chocolate sauce!
Post by: McTraveller on April 05, 2020, 09:04:30 pm
Quote from: CSLewis
It is well to have specifically holy places, and things, and days, for, without these focal points or reminders, the belief that all is holy and "big with God" will soon dwindle into a mere sentiment. But if these holy places, things, and days cease to remind us, if they obliterate our awareness that all ground is holy and every bush (could we but perceive it) a Burning Bush, then the hallows begin to do harm. Hence both the necessity, and the perennial danger, of "religion."
Also by the way, Genesis is not really linear narrative - it's more accurately described as an allegory. Historically based, but not literal history. I'd highly recommend, again, picking up some supporting material, like How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Fee and Stuart. If you're trying to read through the Bible, there are pretty good podcasts* even for helping with the greater context - for instance, about the "craziness" of the stories in the old testament.
*
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rolan7 on April 05, 2020, 09:04:48 pm
BUHT--- END THYMES BRUH!!!What, no, I don't think my
"Get out of the cities lest ye become partakers, with them, of my wrath."
and all that chocolate sauce!
My worship of a pantheon of both good and bad things is consistent with reality.
If not predicative - that part is debateable.
But where is the promised prophecy of the Abrahamic religions??
Post by: thompson on April 06, 2020, 06:01:08 pm
BUHT--- END THYMES BRUH!!!What, no, I don't think my
"Get out of the cities lest ye become partakers, with them, of my wrath."
and all that chocolate sauce!daedraunseelie and seelie worship suggests anything like that.
My worship of a pantheon of both good and bad things is consistent with reality.
If not predicative - that part is debateable.
But where is the promised prophecy of the Abrahamic religions??
Fulfilled, long ago. At least if you interpret half of it as allegory. God presumably just moved on to other things. Got a job, started a family, grew older, probably babysitting the grandkids from time to time and now enjoying a peaceful retirement. Hell, he could be dead for all we know. Might explain the lack of miracles in the last few hundred years.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 08, 2020, 01:27:11 am
I don't know what you believe in, but it's pretty far from Abraham.But where is the promised prophecy of the Abrahamic religions??
Fulfilled, long ago. At least if you interpret half of it as allegory. God presumably just moved on to other things. Got a job, started a family, grew older, probably babysitting the grandkids from time to time and now enjoying a peaceful retirement. Hell, he could be dead for all we know. Might explain the lack of miracles in the last few hundred years.
Post by: Frumple on April 08, 2020, 07:45:43 am
So all the prophecies have come to pass or will occur inerringly, but they were actually talking about some ant bed or whatever and the human prophets that got wire-crossed at just did the best they could with what they got.
Prophecy both real and more or less entirely irrelevant to human concerns, held to concern them due to presumably well meaning confusion.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on April 08, 2020, 07:47:19 am
It's occurred to me occasionally, what if re: the whole prophecy thing, someone somewhere just... missed. Rather than coming from the god of the jews and aimed at a human prophet, it came from the god of arthropods and/or was intended for some oracular queen ant or somethin'.Interesting, so we should worship arthropods?
So all the prophecies have come to pass or will occur inerringly, but they were actually talking about some ant bed or whatever and the human prophets that got wire-crossed at just did the best they could with what they got.
Prophecy both real and more or less entirely irrelevant to human concerns, held to concern them due to presumably well meaning confusion.
Post by: Frumple on April 08, 2020, 07:50:30 am
Post by: delphonso on April 08, 2020, 08:06:00 am
Post by: Rolan7 on April 12, 2020, 01:42:24 pm
It's a nice holiday about hope and rebirth/resurrection, and those memories are comforting to me.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 12, 2020, 02:10:36 pm
Post by: hector13 on April 12, 2020, 06:28:59 pm
Post by: Iduno on April 12, 2020, 06:49:32 pm
My only news is being reminded of how ridiculous the human element in religion is, though that is independent of religious holidays.
And the magnetic element that propels the rail.
Post by: hector13 on April 12, 2020, 06:52:24 pm
My only news is being reminded of how ridiculous the human element in religion is, though that is independent of religious holidays.
And the magnetic element that propels the rail.
It’s designed and built by humans and humans don’t know how to do it!
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 12, 2020, 06:59:28 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on April 12, 2020, 07:01:44 pm
Post by: wierd on April 13, 2020, 12:59:51 am
Post by: HmH on April 13, 2020, 10:53:54 am
The wonderful thing about magnets is that if you actually know physics well enough to describe their basic operating principles, your attempts to explain them to ordinary people will sound even more far-fetched than "motherf'n magic".
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 13, 2020, 12:23:09 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 13, 2020, 12:24:14 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 13, 2020, 12:56:10 pm
With sufficient enlightenment we can give substance to any
distinction: mind without body, north without south, pleasure
without pain. Remember, enlightenment is a function of willpower,
not of physical strength.
—Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
“Essays on Mind and Matter”
Meanwhile I'm using the magnets to make my formers go on monopole drift racing loops
Post by: TD1 on April 13, 2020, 12:59:07 pm
These are the dreams flitted Gottschalk, Quatrodecimans never told, Arius dropped his scripture, paralysed - with gold.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 13, 2020, 01:05:22 pm
Post by: hector13 on April 13, 2020, 01:56:45 pm
The monopole is a microcosm of the divine. It would not be an apocalyptic scenario but the creation of new divinity. A trinity, if you will. Two poles joined together and exerting influence through a force independent yet part of both. God, Son and Ghost.
These are the dreams flitted Gottschalk, Quatrodecimans never told, Arius dropped his scripture, paralysed - with gold.
You forgot the Spice Girls too; modern prophets they are.
Post by: wierd on April 14, 2020, 01:08:17 am
Remember, the railgun and spirituality thread could not exist without Magnetic Jesus's power to induce the holy current to flow, as told in the writings of St Faraday.
To help propel this message into prominence, please consider placing this image in a place people will see.
Spoiler: Praise magnetic jesus! (click to show/hide)
Post by: thompson on April 14, 2020, 05:49:48 am
If anyone asks you why you believe Magnetic Jesus exists, you can always point to a pair of magnets and say "if he doesn't, how do you explain this?"
The wonderful thing about magnets is that if you actually know physics well enough to describe their basic operating principles, your attempts to explain them to ordinary people will sound even more far-fetched than "motherf'n magic".
God couldn’t figure out what else to do with vector cross products. It’d have been a shame not to use them.
Post by: Teneb on April 14, 2020, 10:11:35 am
Post by: thompson on April 14, 2020, 11:17:27 pm
Post by: HmH on April 15, 2020, 02:57:23 am
But as soon as those two charges start moving, which is immediately, you gain velocity relative to at least one charge. So for Coulombists even their own 'only holy force' turns into what they claim to be sin - and it does so as soon as it appears.
The Coulombist approach, in other words, is self-contradictory. It is only internally consistent in one case: on paper.
Post by: thompson on April 15, 2020, 05:30:05 am
I mean, you can use B-fields as a convenient abstraction, but is it really worth an eternity in Non-Euclidean Hell? Apparently all forces are orthogonal there. It’d be really f’ing annoying.
Post by: HmH on April 15, 2020, 07:04:05 am
And, truth be told, if I had a choice between a non-Euclidean "hell" and a so-called "frame of reference" where objects moving towards each other don't grow any closer, I'd choose the former.
At least in non-Euclidean topology, you can figure out how to move so that you'll actually get somewhere.
UPD: Now that I think about it, there is one rather exotic frame of reference where two equal and opposing charges have zero velocity relative to each other: the one where space itself stretches between them.
But as spacetime expansion is dependent on the distance, that is only possible when every object has its own equal and opposing charge that is located at a certain fixed distance from them.
Alternatively, we might consider the more fundamental spacetime dilation that is dependent on changes in velocity; but then, as well, each True Frame is only true for one pair of charges moving at a given velocity with given acceleration relative to the rest frame.
And if we assume either of those, we will have to admit that there is an infinite amount of Unmoving Charges - one for every possible point in space (or one for each combination of velocity and acceleration) - and therefore, an infinite amount of True Frames.
Which, in turn, means that in every True Frame, other charges, each within their own True Frame, will move relative to us and Coulomb's force will be insufficient to describe our interactions with those charges.
Which is precisely why Magnetic Jesus is a necessary part of any worldview, even that of electromotive fundamentalism.
Post by: McTraveller on April 15, 2020, 12:15:44 pm
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on April 15, 2020, 12:16:33 pm
This does all make you wonder - why do things change? For motion or any of physics to make sense at all, it means that "something" must change.the search for entropy
Post by: TD1 on April 15, 2020, 12:25:36 pm
Two, we operate within a constant known as the 'present'. The present never actually changes; it is always the present. The illusion of alteration comes when many snapshots of the 'present' (now called the 'past') come together. It is like watching a film composed of many frames. Each is its own self-contained constant. Together they create an illusion of movement. But in reality, all is static.
Post by: HmH on April 15, 2020, 03:47:22 pm
You've got a really energetic (and therefore unstable) molecule.
It can become a little less energetic by shifting to a lower energy level and throwing the energy difference away in the form of a photon.
And each separate molecule tends to be more stable the less energy it has.
So why wouldn't it emit a photon and go into a more stable state?
Post by: thompson on April 15, 2020, 04:15:34 pm
Now, your point about the True Frame is a little more complex and depends on which sect you belong to. The Lorentzians believe that there is but one True Frame, and to live in any other frame is to reject the divine. The problem, however, is that no one is really sure what that frame is, so naturally the sect has been rife with schisms and internal strife.
Seeing this, Electric God sent the Prophet Einstein who preached that there is no one Universal Frame, but rather that we must all be true to our own personal True Frame. Incidentally, that True Frame is the frame where we are at rest with the Divine. So, you need to calculate the Force of each particle in its own rest frame.
Then there are the Machians, who say that one’s True Frame is relative only to everything else, but no one is entirely sure what that means.
In any case, magnetism does appear to be a dynamic effect of the Coulomb Force and could be illusionary in the sense that the centrifugal force is illusionary in a dynamic rotating system. It’s probably due to some finite propagation speed of the electric field which gets messed up once it’s no longer spherically symmetrical after Doppler shifting. So, you can still kind of “eliminate” magnetism conceptually with relativity even if you measure all particle dynamics in a single frame, but dynamical effects are harder to model and working on non-spherical fields only complicates it further. Introducing magnetic fields works because the system obeys Lorentz symmetry, which reduces to Maxwell’s equations in a single frame. Needless to say, monopoles cannot exist, even in principle.
Post by: McTraveller on April 15, 2020, 04:46:51 pm
What causes energetic systems to seek their lowest-energy states*?
This is what I meant by "what causes change". Another question is probably like it: "why is there energy?"
*
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on April 15, 2020, 04:57:23 pm
Post by: HmH on April 15, 2020, 06:06:41 pm
HmH, you’re missing my point. If you’re carrying an electric charge but are not moving, there is no magnetic force acting on you. It doesn’t matter what other charges exist in the universe or how fast they are going: B x v = 0.Except if outside magnetic fields shift relative to a static charge, a force is exerted the same as if the charge was moving in that magnetic field.
So even in a frame of reference where one of the charges is static, charges moving next to it would still exert a force whose vector is not collinear to what Coulomb's force vector should be.
Case in point: electricity generation is all about forcing relatively static electrons within a conductor to move by exposing them to a changing (i.e. moving) magnetic field.
Post by: McTraveller on April 15, 2020, 07:00:59 pm
Yes the length contraction is small, but the charge constant is huge - so you get a "human scale" force for human-scale currents. Pretty fantastic really.
Post by: HmH on April 15, 2020, 10:45:49 pm
Post by: Folly on April 16, 2020, 03:48:49 am
A Bishop who called upon his congregation to gather while saying "God is greater than the coronavirus", has now died of the coronavirus.
What lesson do you think God is trying to teach us with this?
Post by: thompson on April 16, 2020, 06:03:33 am
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/14/bishop-defied-coronavirus-mass-gathering-warnings-killed-covid-19-12555681/ (https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/14/bishop-defied-coronavirus-mass-gathering-warnings-killed-covid-19-12555681/)
A Bishop who called upon his congregation to gather while saying "God is greater than the coronavirus", has now died of the coronavirus.
What lesson do you think God is trying to teach us with this?
That he has a fairly grim sense of humour?
Post by: McTraveller on April 16, 2020, 06:48:47 am
The lessons I take from this are all pretty basic: be a good steward, which includes being sensibly hygienic. Care for your neighbor, which means not encouraging your neighbors to do foolish things. Don't have any idols, including your own sense of self-righteousness.
*Which, incidentally, is why the Christian gospel is "good news" - there's no hoops to jump through. Just simple faith. (The argument that "faith" is a hoop to jump through is a specious one.)
Post by: Egan_BW on April 16, 2020, 05:56:08 pm
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/14/bishop-defied-coronavirus-mass-gathering-warnings-killed-covid-19-12555681/ (https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/14/bishop-defied-coronavirus-mass-gathering-warnings-killed-covid-19-12555681/)
A Bishop who called upon his congregation to gather while saying "God is greater than the coronavirus", has now died of the coronavirus.
What lesson do you think God is trying to teach us with this?
"Respect nature, because it will absolutely kill you."
Post by: HmH on April 17, 2020, 05:31:55 am
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/14/bishop-defied-coronavirus-mass-gathering-warnings-killed-covid-19-12555681/ (https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/14/bishop-defied-coronavirus-mass-gathering-warnings-killed-covid-19-12555681/)
A Bishop who called upon his congregation to gather while saying "God is greater than the coronavirus", has now died of the coronavirus.
What lesson do you think God is trying to teach us with this?
"Don't expect your faith to make you the center of the universe. Just because you blackmail me with implications that letting you die will prove my nonexistence doesn't mean your blackmail will work."
Post by: Iduno on April 17, 2020, 07:55:40 am
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/14/bishop-defied-coronavirus-mass-gathering-warnings-killed-covid-19-12555681/ (https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/14/bishop-defied-coronavirus-mass-gathering-warnings-killed-covid-19-12555681/)
A Bishop who called upon his congregation to gather while saying "God is greater than the coronavirus", has now died of the coronavirus.
What lesson do you think God is trying to teach us with this?
"Respect nature, because it will absolutely kill you."
What does god need with a starship?
Post by: Frumple on April 17, 2020, 08:06:34 am
It's one of the more disappointing things with reality and most of human religions' boring ass creator deities, really. There's plenty of neat shit in the world but if I were a creator deity I'd be putting some priority on having cats vomit rainbows instead of hairballs, y'know? Stuff could be a lot more interesting with little to no increase in danger, but for whatever reason most believers seem pretty comfortable with their gods having seriously dropped the ball on that front.
Post by: McTraveller on April 17, 2020, 10:06:42 am
Better question: If you could have a starship, without significant personal downsides, why not have a starship? Most people that have sailing boats or other sorts of water based small craft need them for precisely sod all.Have you seen a platypus? Slime molds? Black holes? Quantum mechanics? The universe is full of pretty amazing, weird stuff.
It's one of the more disappointing things with reality and most of human religions' boring ass creator deities, really. There's plenty of neat shit in the world but if I were a creator deity I'd be putting some priority on having cats vomit rainbows instead of hairballs, y'know? Stuff could be a lot more interesting with little to no increase in danger, but for whatever reason most believers seem pretty comfortable with their gods having seriously dropped the ball on that front.
Also my take is that God purposely didn't create everything, so we would have the opportunity to imagine and create too. Yeah yeah we are limited, because we can't make rainbow-vomiting cats. We can (and have) made rainbow-colored cats though...
Post by: HmH on April 17, 2020, 10:10:14 am
Better question: If you could have a starship, without significant personal downsides, why not have a starship? Most people that have sailing boats or other sorts of water based small craft need them for precisely sod all.If cats vomited rainbows instead of hairballs, and - allow me to extend your logic - if their piss smelled like roses, there would be no ugly downsides to balance their natural cuteness.
It's one of the more disappointing things with reality and most of human religions' boring ass creator deities, really. There's plenty of neat shit in the world but if I were a creator deity I'd be putting some priority on having cats vomit rainbows instead of hairballs, y'know? Stuff could be a lot more interesting with little to no increase in danger, but for whatever reason most believers seem pretty comfortable with their gods having seriously dropped the ball on that front.
It will break the balance of dog/cat-lovers, and leave the balance skewed,
And will let the cats breed and adopt the humans!
And the cats shall outnumber the humans. (http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab6.htm)
Post by: Eschar on April 17, 2020, 10:12:53 am
The argument that "faith" is a hoop to jump through is a specious one.
Why?
Post by: McTraveller on April 17, 2020, 10:38:03 am
The argument that "faith" is a hoop to jump through is a specious one.
Why?
Because it is essentially arguing that faith is works; it's re-defining words to be argumentative. "Belief" is not a "work."
Post by: Eschar on April 17, 2020, 10:43:25 am
The argument that "faith" is a hoop to jump through is a specious one.
Why?
Because it is essentially arguing that faith is works; it's re-defining words to be argumentative. "Belief" is not a "work."
True, it's not a choice (which is one of the main problem's with Pascal's Wager). However, it could still be considered a "hoop to jump through" in the sense of an obstacle (except under universalism.)
Post by: Rolan7 on April 17, 2020, 11:05:03 am
While I believe God is indeed "bigger" than any virus, I also believe that we live in a fallen/corrupted world, where there is suffering and pain. If you're a "Bible person" there are many many places in the Bible that talk about how both good and bad fortunes fall on both the "righteous and unrighteous" - your circumstance, cause of death, etc. doesn't have anything to do with "how well you follow the religion.*"It looks (from the outside) like you took some good lessons from the virus, then tried to connect them to doctrine. There are plenty of lessons about hygiene in the Bible which are a closer fit than the call for stewardship... They're largely about ritual uncleanness though and seem a bit primitive (and sexist) in a modern context. Humility is also a (concerningly) strong Biblical theme without involving idolatry.
The lessons I take from this are all pretty basic: be a good steward, which includes being sensibly hygienic. Care for your neighbor, which means not encouraging your neighbors to do foolish things. Don't have any idols, including your own sense of self-righteousness.
"Love thy neighbor" is hard to argue with, though. The original meaning of it applying to one's tribe is dicier, but post-translation it's a good rule.
*Which, incidentally, is why the Christian gospel is "good news" - there's no hoops to jump through. Just simple faith. (The argument that "faith" is a hoop to jump through is a specious one.)I still fail to understand what this means. How am I expected to have faith in something I don't believe? How can I believe something without being convinced with evidence, which would be "testing God" and removing the need for faith?
There are ideas I have faith in that I can't argue for, but they're social values that seem to come from my parents or common human nature. I tried to find belief in Jesus in those basic feelings, but it's not there. I'm not an ex-Christian, but I've wanted to be Christian pretty badly.
So I don't know what my path to simple faith is even supposed to be. Meditating/prayer with an open heart until the truth is privately revealed to me? I've tried that many times, and gotten a *lot* of potential conflicting "truths", which doesn't help me. It appears that many very intelligent people choose a truth in that manner, but they don't choose the same thing.
I've also read the Bible (which isn't simple, particularly if I need to truly understand it). It didn't convince me of the goodness or existence of God, I'll leave it at that. I can imagine somehow becoming a Christian someday, but not defending the Bible as true or good.
Post by: McTraveller on April 17, 2020, 11:34:34 am
Post by: Iduno on April 17, 2020, 11:58:18 am
Better question: If you could have a starship, without significant personal downsides, why not have a starship? Most people that have sailing boats or other sorts of water based small craft need them for precisely sod all.Have you seen a platypus? Slime molds? Black holes? Quantum mechanics? The universe is full of pretty amazing, weird stuff.
It's one of the more disappointing things with reality and most of human religions' boring ass creator deities, really. There's plenty of neat shit in the world but if I were a creator deity I'd be putting some priority on having cats vomit rainbows instead of hairballs, y'know? Stuff could be a lot more interesting with little to no increase in danger, but for whatever reason most believers seem pretty comfortable with their gods having seriously dropped the ball on that front.
On the third day, god was microdosing.
Edit: Crap, I started a new page with that?
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on April 17, 2020, 12:49:36 pm
You were implying God took LSD, right?
Post by: Frumple on April 17, 2020, 12:54:36 pm
And belief that has no meaningful impact on your behavior is at best piss weak to the point it barely exists, if at all. If your faith is so empty it has no outwardly observable effect on you, there's essentially no difference in you having it and not. You could say that God would know the difference, but there's something of a paucity of gods in religious works that give any indication of giving a damn about that much of a "difference".Because it is essentially arguing that faith is works; it's re-defining words to be argumentative. "Belief" is not a "work."The argument that "faith" is a hoop to jump through is a specious one.Why?
Faith isn't a hoop you jump through, but if your faith doesn't make you start jumping hoops whatever it is you got ain't faith. Ain't no religious figure in existence known for doing nothing but sitting on their ass, yo'. Even Buddha stepped out from under the bodhi tree. You can't separate faith from works any more than you can separate it from belief.
Yep, also I wonder if other animals got hallucinations with LSD before humans existed, or was it not produced in a part of a plant that they could reach?Other animals got jumped up on stuff prior to humans being around, sure, if not necessarily LSD. Shrooms and booze been around roughly as long as there's been plant matter to ferment and fungi to grow, maybe longer, and we know for a fact some species'll get inebriated on something or another even without human intervention. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.
Post by: Iduno on April 17, 2020, 01:32:31 pm
You were implying God took LSD, right?
Have you seen a platypus or a tardigrade?
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on April 17, 2020, 01:34:22 pm
yes and yesYou were implying God took LSD, right?
Have you seen a platypus or a tardigrade?
Post by: Rolan7 on April 30, 2020, 11:06:24 pm
Spoiler: Heavy discussion of death, mostly about the fear of death (click to show/hide)
Post by: Egan_BW on May 01, 2020, 02:29:15 am
Post by: Frumple on May 01, 2020, 06:14:26 am
Post by: TD1 on May 01, 2020, 07:44:02 am
People dying? Any long-lived life is going to be littered with friends dying anyway. You make new friends throughout normal life (one school to the next, work, what have you) so it's absurd to think you couldn't form new connections as time passed.
I have a ridiculous number of hobbies and interests. I exercise. I doubt I would get bored, but not having a sufficiently long yardstick I can't say for certain.
Whether to add invulnerability to the equation is the real sticky question.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on May 01, 2020, 07:57:26 am
Imagine the long term experiments you could do if you were immortal. I’m curious how parasitism evolves, being immortal would allow me to perform million year long experiments to learn how it evolved. Parasitism evolves independently numerous times. To me it would be interesting to see how life evolves over the millennia. Being immortal would allow me to learn this, as well as live through various points in history. To me it will be interesting
Post by: McTraveller on May 01, 2020, 09:32:38 am
Post by: Telgin on May 01, 2020, 05:27:31 pm
Anyway, I think I could probably keep myself entertained for hundreds of years, and maybe thousands. Several times I've given up projects because they'd take 5-10 years to complete, but that doesn't mean anything if you're immortal. I'd also love to know what it's like to live so long. How skilled and knowledgeable can someone get? Will you eventually lose even strong memories of the distant past? So many questions.
Post by: delphonso on May 02, 2020, 05:03:55 am
Post by: George_Chickens on May 02, 2020, 05:08:35 am
Post by: Eschar on May 02, 2020, 09:39:26 am
Sure, god's all powerful, but does he have lips? Woah...
"And God said, let there be light..."
Well, Judaism's deity, at least.
Post by: TD1 on May 02, 2020, 09:44:18 am
Christianity's God, on the other hand, was a physical man. He had lips.
Post by: HmH on May 04, 2020, 01:56:59 am
There's also the whole "created humankind in his own image" thing.Sure, god's all powerful, but does he have lips? Woah...
"And God said, let there be light..."
Well, Judaism's deity, at least.
Post by: delphonso on May 04, 2020, 05:44:11 am
Post by: hector13 on September 05, 2020, 12:52:43 am
Do the various churches around the world reinforce abusive relationships? I’m only familiar with Christianity, specifically Catholicism, but if someone gets divorced they’re unable to partake in Communion if they enter into another relationship, ‘cause SIN.
So this presents the crux of my issue: if someone wants a divorce because their partner is abusive, but faces some form of shunning within their religious community as a result - particularly if the abused and the victim are in the same religious community - it presents the victim of the abuse with a significant reason not to get the divorce because they risk losing what could be a significant part of their life.
Or something like that, I’m tired and biased, but also curious.
Post by: wierd on September 05, 2020, 01:22:24 am
Have you been living under a rock?
Only a handful of religions are purely spiritual/detached philosophical in nature; Nearly all of them are really early forms of "Do as I say, or the (divine actor) will punish you!" in nature.
Post by: HmH on September 05, 2020, 05:23:07 am
The other is that religions' main beneficial function to the society - that of preserving knowledge and stabilizing cultural norms throughout war, famine, coups d'etat, and other calamities - has the unfortunate side effect of making them defend a set of values that had been cutting-edge for a slave-owning society... even when that religion's host country has already evolved through medieval, mercantilist, and industrial ways of life.
So there is nothing surprising that religions are slow on the uptake, especially when new cultural norms clash with the ones they're supposed to preserve.
And more to the point: yeah, religions tend to reinforce abusive relationships.
If you look at it from the perspective I outlined above, the reason for this is that they're still carrying values from a time where an abusive relationship was, from the tribe/commune's perspective, a lesser evil compared to no relationship at all.
From the tribe's perspective, having a wife-beater amongst your numbers might be morally distasteful - but giving women the freedom to bear no children would be deadly to the whole tribe. If you don't outbreed competing tribes, they will eventually crush you.
The world two thousand years ago was brutal as fuck. The values of its societies reflect that.
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 05, 2020, 09:29:05 am
And more to the point: yeah, religions tend to reinforce abusive relationships.Ah, yes, the flagellant's creed. Whip me harder God daddy
The world two thousand years ago was brutal as fuck. The values of its societies reflect that.Depends where you lived 2,000 years ago. Polynesians were having a blast sailing the ocean and looking at stars
Post by: HmH on September 05, 2020, 11:16:18 am
And getting eaten by wildlife, and dying of common-cold-turned-pneumonia, and getting raided by their similarly seafaring-stargazing neighbors...The world two thousand years ago was brutal as fuck. The values of its societies reflect that.Depends where you lived 2,000 years ago. Polynesians were having a blast sailing the ocean and looking at stars
Post by: Maximum Spin on September 05, 2020, 11:37:58 am
And getting eaten [...] by their similarly seafaring-stargazing neighbors...ftfy
Post by: Telgin on September 05, 2020, 11:41:28 am
I have been thinking of late, and it is indeed late.
Do the various churches around the world reinforce abusive relationships? I’m only familiar with Christianity, specifically Catholicism...
It's the same for fundamentalist Christians of other denominations, at least in the southeastern US, and is one big issue I take with them. They generally are very inflexible and literal in their reading of the Bible. If Jesus says that God joined two people together and no man may undo that, then that's just the way it is. Sorry, you should have been clairvoyant and known it was either not going to work out or turn out abusive.
Then again, these denominations generally believe you can be forgiven of anything aside from blasphemy, so by the RAW of the Bible, you can divorce, remarry, ask forgiveness and everything's cool.
Post by: Egan_BW on September 05, 2020, 11:51:29 am
aside from blasphemyMan, I'm so irredeemable.
Post by: Telgin on September 05, 2020, 01:21:39 pm
Otherwise, by a strict interpretation, anyone who has ever said that god didn't exist or had no power would be permanently screwed.
Post by: Eschar on September 05, 2020, 01:40:52 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on September 05, 2020, 02:02:19 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 05, 2020, 03:44:05 pm
And getting eaten by wildlife, and dying of common-cold-turned-pneumonia, and getting raided by their similarly seafaring-stargazing neighbors...All of that still happens today, but they didn't have to worry about deadlines on top
Post by: delphonso on September 05, 2020, 07:41:30 pm
If the holy spirit represents the thing which gives you sympathy for fellow humans, than blasphemy against it would be psychopathy, I guess?
Another interpretation would see the Holy Spirit as the driving force for evangelicism, which makes blasphemy a bunch of stuff that could interfere with that.
Post by: Frumple on September 07, 2020, 07:16:14 am
And I'm just, like. Fuck off, you blasphemous little shitgoblin. I'm not even Christian and the sheer fucking heresy of the statement and the crap that man was spewing related to it was just outright offensive.
Swear half the time I walk by the christian broadcast network or whatever it is and that man's on, the same level of shite is being laid out, too. If that's the kind of priesthood modern christianity is supporting, it's no bloody wonder attendance and whatnot is dropping.
Post by: HmH on September 07, 2020, 09:12:41 am
Man, bloody Jeffress. Walk by the TV, words come out of his mouth, and I'm not paraphrasing, "The only thing the world can see of God is the Church."Now that's one horrifying picture, given what the world occasionally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum) sees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda) happening (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases) in the Church.
Post by: McTraveller on September 07, 2020, 10:58:33 am
That said: that's usually the point of statements like "the only thing people can see of God is the church." It's basically saying - "why are you surprised when the world has such animosity / thinks so poorly of Christians, when all they see is how the people claiming to be Christians behave?"
Or maybe I'm missing what's wrong or incorrect about the statement?
It's not surprising either; a large part of Jesus' teachings were the same kind of statement directed at the religious folk of the day.
Post by: Frumple on September 07, 2020, 11:23:52 am
And it's Robert Jeffress, televangelist, american megachurch pastor, Fox news contributor, pathways to victory guy, heard all over the bloody world. Regularly hosted by the Christian Broadcasting Network. Be glad you're not familiar with him.
Post by: McTraveller on September 07, 2020, 12:02:50 pm
It's just sad. Well, beyond sad really. Sadly we don't have respected religious leaders to call this sort of thing out...
Post by: Egan_BW on September 07, 2020, 02:01:31 pm
Post by: Rose on September 07, 2020, 02:34:31 pm
Post by: HmH on September 07, 2020, 03:18:05 pm
Or embrace peganism.I haven't been able to google that term, so I have to ask: do you mean a mixture of paganism and veganism, or of paganism and pegging?
Post by: Eschar on September 07, 2020, 03:41:15 pm
Post by: Rose on September 07, 2020, 04:52:41 pm
You cinfuze me with for somebody who knows how to spell.Or embrace peganism.I haven't been able to google that term, so I have to ask: do you mean a mixture of paganism and veganism, or of paganism and pegging?
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on September 07, 2020, 05:24:39 pm
My brain autocorrected to paganism, then HmH free my attention to the misplaced e in peganism. Thank you IPad/Siri/autocorrect algorithm.You cinfuze me with for somebody who knows how to spell.Or embrace peganism.I haven't been able to google that term, so I have to ask: do you mean a mixture of paganism and veganism, or of paganism and pegging?
I wonder if the AIs we create will develop religions of their own
.
Post by: dragdeler on September 07, 2020, 06:31:39 pm
Post by: wierd on September 07, 2020, 08:47:05 pm
You're absolutely wrong regarding how the shitgoblin was presenting it, yes. It was more Church is most blessed and has had great things and authority bestowed it by God, God shows itself only through the church, etc., etc., etc. There was not a single ounce of humility or what you're talking about.
And it's Robert Jeffress, televangelist, american megachurch pastor, Fox news contributor, pathways to victory guy, heard all over the bloody world. Regularly hosted by the Christian Broadcasting Network. Be glad you're not familiar with him.
I find this extremely hilarious actually. It speaks volumes for how unfamiliar with their own religious corpus these "adherents" are, that this man is trying to rouse to his cause.
Multiple references exist in the bible, both old and new testaments, stating that God's work is highly visible in all natural things. If I really felt inclined, I would compile a list, but I'm really not.
Edit:
Here, take for example, the rhetoric used by JESUST H. FUCKING CHRIST HIMSELF, in Mathew 6, 25 - 34.
Quote from: JESUS H CHRIST
25“This is why I tell you to never be worried about your life, for all that you need will be provided, such as food, water, clothing—everything your body needs. Isn’t there more to your life than a meal? Isn’t your body more than clothing?
26“Look at all the birds—do you think they worry about their existence? They don’t plant or reap or store up food, yet your heavenly Father provides them each with food. Aren’t you much more valuable to your Father than they? 27So, which one of you by worrying could add anything to your life?
28“And why would you worry about your clothing? Look at all the beautiful flowers of the field. They don’t work or toil, 29and yet not even Solomon in all his splendor was robed in beauty more than one of these! 30So if God has clothed the meadow with hay, which is here for such a short time and then dried up and burned, won’t he provide for you the clothes you need—even though you live with such little faith?
31“So then, forsake your worries! Why would you say, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ 32For that is what the unbelievers chase after. Doesn’t your heavenly Father already know the things your bodies require?
33“So above all, constantly chase after the realm of God’s kingdom and the righteousness that proceeds from him. Then all these less important things will be given to you abundantly. 34Refuse to worry about tomorrow, but deal with each challenge that comes your way, one day at a time. Tomorrow will take care of itself.”
Yes-- Obviously, Jesus felt that God only presents himself through the priesthood. OBVIOUSLY!!
SMH
Post by: Eschar on September 07, 2020, 09:10:17 pm
Also, "the heavens declare the glory of God," etc.
Post by: hector13 on September 07, 2020, 09:41:26 pm
This is one of many reasons why I think organised religion is so disgusting.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on September 07, 2020, 09:47:01 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 07, 2020, 09:48:10 pm
Post by: BoujeeTheAlan on September 07, 2020, 10:35:22 pm
I'd really like if this thread's discussion didn't default to the Taliban at the expense of a broader really cogent discussion of spirituality. I'm realizing as I write this that I'm sounding cattier than I really want to be, apologies
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 07, 2020, 10:37:19 pm
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on September 07, 2020, 10:47:04 pm
Many many sects of various religions do in fact believe the divine continues to impart knowledge to us through revelation (not necessarily dreams per se but effectively the same). And I'm not talking about the "reveals himself in nature" angle which is basically positing faith as an entirely rational position resulting from direct observation of the mundane. See any number of gnostic or mystical sects, suffism, the holy spirit. I believe this is also a thing in Dravidic religions but I'm less educated on that.I don’t think you sound catty, you are pointing out groups other than the Taliban who think the divine impart knowledge through revelations, and that it would be more productive if discussions didn’t default to the Taliban. How is this catty?
I'd really like if this thread's discussion didn't default to the Taliban at the expense of a broader really cogent discussion of spirituality. I'm realizing as I write this that I'm sounding cattier than I really want to be, apologies
There is definitely a big difference in believing God talks to people through supernatural visions, which are not a normal part of life, and believing God talks to people through dreams, which everyone has on a daily basis.It might be possible a person was dreaming when they thought they were awake, thus they’d think something supernatural happened. There have been times I dreamed of conversations I could have plausibly had, then asked about something to the person I conversed with in a dream about said topic, only to learn that I haven’t talked to said person about that thing I had the conversation about. A similar thing might happen, though of course there would be something supernatural occurring in an otherwise plausible scenario. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s possible to think you’re awake when you’re dreaming, and not realize the event that happened was a dream, in the case of a supernatural occurrence, it would be difficult for someone who believes in that sort of thing to test out whether it happened, considering no one else would have experienced what the person experienced, therefore no confirmation on whether it was real or in your mind
Post by: wierd on September 07, 2020, 11:07:55 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_2
The Abrahamic god has a long and storied tradition of sending messages as dreams.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 07, 2020, 11:14:18 pm
I mean sure, plenty of Christians believe God sends them messages through dreams, but those Christians also will believe God sends them messages through fucking everything. Traffic, toast, people being horrifically killed but a Bible happening to survive the incident, they've got it all. There's just not the sort of commitment you get from thinking God talks to you primarily through dreams.
Post by: wierd on September 07, 2020, 11:32:00 pm
You know who I meant. :)
As for my reference-- Daniel was not the thing you mention. He is one of the leading OT prophets, yo.
Post by: HmH on September 08, 2020, 01:10:19 am
I wonder if the AIs we create will develop religions of their ownAn AI-heavy civilization might form animistic cults around the fact that everything - the cup, the table, the house, the city - is alive and thinking in its own alien way.
(Kind of like we used to swear at and threaten our dial-up modems to get them to work.
We know they're not actually alive, malevolent, or capable of hearing our words, but the system is so complex and has so many unpredictable variables that we can't help but treat it as a living being whose behavior is a response to our actions.)
A cargo cult might form around extremely large-scale AIs, such as AIs that predict and correct the economical course of a city or a nation.
If bees could think, they'd worship the beekeeper.
All of that is assuming the AIs are introduced in the best possible way and will make no attempts to impinge on people's freedom.
If it goes rotten, the AIs or their handlers will probably form an organized religion to control the populace.
Post by: wierd on September 08, 2020, 01:13:02 am
Post by: BoujeeTheAlan on September 08, 2020, 03:47:49 am
There is definitely a big difference in believing God talks to people through supernatural visions, which are not a normal part of life, and believing God talks to people through dreams, which everyone has on a daily basis.
Well I didn't really specify pop cultury supernatural visions just thinking of a whole range of beliefs pertaining to the direct transfer of knowledge/idea/wisdom from divine to adherent. I don't really see why dreams should be seen as meaningfully different in this discussion from drug fuelled vision quests or whirling dervishes being consumed by religious fervour while dancing to music for instance. All could be seen as pretty mundane happenings but are conceived as a direct revelationary conduit to the design.
"Supernatural visions" are either make believe or actual experiences (which may be entirely mundane) which people interpret . I just wanted to draw attention that such subjective interpretations are far from rare and the idea that dreams (among other experiences we might think of as mundane) have certainly been thought of as anything but mundane across both history and cultures
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 10, 2020, 11:31:55 pm
But now, for the first time in modern history, an organization (The Group for Analyzing and Measuring Attitudes in IRAN, or GAMAAN) has completed a religious survey of Iranians without state approval. How this was done is in the links below, but so far nobody has been able to cast serious doubt on the methodology. Which is rather significant because of what the results of the poll claimed.
That being that about 45% of Iranians say they've left religion entirely. Yes, you did read that correctly. The report was out in Farsi a couple weeks ago and I learned about it through a speaker then, but now the English version is published.
News article (https://phys.org/news/2020-09-iran-secular-shift-survey-reveals.html)
GAMAAN source and English report (https://gamaan.org/2020/09/09/gamaan-iran-religion-survey-2020/)
People have for decades now questioned the official story on religiosity in Iran, and now that questioning has borne fruit, and rather extreme tasting fruit at that! This is, it is safe to say, much more than I think most people opposed to the Islamic Republic would ever have dreamed of hoping for. And quite a serious bellwether for the Iranian government as well.
Significant survey results:
In total, only 32% of Iranians self-describe as Shia Muslims. The other major groupings are No Religion at 22%, Atheist at 9% (higher than the US!), Zoroastrian at 7.5% (far more than Iran claims), Spiritual at 7%, Agnostic at 6%, and Sunni Muslim at 5%. This is...it's just not the picture that the Iranian government paints. It's not even remotely congruent with their understanding of reality. If accurate, this survey means there is no majority religion in Iran.
While most Iranians still believe in a God (78%), that is the only supernatural belief which is in the majority. Even the second highest result, life after death, is a minority belief at 37%. Not exactly traditional Islam, that. 20% say they do not believe in any of the supernatural concepts surveyed.
As above, vast numbers of Iranians in all demographics report having been religious before but that they are no longer religious today. This figure is between 40-50% across age, education, sex, and location.
60% say they do not pray at all. Only 27% claim to perform the five daily prayers which are required in Islam. I should further note that people are historically very, very apt to lie about how often they pray or attend services on self-reporting surveys like this one (surveys in the US report about double the church attendance compared to objective attendance studies) and as such the number could be even higher.
68% of Iranians say that the government should not legislate based on religious precepts even if the religious are the majority in government. Not a good look for the Islamic Republic. 70% say that religious organizations should be responsible for themselves and not receive state funding.
A mere 4% of Iranians say that only Muslims should be allowed to proselytize. Most of the rest are evenly divided between saying promotion of religion should always be illegal (42%) or that it always should be legal regardless of religion (40%). The remainder expressed no opinion.
A basic majority said that they wanted children to be educated on diverse religions in school, as well as saying that they did not want children to be educated on religious teachings and duties in school. This seems to indicate a desire for the end of the current Islamic studies policy in Iran in favor of neutral teaching of religion.
As people have noted for a long time now, the hijab law in Iran is extremely controversial. But even here, this survey's results are mind-blowing: 72% say they disagree with the hijab law and only 15% explicitly agree with it. Beyond that, 58% disagree with even voluntary hijab wearing while 23% agree with it. Of those who say they disagree with voluntarily wearing hijab, 98% disagree with the hijab law. So yeah, that's...that's a lot.
Finally, most people still do not drink alcohol. This is probably more of a supply issue than an ideology issue, looking at the rest of this.
So yeah. That all happened. I had seen signs before that Islam was starting to surfer the same decline as Christianity in countries with good internet access, but holy fuck. Looks like theocracy is a good way to just eviscerate your religious authority. So. Good luck to the Iranian people in the coming years. I think they're going to need it.
Post by: HmH on September 11, 2020, 10:43:15 am
Quote
Looks like theocracy is a good way to just eviscerate your religious authority.Keep in mind that Iranians weren't exactly religious fanatics before the Islamic Revolution, either.
Sure, a certain portion of the religious populace had gotten more fanatical in the 1970s. But even so, the revolution started out as predominantly political conflict: the movement of pretty much everyone against the Shah, not the conflict of Muslims against the secular government.
Then it got hijacked by extremists, as revolutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution) sometimes do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring); and as usual, extremists running the country turned out to be better at oppressing people than the previous tyrant had been.
That said, merging a religion with the government does seem like an excellent way to make the religion look bad.
Post by: dragdeler on September 11, 2020, 08:51:57 pm
oopsie I used the first plural form as if... haha... yeah let's not fool ourselves - if still in doubt ask patrice lumumba
Post by: BoujeeTheAlan on September 12, 2020, 07:42:47 am
Post by: dragdeler on September 12, 2020, 08:33:43 am
Quote
(more prevalent atheists than the USA is something)
I don't think it's the bar people make it out to be... Honestly I would have guessed britain is the most secular, and honestly I have a hard time seeing why germany is darker... But great job sweden and czech republic, also estonia and denmark kicking ass as usual.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It has been a decade, they should do it again. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country)
Spoiler: classic (click to show/hide)
Post by: BoujeeTheAlan on September 12, 2020, 08:56:28 pm
Virtually the entirety of Iran's neighborhood is solidly more religious than the states so to manage to be on the other side of our arbitrary US benchmark despite heavily theocratic governance is quite interesting.
Especially when you compare to neighbours like Turkey which I believe was also relatively more liberal (spiritually and otherwise) at one point but I think (perhaps I should check before I say this as I don't know the recent data) has become increasingly less so over the years
Post by: dragdeler on September 12, 2020, 09:13:55 pm
somehow I pressured him into taking position that estonia is west of belgium? I don't even know what the fuck is up with people I swear I mostly just look and listen IRL... anyway after I said: you're kidding right? you're saying turkey is north of belgium?! get the motherfucking atlas...
I could get him to agree but damn am I terrified how taking position in a conversation can lead people to say the dumbest shit.
Post by: TD1 on September 14, 2020, 04:48:27 pm
Anyway, morality is the topic of choice. Lewis seems to have believed that human morality is an external force, that morality is roughly similar everywhere. He uses good argument and analogies to support this point. For instance, he uses the example of a piano. There are many different keys but to get a tune you have to hit the right ones. We know when we are hearing the RIGHT tune. My friend agrees, I disagree. So I built my own analogy to sum my point up.
Morality is a game of cards.
Evolution is the deck.
Society is the hand.
The player is you/the individual.
The reason Lewis sees similarities between different moralities is because all societies draw from the same deck. Other decks are visible - I used the example of bees, whose moral imperative is the protection of the whole to the destruction of the individual - but not within humanity itself on any large scale.
Society determines which moral cards you can play in any given circumstance.
The individual, based upon its own past, memories, upbringing, and brain chemistry, chooses the cards they draw from that limited pool.
My friend's main sticking point is at the individual level, where he claims that the individual choice is where the external, ideal morality is found.
It's been a fun argument.
Post by: Maximum Spin on September 14, 2020, 04:52:45 pm
I recommend choosing new, arbitrary words for your respective definitions in order to explore the underlying structure.
Post by: TD1 on September 14, 2020, 05:00:41 pm
Post by: Maximum Spin on September 14, 2020, 05:09:49 pm
Okay. What do you perceive to be our different definitions for morality?You literally wrote it in your post just now. He defines morality as an externally-defined fact about the world by which things are categorised according to a central judgement, while you define morality as the story which individuals tell each other in a society. These are completely different and will never be harmonised by rational argument.
For example, your friend almost certainly agrees that the story about morality which individuals tell each other in a society does exist, since cultures do disagree about what is moral; but he would likely say that these stories are not actually morality itself, and societies can be right or wrong (in the factual correctness sense) about the nature of the actual factual morality. By your definition, that's impossible; it's only possible to be right or wrong about what a particular society says is moral.
Post by: TD1 on September 14, 2020, 07:28:30 pm
But both are still morality. We do not question the 'what' - namely acting in a good fashion - only the how, why, and 'where from'.
Post by: Maximum Spin on September 14, 2020, 07:34:14 pm
But both are still morality. We do not question the 'what' - namely acting in a good fashion - only the how, why, and 'where from'.Believing that is exactly the problem underpinning most philsophical conflict. The "what" is meaningless without agreement on the rest. You may agree that "the word 'morality' means 'acting in a good fashion'" but you disagree on what any of that actually means in terms of actions rather than words. Morality is what tells you what "a good fashion" IS. Without agreement on that, you do not agree on what morality means.
Post by: TD1 on September 14, 2020, 07:43:42 pm
And now we're arguing over the rest. Why is one action good? How do we know? What's its source?
You'd rather take the fun out of it if you defined us into different boxes.
Post by: Egan_BW on September 14, 2020, 07:51:23 pm
Post by: Frumple on September 14, 2020, 08:42:28 pm
we've always been inside spacegod
being inside spacegod is a prerequisite of existence as we know it
so goodness is what is by dint of it is-ing
and that's how you go from divine omnipresent omnibenevolence to fundamental materialism, thanks medieval christian theologians
you knew not what you did
Post by: Egan_BW on September 14, 2020, 09:20:49 pm
Post by: Frumple on September 14, 2020, 09:52:19 pm
Many people can hear that odd whining noise when they stop to listen to quietude. Perhaps it is just tinnitus, the broken biology of a haphazard evolutionary mess. Perhaps it's the music of the celestial spheres, the honeyed grinding of the myriad heavens.
Maybe it's the unending chorus of our collective screams. Infinite. Agonizing. The song of the dying of worlds. So pervasive our minds interpret it as silence.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 15, 2020, 09:41:45 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on November 15, 2020, 09:42:42 pm
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 15, 2020, 09:53:00 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinnitus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinnitus)thanks
Now to talk about
Post by: HmH on November 16, 2020, 02:52:36 am
If the person who says the word dislikes the set of ideas and can get away with insulting its members, then it's a cult.
If they like the set of ideas or don't want to be rude to its members, then it's a religious organization.
There are also 'objective' criteria of what constitutes a cult such as 'worship of a specific leader' and 'a totalitarian control over their members', but for some reason these 'objective' criteria are only applied to ideologies the given speaker wants to disparage, and not to their own religion or political party.
Generally, the idea seems to be that religious organizations are adults and cults are teenagers: cults are far more extreme, insecure, and likely to pull a knife on you than old established religions are.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 16, 2020, 03:03:27 am
Post by: Sime on November 16, 2020, 03:59:01 am
And tech startups are often cults.
Post by: IndigoFenix on November 16, 2020, 08:11:38 am
Cult is to religion as mutant is to species.
Post by: delphonso on November 16, 2020, 08:27:11 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 16, 2020, 08:45:22 am
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 16, 2020, 08:54:56 pm
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 16, 2020, 09:17:02 pm
All religions start as Cults. Christianity was a Cult.Yes, I learned this ina Western Civ class, telling this to other church members didn’t go very well if I remember correctly
Post by: delphonso on November 16, 2020, 09:40:47 pm
All religions start as Cults. Christianity was a Cult.
In both the historic and modern definition, for sure.
What I find interesting is the genesis of religions - seemingly falling into reformation, continuation, or invention.
Reformation, such as Lutheranism to Catholicism, is basically a new religion but does not really change the narrative or introduce any new elements. This seems to be the best way to make a new religion which lasts.
Continuation though is like Christianity to Judaism, where Jesus is meant to be the fulfillment of the messiah prophecy. I think most cults work this way, and only a few seem to survive for a long time.
Inventions are pretty rare, but to completely create a religion wholecloth has happened. Scientology had elements of other religions, but is pretty clearly a totally new beast. These seem pretty hard to get people to believe in, as there's only been a handful that have continued to exist on earth.
Post by: ShinQuickMan on November 16, 2020, 10:22:44 pm
Sometimes my ears generate noise during silence, mostly it is ringing, but other times, when I lay in bed, I hear voices call my name that are unfamiliar to me. This isn’t scary, just am curious why this is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia#Sounds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia#Sounds)
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 16, 2020, 11:14:22 pm
ThanksSometimes my ears generate noise during silence, mostly it is ringing, but other times, when I lay in bed, I hear voices call my name that are unfamiliar to me. This isn’t scary, just am curious why this is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia#Sounds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia#Sounds)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 17, 2020, 02:29:50 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 19, 2020, 11:30:55 pm
And since nonbelief leads to being threshed in the eternal fire, I feel like this system of beliefs is kinda mean.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 21, 2020, 09:02:56 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 21, 2020, 09:24:44 pm
It's kinda' Wittgensteinian in a sense, the bible being a ladder to use to reach the truth of a loving god, and then discarded when no longer necessary or helpful. There's a similar sentiment in the whole "if you meet buddha on the road, cut them down" dealio.
*I mean, it's obviously an astoundingly piss-poor way of going about it in practice, but I appreciate the metaphorical hustle there more than most understandings of abrahamic holy texts, heh. Incompetent is at least an upgrade from malicious, yeh.
Post by: Eschar on November 22, 2020, 12:08:40 am
Notice that there's not even a way to be sure any religious work isn't a test. If a supernatural being wanted to communicate clearly, they'd presumably provide a way for us to know for sure.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 24, 2020, 01:47:09 am
Mostly because we will never know what they might have been, because Abrahamic religions are fundamentally about literally killing to death anyone who does heresy.
Except maybe in the early Jesus church?
Sure went hard anti-heresy pretty quick though.
(For anyone not aware of the Cathars, they were a cult that believed that Jehovah was evil and Jesus was the path to a pure salvation
...
...
...
dot dot dot
...
anyway they got murdered by Catholics.)
Post by: Rolan7 on November 24, 2020, 02:14:22 am
Obviously not.
Post by: McTraveller on November 24, 2020, 01:51:42 pm
Eh, I've been pretty appreciative of some of the older gnostic or whatever beliefs for a while now, the stuff that posits that a lot of the biblical works are in fact a sort of test. Much of what they describe isn't just mean, it's outright sadistic or flatly evil, and heavily contradictory with the general message of love and whatnot. It makes a sort of sense if it's not just wrong, but intentionally wrong, there to teach folks that when given a choice between a message of goodness and message of cruelty, the latter should be discarded.*
Can you be specific here? I've seen statements to this effect somewhat often, but for the life of me I don't know how any actions by God in the Old Testament can be taken as mean, sadistic, or evil unless taken in a massively different context or with a specific set of assumptions. The "sadistic" part especially intrigues me, because I can't think of any time in the Old Testament where God is portrayed as enjoying dishing out wrath. There's at least two specific instances where He's attributed with something like regret.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 24, 2020, 01:58:07 pm
what about the time he tried to kill all of humanity? Or the time he almost got Abraham to kill his son on the altar?Eh, I've been pretty appreciative of some of the older gnostic or whatever beliefs for a while now, the stuff that posits that a lot of the biblical works are in fact a sort of test. Much of what they describe isn't just mean, it's outright sadistic or flatly evil, and heavily contradictory with the general message of love and whatnot. It makes a sort of sense if it's not just wrong, but intentionally wrong, there to teach folks that when given a choice between a message of goodness and message of cruelty, the latter should be discarded.*
Can you be specific here? I've seen statements to this effect somewhat often, but for the life of me I don't know how any actions by God in the Old Testament can be taken as mean, sadistic, or evil unless taken in a massively different context or with a specific set of assumptions. The "sadistic" part especially intrigues me, because I can't think of any time in the Old Testament where God is portrayed as enjoying dishing out wrath. There's at least two specific instances where He's attributed with something like regret.
Post by: Frumple on November 24, 2020, 02:13:44 pm
Quote from: McTraveller link=topic=147792.msg8216193#msg8216193
Can you be specific here? I've seen statements to this effect somewhat often, but for the life of me I don't know how any actions by God in the Old Testament can be taken as mean, sadistic, or evil unless taken in a massively different context or with a specific set of assumptions. The "sadistic" part especially intrigues me, because I can't think of any time in the Old Testament where God is portrayed as enjoying dishing out wrath. There's at least two specific instances where He's attributed with something like regret.Just about any of the major stuff, the floods, the plagues, and so on, had a great deal of avoidable suffering and slaughter of the innocent/undeserving involved, just as kind of a baseline thing. I'd have to take time (I ain't got right now, being on lunch break) to pull it up, but pretty sure more than one of the conquests commanded/stated-to-be-blessed-by the christian god involved some pretty goddamn nasty shit, too. Revelations is its own can of worms.
Sadism might not be a perfect word for it, but when someone goes out of their way to cause pain and suffering, or do stuff like cause the widespread death of children, repeatedly, there's not many better ones available, y'know?
Post by: McTraveller on November 24, 2020, 03:33:43 pm
What is missed though is that within the construct of Abrahamic religion, there is no such thing as "innocent/undeserving" people. Even children - all have been tainted. The worldwide destruction is because it's better to wipe everyone out that let people continue abusing each other. Look at why the flood occurred: independent of whatever you believe about nephilim, the cause of wiping out humanity with the flood (for example) was because humanity was abusing itself and the world around it.
I think what people end up with is "If it's not possible for God to create people with free-will without suffering, isn't that inherently bad that God created anything in the first place?" That is, there is an explicit assertion that the act of creation itself was evil or bad because it couldn't (wasn't?) done without the possibility for suffering.
This is an honest question and at least gets at the core - is it even possible to have a "good" god if that god created a universe which can support suffering in the first place?
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 24, 2020, 03:39:38 pm
Post by: Grim Portent on November 24, 2020, 04:39:39 pm
This is an honest question and at least gets at the core - is it even possible to have a "good" god if that god created a universe which can support suffering in the first place?
I would kind of expect a god who has a moral philosophy to make a universe which functions on that morality, down to the animals and plants. The presence of suffering in the natural state of animals and plants is indicative of a deity who isn't moral, or has a moral compass so alien that they are immoral by most human standards. As above, so below, as the old alchemists would say, the state of the world reflects the state of the heavens. The existence of suffering implies a god powerless to stop it, or who considers it an acceptable situation.
For example, if I were to meet a god that claimed to have made the world, I would ask it to explain why parasitic larvae eat living things from the inside out, why lions start eating their prey before it's actually dead, why dolphins torture porpoises, why the duck penis?*
If it's answer was that it made the initial conditions and then just left it to run like a closed terrarium, I'd consider it amoral, but not immoral. A moral deity would have intervened to undo the suffering caused by it's design.
Most other answers, ones involving active intervention, omniscience and so on, would result in me concluding that the god was either immoral, a lunatic, or operating on a morality so alien it's of no relevance to my own decisions.
A god of the nature found in Gnosticism would get a pass from me, because it doesn't have the power to prevent material suffering despite wanting to.
*'Why the duck penis?' is a fundmental moral question to my mind.
Post by: McTraveller on November 24, 2020, 04:52:53 pm
A moral deity would have intervened to undo the suffering caused by it's design.
:
or operating on a morality so alien
Christianity says that god did intervene, but the suffering was undone in a different way than people want it to (it addressed eternal separation from God, not earthly "pain") - which also ties into your other observation, that even the Christian God does operate on a morality quite alien from our own.
I think some of this is also that God's attributes aren't simply "good" vs "evil" (moral/immoral, etc.), but also include things like justice and holiness. For example, can you have justice without suffering / punishment? What does that mean? Holiness simply meaning "set apart" - can you have God be set apart if it's just subject to the same standards as the rest of us?
It's telling in many ways, whichever views to which you subscribe, that the Abrahamic and Christian "original sin" is humans thinking they are god, defining good and evil for themselves.
Post by: ZBridges on November 24, 2020, 04:57:34 pm
This is an honest question and at least gets at the core - is it even possible to have a "good" god if that god created a universe which can support suffering in the first place?
This is a fundamental problem that others have tried to answer over the years. Explanations of various degrees of credibility have been offered, collectively called theodicies and defenses. Here's (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil) a summary of some of the most well-known arguments.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 24, 2020, 04:59:37 pm
Post by: McTraveller on November 24, 2020, 05:09:30 pm
Humans didn’t define good and evil according to the Bible, the fruit did. Why was knowledge of good and evil stored in a fruit, which could not act on it? This brings a new question to me, since the knowledge was granted to Adam and Eve after they ate the fruit, did the fruit have thoughts too?
I'm going to take this at face value. The story of the apple is an allegory. The fruit was indeed "the knowledge of good and evil" - it pointed out to humans that good and evil are defined by relationship with god, not that there was some kind of magic knowledge in it like a list of rules or something. Also there is explicit mention around the time of the Flood about part of the reason for the flood is everyone doing what was good "in their own eyes" - humans defined their own good and evil, and it wasn't aligned with God.
The sin of eating the fruit wasn't really physically eating the fruit - the sin was doing what people wanted, rather than what God wanted. Hence my statement: the sin was humanity putting itself in the place of God.
The story makes this clear - the first thing the people did was go and hide, not "oh hey look we are now wise!" They did indeed get knowledge of good and evil - they learned what it was like to disobey and, in so doing, have a broken relationship. This never stopped - the second thing they did, after trying to hide, was blame each other, then the serpent.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on November 24, 2020, 05:24:08 pm
Post by: HmH on November 24, 2020, 05:51:33 pm
If God doesn’t want humans choosing what to do, why give them free will at all? Why didn’t he smite the serpent? Make the tree intangible?Because things are so much more entertaining when people are allowed to bumble about randomly and create cool stories in the process.
If they're following a scenario of your own devising, or even working by a set of rules simple enough that you can predict their next action, the stories they create aren't very interesting anymore. The magic is just... gone.
I find it puzzling that many religious people think about God as something that exists for them. Did they create God for the purpose of improving their lives?
As for "doesn't want humans choosing what to do"... How do you know God doesn't want people to occasionally do evil things?
As an atheist with only a brief teenage interest in religion, I don't remember the Bible very well. Certainly not enough to trust my ability to search it exhaustively, even with Internet resources.
But I don't think I ever saw anything that says "God doesn't want you to sin". Only that God loves everyone and that sinning will be punished, which is not the same thing.
Maybe he just wanted large masses of humans to coexist peacefully long enough that they'd evolve past the violent, monotonous cycle of tribal associations and militaristic empires rising and falling to no lasting effect, and scaring the followers of his new, revised religion into not doing socially disruptive things was the most effective option (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-06-05).
Post by: ZBridges on November 24, 2020, 05:55:26 pm
Post by: wierd on November 25, 2020, 03:50:47 am
It would not be incompatible with free will either, if ManyWorlds is true-- because then every branch possible of your total being is expressed in the greater multiverse. It could be argued that the "change" that happens at the end of days, is the uniting of all world-branches into a single superposition one, as this would allow human minds to comprehend a superposition-nature God.
That would satisfy some other passages.
See or instance, 1 corinthians 15:49-53.
49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
and
1 John 3:2
Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.
Nearly all of the problems with "free will" vs "Omniscience" disappear when you permit many-worlds to be true, and as pointed out, is actually hinted at in the bible. The existence of God as a trans-temporal, static being is also hinted at. In many places in the bible God asserts the present tense for past and future events, which would be correct if you are talking about a fully manifested wave equation. A being that knows all of the outcomes, regardless of which branches are taken, would have to have superposition knowledge. This kind of knowledge (as an innate feature), is not really comprehensible to a linear human mind, which would fit right in with God being Unknowable.
The conversion of the human mind into the kind of mind that God possesses is exactly what is stated by the Corinthians passage; It enables men to become permanent, incorruptable beings (because you are a static superposition of your many branch-path selves, and thus have perfect knowledge of your total existence, and exist in a permanent and immutable form, as a pure expression of reality)
It would also enable that human consciousness to comprehend the nature of the divine, by being like the divine in structure/nature.
Post by: lemon10 on November 25, 2020, 07:53:19 am
One argument is that free will is an illusion and doesn't actually exist. Everything that happens and has happened is predestined, including, if you believe in it, Eve eating the forbidden fruit.Predestination just makes the Garden of Eden way worse though. The reason everything is predestined is because God knows exactly what is going to happen, and it happens that way presumably because he lets/wants it to happen that way.
So when he put the fruit tree there, he put it there knowing that if he didn't change the outcome he would come down in a few years/decades/centuries and yell at Eve for eating the fruit.
But presumably god himself could have simply chosen not to put the tree there, or given eve a better warning or just made it ten times as tall and super slippery so eve could never get the fruits no matter how hard she tried.
Of course its possible that he himself is limited by his own knowledge and is a helpless observer unable to change his own actions (like Dr. Manhattan), but that doesn't seem to be an interpretation that many (if any) Christians take.
Its like if you saw your kids eating some cookies you told them not to eat, then went back in time to before they ate them, did literally nothing to stop them, then beat them to within an inch of their life once you caught them eating the cookies the second time.
So if predestination is a thing and God *did* know beforehand the Garden of Eden is much worse, not better.
Post by: wierd on November 25, 2020, 08:09:29 am
The issue there, is that God is not out to make humanity into Affluenza Affected Idiots.
God is out to create smaller, independent versions of himself. He wants children, not eternal mooches and dunderlings.
The only way to accomplish that, is to allow humanity to experience consequences, and that means experiencing sin, to know-- fundementally and intimately-- why it is to be avoided, and not "Daddy just doesn't like it, and tells me I can never have that thing."
It really does get old, listening to people complain about biblical God being "Evil", for not being eternal helicopter dad.
Post by: Frumple on November 25, 2020, 08:47:52 am
Folks aren't looking for eternal helicopter dad, they're looking for a dad that isn't fucking abusive and didn't decide crotch rot was a thing that should exist, and/or didn't literally build their creations to fail and suffer.
Like, you don't actually need widespread misery and gnashing of teeth for folks to understand some shit is bad, especially when you're literally the one that decided what said folks comprehensive capabilities are. You don't need to break your kids legs for them to understand they shouldn't run on slippery floors or some shit.
Post by: wierd on November 25, 2020, 09:20:15 am
Consider God more like a math function, and less like an arbitrary decision making being. Satisfying the requirements of the function does not care about the size or scope.
Ultimately, the argument devolves into "That thing is very unpleasant, and causes lots of suffering!"-- to which God's answer is the same every time. "That's why you shouldnt do that."
The major point of difference you are trying to inject, is that god should always intercede on circumstances where the action of the abuser does not cause harm to the abuser, but only the abused, and where the abused did nothing wrong.
That is again, helicopter dad syndrome.
Part of the mortal experience is for the abuser to understand that their action is intolerable. This can be resolved, humorously, with many-worlds as well. In some paths, they take the role of abuser. In others, the abused. When all is finished with the world, the individual has the full experience of the sin-- both as abuser, and as abused.
That would NOT occur, if God swooped in, and played helicopter dad.
Post by: McTraveller on November 25, 2020, 09:25:09 am
The theology of disease and such is that not only does sin break the relationship between humans and God, but also between the world and humans.
This is not a "specific" consequence of sin, it's a "general" consequence of sin.
Put another way: God has said, "you want a world without me, here it is."
I don't know how to make an argument if that is evil or not though; I'd have to do more research to see what has been discussed on it - because this by no means a new discourse.
(Personally, I am in agreement with wierd regarding "helicopter dad" concept.)
Post by: Rolan7 on November 25, 2020, 10:39:32 am
That kind of thinking presupposes that God picks and chooses, rather than simply satisfies requirements.I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your argument. Are you really supposing that all suffering comes from bad decisions?
Consider God more like a math function, and less like an arbitrary decision making being. Satisfying the requirements of the function does not care about the size or scope.
Ultimately, the argument devolves into "That thing is very unpleasant, and causes lots of suffering!"-- to which God's answer is the same every time. "That's why you shouldnt do that."
Not every unpleasant occurrence is a moral lesson. People die, or worse, and sometimes that happens in complete obscurity due to natural causes.
Maybe some suffering serves to train us away from ungodly behaviors. Is that God interceding to train us, being that "helicopter dad" but with a belt? I guess not, the way you describe God as a function. But that sounds more like you're describing the natural world, which trains us to survive it. Not towards any higher purpose, simply survival (which includes communal behaviors because humans survive much better together).
I think that's the world we live in, obviously. Horrific diseases aren't punishments or even tortures, they're just diseases. They teach the lesson of surviving diseases. Sometimes people get away with horrible acts and learn nothing. Sometimes we learn from our mistakes, sometimes we learn from our successes too.
The major point of difference you are trying to inject, is that god should always intercede on circumstances where the action of the abuser does not cause harm to the abuser, but only the abused, and where the abused did nothing wrong.Frumple wasn't calling for intercession:
well no, the evil comes from things like dysentery and plague and fatal or crippling congenital defects and neurological disorders and the divine genocide/mass murder/(allowing/encouraging mass rape)/etc., and so on and so forthHeck, based on the Old Testament it's probably good that God is interceding less now. Otherwise we would have to learn not only to survive a hostile world, but also dance around various amazingly arbitrary commandments.
Folks aren't looking for eternal helicopter dad, they're looking for a dad that isn't fucking abusive and didn't decide crotch rot was a thing that should exist, and/or didn't literally build their creations to fail and suffer.
Like, you don't actually need widespread misery and gnashing of teeth for folks to understand some shit is bad, especially when you're literally the one that decided what said folks comprehensive capabilities are. You don't need to break your kids legs for them to understand they shouldn't run on slippery floors or some shit.
That is again, helicopter dad syndrome.That's a pretty idea but it has the same problem as ghosts: Memories being stored in a "soul" rather than the brain. I guess anything's possible, but I think that just leads to a philosophical debate without much payoff.
Part of the mortal experience is for the abuser to understand that their action is intolerable. This can be resolved, humorously, with many-worlds as well. In some paths, they take the role of abuser. In others, the abused. When all is finished with the world, the individual has the full experience of the sin-- both as abuser, and as abused.
That would NOT occur, if God swooped in, and played helicopter dad.
Post by: wierd on November 25, 2020, 10:57:08 am
God in this thought experiment, is a static "is" type being. Much like the equation (35x*15Y)/(17x*7Y) holds for several values of X and Y, "god" is the equation for all possible states and outcomes, at all temporal intervals. By plugging in the variables, you get your answer.
In this way, it is all knowing, and has a timeless quality. (this is a simplification but consider it more in this light than "crochety old deity handing down capriciously arbitrary edicts")
God's knowledge of X and Y (to carry the analogy), is not bounded by some notion of "But that's EXTREME X!!" it is merely "X" in terms of its intrinsic nature. This is how "sin" is treated. When viewed in this capacity, it becomes necessary for humans to experience "The full potential range of X", in order to have the same intrinsic understanding of the nature of X. This means human experience must include the "wantonly base suffering" seen.
Failure to have it included, is god swooping in and going "There, there humans-- Daddy god will make it all better; you dont have to experience X above this arbitrary and capriciously defined value! There-- there"
Rather, God is trying to inform you about the rational proportionality of X, and how X is defined. Swooping in and tampering with those results would ruin any and all gains in that respect.
Now, your argument is more in line of "a disease outbreak is not caused by sin!". However, consider more fully-- We have had the money, resources, and skill to create a cure for Ebola for many years now. Is it a sin that we have simply just not done it, because the number of people impacted has not been a strong motivator to invest those resources or bring those skills to task?
Selfishness of this nature, is just another manifestation of "x". It is "sin". The existence of the disease highlights and demonstrates this sin existing. Thus, the disease is necessary to shed light on the sin, and allow humans to comprehend the sin nature.
The argument thus-- that god should not make things like ebola, is again "I want to never have to contend with my sin nature." which is Affluenza Affected Idiocy. Helicopter Daddy swooped in, and made sure that nothing bad ever happened to demonstrate how shit a person you actually are.
Or perhaps, closer to home-- We KNOW how to combat the covid-19 pandemic, but we consistently choose not to do those things, and instead have directly caused the horrible and painful deaths of over 200,000 people in the US alone because of it. Those that have caught it and survived, have a certain proportionality chance of experiencing life-long debilitation from the ordeal. And why? Because we are selfish, and do not want to do what needs to be done, to prevent that harm and suffering.--- Sin.
The existence of the pandemic, is necessary to drive home the importance of eschewing selfishness. Without it, you never have consequences for the selfishness; God has swooped in, and cleaned it all up for you.
Post by: HmH on November 25, 2020, 11:24:38 am
Quote
Now, your argument is more in line of "a disease outbreak is not caused by sin!". However, consider more fully-- We have had the money, resources, and skill to create a cure for Ebola for many years now. Is it a sin that we have simply just not done it, because the number of people impacted has not been a strong motivator to invest those resources or bring those skills to task?
Okay.
So you're saying that cancer and Alzheimer's syndrome were created by God in order to force people to spend resources and time to cure them?
And that it doesn't matter that those ailments existed thousands of years before humanity had enough knowledge and infrastructure to treat them in any way, which kinda made these diseases pointless?
Putting unsolvable problems in front of a child, with very real punishments when they fail, is not what loving parents do.
While swooping in to solve problems one person has created for another can be reasonably seen as helicopter parenting, not creating extremely painful and hard-to-cure diseases is a different matter.
Post by: wierd on November 25, 2020, 11:25:39 am
Specifically-- why would we have invested the energy to learn about disease, if disease did not exist in the first place?
Why bother with helping other people, or being concerned about their welfare in any capacity-- if they never were exposed to any danger at all, ever, to begin with.
again, "I want to never contend with my sin nature, and you are a bad bad god for forcing me to do so. Whaaa."
Post by: thompson on November 25, 2020, 03:13:57 pm
I feel theology gets much more interesting when you start to consider the real practical limitations of religion. After all, God did not transcribe the Bible, so how do we know it’s accurate? Which passages are reliable, which suffered transcription errors, which were one man’s fanciful interpretation that was misrepresented as absolute truth? Is God truly omniscient? Perhaps omniscient should actually mean “has the potential to know everything, but limited by finite attention, etc”. What does God even want?
Which bring us to my (half-serious) take on theology: God created the Universe out of boredom, messed around with it for a bit, then got bored with it and moved on. He probably doesn’t even realise we’re sentient. After all, how could he? If we created a sentient AI we’d most likely assume it only has the illusion of sentience, Turning test and all that. So, God created evil because he thought we were just mindless bits in his RAM card and that it wouldn’t do any harm. Now he’s got a full-time job so is too busy to bother with it further. We just need to hope the server he’s running it on holds up.
Post by: Telgin on November 25, 2020, 03:35:54 pm
That's the rhetoric of a temporally bound being.
Specifically-- why would we have invested the energy to learn about disease, if disease did not exist in the first place?
Why bother with helping other people, or being concerned about their welfare in any capacity-- if they never were exposed to any danger at all, ever, to begin with.
again, "I want to never contend with my sin nature, and you are a bad bad god for forcing me to do so. Whaaa."
Disease and pain can exist at manageable levels that can teach lessons. God didn't have to create or allow things like fatal metastatic cancer with no treatments to exist.
What does it teach when a doctor tells you that you will die very soon and nothing can be done for it?
"Sorry, you should have been born 100 years from now when people figured out how to cure this problem."
Maybe god is just evil or ambivalent. Sure seems that way.
Post by: McTraveller on November 25, 2020, 06:48:18 pm
Disease is one piece evidence of the broken relationship. The Genesis account is that the "pain of living" greatly increased after eating from the tree - instead of working the ground, it would become difficult. Pain of childbirth would be "increased". Note that death apparently existed before the fall too - because immortality would be granted by eating from the tree of life, and that fruit was made unavailable.
Post by: wierd on November 25, 2020, 08:45:01 pm
"God likes to torture people/animals/whatev."
This is simply not correct:
God created a universe that is capable of producing complex interactions, which lead to things like cancer; leads to diseases; and leads to adversities of various kinds. (it leads to such things, as a natural consequence of such things being POSSIBLE. EG, "metastatic cancer" is a consequence of the same mechanisms that drive evolution-- random mutation, caused by random chance.)
Again, think less "Crochety old bastard who hands down capricious and arbitrary restrictions/rules", and more "Superposition of all possible states."
God created a universe with maximum potential. This also means that there is a practically endless potential for maladies of every kind.
Your human-centric worldview likewise has you blinded to a terrible reality--
Human kind is the most destructive and terrible thing on the planet, and so far, has shown very little care or concern for others of its own kind, let alone other lifeforms on the planet.
Post by: Ziusudra on November 25, 2020, 10:20:29 pm
Imagine the world we might hav if we spent the money, effort, and resources we do on "defense" against each other on solving our problems instead.
We could be like gods if we weren't so busy squabbling over the scraps of our delusionalities.
Post by: hector13 on November 25, 2020, 10:29:15 pm
And other such excuses.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 26, 2020, 04:19:34 pm
I think you are all laboring under a false presumption:All the shadowboxing is a bit strange, but it's obvious enough that I'm not offended. I'm just curious where you're going with it.
"God likes to torture people/animals/whatev."
Your thought experiment of God as a universal, amalicious, non-interceding set of rules did engage my brain in a good way. You're just describing natural reality, but in a way that superficially looks like the Christian god. Even, apparently, to a believer who thinks that suffering is a punishment for "communal sins".
This is simply not correct:This is correct (supposing a creator god) but has no bearing on whether God enjoys torturing animals.
God created a universe that is capable of producing complex interactions, which lead to things like cancer; leads to diseases; and leads to adversities of various kinds. (it leads to such things, as a natural consequence of such things being POSSIBLE. EG, "metastatic cancer" is a consequence of the same mechanisms that drive evolution-- random mutation, caused by random chance.)
We don't know the creator's motivations. Curiosity or sadism or anything else. We can still judge the act of creation as disproving the omnibenevolence which many Abrahamic believers claim Jehovah has.
Again, think less "Crochety old bastard who hands down capricious and arbitrary restrictions/rules", and more "Superposition of all possible states."Humanizing a creator deity doesn't make much sense. However, it's still wrong to throw a dozen puppies down a well, even if one survives. Or, if done in an Earth-like computer simulation, one shouldn't expect one of the fraction of surviving simulacrums to look at the mountains of death and suffering on Earth and think "This is good." It could serve the creator's plan, but that does not make it good in the context of that world's inhabitants.
God created a universe with maximum potential. This also means that there is a practically endless potential for maladies of every kind.
We're the most powerful entities on the planet, but we only got here because we have incredible depths of compassion and empathy. We are social creatures, that is our greatest strength. Those who don't cooperate are excised... as a general rule.
Your human-centric worldview likewise has you blinded to a terrible reality--
Human kind is the most destructive and terrible thing on the planet, and so far, has shown very little care or concern for others of its own kind, let alone other lifeforms on the planet.
The modern era has invented some rather rampant behaviors contrary to that.
Post by: wierd on November 27, 2020, 02:34:31 am
It is not interested in a mindless puppet, or a purposefully limited virtual agent. It wants a Peer. In order to co-exist, it needs to assure the basic prisoner's dilemma does not happen. It needs to *ASSURE* that the mutually ideal outcome of that scenario happens. Hence, mortal existence as a proving system, to create said peer.
The intrinsic selfishness of an independent agency is fundamentally a necessary component of that agency. To prevent the otherwise practically assured "betrayal" solution space of prisoner's dilemma, where the created peer completely overthrows the creator, and then runs amok, this entity has instead divided the nascent peer-entity(ies) up into linear components, that get aggressively tested against a wide assortment of conditions, and tested against this kind of worst case outcome.
The decision to betray, is sin. It is what this creator cannot abide in any capacity. In order to properly test for this, and exclude all branches that produce it, it has to test for it in a fully exhaustive manner.
Welcome to mortal existence.
Post by: thompson on November 27, 2020, 04:29:19 am
Post by: Duuvian on November 27, 2020, 05:08:53 am
I suppose wierd explained it better.
I also have a nihilistic alternate idea I don't give much credit except maybe when I'm having a really bad day. I hesitate to post it in more detail because in other words it's preposterous hubris.
EDIT: took out some details. It sounds kind of bad after I put it in the shorter description so without going into more detail it's a way I came up with to convince a guy who said he was a nihilist that working together with other people to achieve the betterment of others wasn't counter to his beliefs in the long term.
Post by: Iduno on November 27, 2020, 12:35:57 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Just imagine having a brain that functions like this guy's.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 27, 2020, 01:10:43 pm
I wonder if some of the others were actually anti-pope because the pope is still pretty bigoted in actuality.
(Yeah I know this guy just invented a number to make his own bigotry sound better)
Post by: HmH on November 27, 2020, 03:24:43 pm
It's quite possible that in this particular nutjob's social circle, at least some Catholics dislike the Pope for being insufficiently American.
I can't really see 24 out of 25 Catholics
Post by: Egan_BW on November 27, 2020, 03:31:18 pm
Post by: thompson on November 27, 2020, 03:38:06 pm
<Edit> Unless you were referring to the Church of England... in which case yes, you’d be correct.
</Edit>
On an unrelated topic: what if Jesus actually survived the crucifixion? It’s plausible, given the biblical account, and could explain why he kept such a low profile after the resurrection (wouldn’t want the Romans to find him and finish the job).
Post by: HmH on November 27, 2020, 03:43:40 pm
No, Protestants Idolatrize the Bible, while Catholics take a more nuanced view, Idolatrizing their own institutions and dogma instead.They made sure (https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=John%2019:31–37&version=nrsv) he wasn't faking it, though.
On an unrelated topic: what if Jesus actually survived the crucifixion? It’s plausible, given the biblical account, and could explain why he kept such a low profile after the resurrection (wouldn’t want the Romans to find him and finish the job).
Post by: thompson on November 27, 2020, 04:25:33 pm
Post by: Shazbot on November 28, 2020, 12:37:36 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 28, 2020, 12:40:59 pm
Of course, none of this stuff actually happened, but it'd make a decent story.
Post by: Teneb on November 28, 2020, 01:47:37 pm
Of all the apostles? Yes. Of John the Baptist, extra yes. But of Jesus there is a strange absence. Of course the apostles existing implies a guy named Jesus did exist and was a religious leader. But the rest is down to faith (heh).
Post by: Eschar on November 28, 2020, 01:56:15 pm
Post by: Shazbot on November 28, 2020, 03:44:50 pm
It should probably be noted that there are basically no roman records of Jesus.
Of all the apostles? Yes. Of John the Baptist, extra yes. But of Jesus there is a strange absence. Of course the apostles existing implies a guy named Jesus did exist and was a religious leader. But the rest is down to faith (heh).
Well, if you don't count Flavius Josephus or Tacitus, I guess. That's "basically no records". Alexander the Great also has "basically no records". What we do have is four or five hundred years after the fact and second-hand or fragmentary. The Romans were as likely to take note of Jesus at the time as a governor on the Danube kept track of any other unlanded subject executed for blasphemy against the local druidic order.
And just to add; crucifixion being "inefficient" at killing and therefore it isn't implausible? Beg pardon? Stoning is a very inefficient method of killing. Piling rocks on someone is an inefficient method of killing. The gibbet is an inefficient method of killing. Impalement is an inefficient method of killing. These methods are used for execution because of their inefficiency for the sake of public torture. The sentence was not to be tortured, it was death by torture. When they removed the bodies they were impaled in the chest from below the ribs with spears. This is a deliberate coup de grace to ensure the condemned is dead and the sentence is carried out. The Romans just possibly knew how to kill people when ordered to.
Post by: Teneb on November 28, 2020, 04:00:56 pm
I guess I wasn't clear enough. There are roman records of John the Baptist. There are roman records of the apostles. There are roman records of pretty much everyone *around* Jesus. Except Jesus. If there weren't records on any of them, then it wouldn't be as notable. Not even fragments of records mentioning someone like Jesus.It should probably be noted that there are basically no roman records of Jesus.
Of all the apostles? Yes. Of John the Baptist, extra yes. But of Jesus there is a strange absence. Of course the apostles existing implies a guy named Jesus did exist and was a religious leader. But the rest is down to faith (heh).
Well, if you don't count Flavius Josephus or Tacitus, I guess. That's "basically no records". Alexander the Great also has "basically no records". What we do have is four or five hundred years after the fact and second-hand or fragmentary. The Romans were as likely to take note of Jesus at the time as a governor on the Danube kept track of any other unlanded subject executed for blasphemy against the local druidic order.
Maybe it all got destroyed at some point. I'm just pointing out the historiography. As a historian. Y'know, doing my job and trying to help this here online community.
Post by: Shazbot on November 28, 2020, 04:22:40 pm
I guess I wasn't clear enough. There are roman records of John the Baptist. There are roman records of the apostles. There are roman records of pretty much everyone *around* Jesus. Except Jesus. If there weren't records on any of them, then it wouldn't be as notable. Not even fragments of records mentioning someone like Jesus.It should probably be noted that there are basically no roman records of Jesus.
Of all the apostles? Yes. Of John the Baptist, extra yes. But of Jesus there is a strange absence. Of course the apostles existing implies a guy named Jesus did exist and was a religious leader. But the rest is down to faith (heh).
Well, if you don't count Flavius Josephus or Tacitus, I guess. That's "basically no records". Alexander the Great also has "basically no records". What we do have is four or five hundred years after the fact and second-hand or fragmentary. The Romans were as likely to take note of Jesus at the time as a governor on the Danube kept track of any other unlanded subject executed for blasphemy against the local druidic order.
Maybe it all got destroyed at some point. I'm just pointing out the historiography. As a historian. Y'know, doing my job and trying to help this here online community.
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9. By historian Flavius Josephus, retainer of Emperors' Vespasian, Titus and Domitian... Roman citizen?
Post by: Teneb on November 28, 2020, 05:17:53 pm
But please don't be so damn passive aggressive in the future? Could've just said: "Hey Teneb, you're wrong about this one: look in this here text" instead of obliquely doing so.
Post by: delphonso on November 28, 2020, 06:23:26 pm
There are also no records of a large number of dead Jews near Jerusalem resurrecting, walking around the city, and then returning to their graves.
Just so you know, I love this joke.
Post by: Eschar on November 28, 2020, 08:52:56 pm
There are also no records of a large number of dead Jews near Jerusalem resurrecting, walking around the city, and then returning to their graves.
Just so you know, I love this joke.
Eh? I'm a little confused by what you mean
Post by: delphonso on November 28, 2020, 10:24:07 pm
Historical readings of the Bible are pretty useless.
Post by: Eschar on November 29, 2020, 12:11:29 pm
Joke may have been a poor choice. I love this point, rather.
It's the greatest story never told.
Historical readings of the Bible are pretty useless.
The Inerrant, Infallible Word of George Lucas (http://apastasea.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-inerrant-infallible-word-of-george.html)
Post by: HmH on November 29, 2020, 06:00:11 pm
Joke may have been a poor choice. I love this point, rather.
It's the greatest story never told.
"A horde of undead cultists infiltrating cities in Roman Judea" certainly sounds as insane a writing prompt as the combination of ideas on which Codex Alera had been built.
The real horror story wouldn't be the zombies; it would be the provincial government's attempts to cover up the ensuing clusterfuck (namely, dead people pretending that they're still alive and spreading dissent in the populace despite every document saying they're dead) before Rome's bureaucracy got wind of it and decided to 'restore order' with fire and sword.
Post by: thompson on November 29, 2020, 07:19:04 pm
Allow me to present an alternative scenario:
While Pilot was visiting Jesus he was feeling deeply troubled by it so went aside and had a brief word with the guards asking them not to mutilate the body. So, when the time comes to speed up the deaths instead of breaking his legs they just poke him with a spear. They’re still mindful of Pilots instructions, so don’t push it in deep enough, botching the execution.
Jesus is then taken off the cross to the tomb, where John realised he is still alive. Rather than tell anyone and risk the Romans finding out, he tends to Jesus’ injuries in secret and makes up some story about Jesus rising from the dead to cover his ass from the potential legal ramifications ( this is why his account of events post-crucifixion is so shifty). The story then leads to Jesus’ entire ministry being reinterpreted in light of the “resurrection”. Jesus then dies a few weeks later from his injuries, but there were enough witnesses seeing him alive for the cult to go viral.
Not saying it’s true, just more probable than the official version.
Post by: Ziusudra on November 29, 2020, 09:49:29 pm
Not saying it’s true, just more probable than the official version.There's this nut-job, Lawrence Gardner iirc, who thinks JC was drugged to appear dead and then went to Scotland and founded the house of Stewart (which of course LG is descended from.)
There's also a place in Japan where JC is said to hav actually died. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing%C5%8D,_Aomori#Local_attractions
Post by: hector13 on November 29, 2020, 10:46:45 pm
Post by: delphonso on November 30, 2020, 01:01:26 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 30, 2020, 01:21:07 am
I do not have an uncontrollable urge to kill all non-believers or heretics unlike some here implied. For me it's just... hard to explain. It certainly made me a somewhat better person.
Post by: TheSteppeWolf on November 30, 2020, 01:34:48 am
I am a Protestant.Tbf the best way to go about it.
I do not have an uncontrollable urge to kill all non-believers or heretics unlike some here implied. For me it's just... hard to explain. It certainly made me a somewhat better person.
I hate it, when people try to force their beliefs on others. No matter if religious or atheism. Unless it's a dangerous cult, it doesn't hurt you. Live and let live.
Post by: wierd on November 30, 2020, 03:57:17 am
Which is ironic I think, since so many fundies want to ignore the NT, and go for the OT style of things.
Post by: McTraveller on November 30, 2020, 08:33:32 am
Regarding the New Testament about the story of the resurrection being less plausible than the Romans botching it and Jesus dying 40 days later due to infection or whatever... the thing is there are no fewer than four Gospels, which according to secular forensic study do not have the hallmarks associated with a conspiracy. They are very consistent with true eyewitness accounts: enough is the same and enough is different to make it very unlikely that people were able to after-the-fact construct such a story. Coupled with the fact that there are manuscripts (again by secular scholars) dated to the first or second century AD means that a Roman coverup or a conspiracy requires just as much faith as believing the Gospels themselves. Remember, the Gospels aren't some religious leaders' manifestos - they are just memoirs and letters.
It's up to you to decide if it's cult-leader genius or the sovereignty of God that the Gospels themselves say that even if God gave "irrefutable proof" that people wouldn't believe it - and it's pretty arguable that someone being resurrected is pretty irrefutable proof. I mean even Paul says "we are the greatest fools, because if you can prove Christ wasn't resurrected then obviously this is all in vain."
Post by: Grim Portent on November 30, 2020, 11:46:54 am
It's up to you to decide if it's cult-leader genius or the sovereignty of God that the Gospels themselves say that even if God gave "irrefutable proof" that people wouldn't believe it - and it's pretty arguable that someone being resurrected is pretty irrefutable proof. I mean even Paul says "we are the greatest fools, because if you can prove Christ wasn't resurrected then obviously this is all in vain."
It would not be hard for god to provide genuinely irrefutable proof of god's existence. One documented, monitored and tested angelic manifestation appearing before a council of UN scientists would do the job. Have it show up, heal some incurable conditions, maybe bring some animals or people back from the dead, clarify a few matters of scripture and so forth on live television, multiply some mundane objects like food or medicine.
It would be actual concrete proof that god as an entity exists. Wouldn't necessarily be proof that that entity should be worshipped though.
What we have now is no more conrete proof of the existence of god than we have of the existence of Zeus or Pazuzu.
Post by: Eschar on November 30, 2020, 12:50:01 pm
Post by: McTraveller on November 30, 2020, 12:51:49 pm
God did just that in the equivalent of the time. Do we think we have the right to impose that God keeps demonstrating himself that way over and over?
Also, you're forgetting the fact that even in modern society you'd have a quite significant number of people calling hoax or deep fake or whatever.
There will always be people who never take any amount of evidence as being "irrefutable."
Post by: Eschar on November 30, 2020, 12:53:49 pm
God did just that in the equivalent of the time. Do we think we have the right to impose that God keeps demonstrating himself that way over and over?
If that's his goal and he wants to be self-consistent, then he is indeed obligated to, seeing as how accounts of these demonstrations, like accounts of anything, can (justifiably) become less credible the older they are.
Post by: Grim Portent on November 30, 2020, 01:23:10 pm
If he wanted to actually demonstrate his existence he would do it semi-regularly or wait until such a time as mass media enabled showing that proof to (almost )everyone around the world (more or less) simultaneously.
Viable proof would also be if relics had the mystical properties attributed to them by some 2000 years of Christian society. If the bones of Saints or the foreskin of Christ actually harbour any of the divine energies claimed by the faithful past and present it would be trivial to prove that and by extension provide some physical evidence of the divine.
Post by: Telgin on November 30, 2020, 08:06:18 pm
Under those rules, god knows I'm a very analytical person who will not simply accept his existence without reason. Presumably he created me like I am. Presumably, that means he created me knowing I'd go to Hell, and he's okay with that.
Even if I did believe in such a being, how I could I worship something so evil?
Of course, there are different interpretations of god, so one's mileage may vary, but I don't think it's an unreasonable interpretation based on the Bible.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 30, 2020, 10:43:45 pm
Post by: lemon10 on November 30, 2020, 10:56:16 pm
Even if I did believe in such a being, how I could I worship something so evil?I feel that "He will have me tortured for all eternity if I don't worship him" is a pretty compelling argument to worship him.
Is it an evil thing to do? Oh yeah, totally. Is it effective anyways? Yup.
Like I don't know about doing literally anything he says to avoid such a fate, but if Moloch came down tomorrow* and said "WORSHIP ME OR I WILL DEVOUR YOUR SOUL AND YOU SHALL SUFFER FOR TEN MILLION YEARS" I would go "Yes, Mr. Moloch, you really are the best most awesome god, do you like this burnt-offering I made for you?".
--
*Assuming I didn't think I was going crazy and that he was telling the truth.
Post by: Egan_BW on November 30, 2020, 11:00:06 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 30, 2020, 11:15:28 pm
Post by: Telgin on December 01, 2020, 12:05:49 am
I feel that "He will have me tortured for all eternity if I don't worship him" is a pretty compelling argument to worship him.
Yeah, and this is actually the main reason I used to be a Christian as a kid. Fire and brimstone preaching is common around here, and as a kid I honestly believed that I could have a random bad thought, have a heart attack and would die and go to Hell because I shouldn't be having bad thoughts. I was actually pretty OCD about it, stopping to pray and ask forgiveness several times an hour out of the fear I'd done or thought something I shouldn't have in that period and was at terrible risk of burning for eternity.
If anyone ever wonders why I'm bitter about Christianity, it's because of that.
Now, don't get me wrong. If god appeared to me plainly and told me to do X or I'd burn forever in Hell, that would be a very powerful motivator. I'd probably do whatever X was, but I could never serve such a being willingly and out of love like we're told we're supposed to. It would only be out of paralyzing fear.
But, of course, that leads back to the point that there's no evidence for god's existence, which was the main thing that caused me to lose my faith. God never did anything impossible, and rarely did things that seemed improbable. Dead people don't come back to life (no, having your heart stop and later restart does not mean you died). People don't regrow lost limbs. People recover from terminal diseases like cancer with about the probability that science expects, with or without prayer. So... that leads to natural conclusions. If nothing else it implies that prayer does nothing.
That's actually a different can of worms, where one can question what the point of praying is when god will do what god wants. Depending on if you believe in free will, it makes prayer entirely pointless since god knows what the future holds and if / who will pray for what, and thus it's all predetermined by the future he knows and allows to exist. But that's been discussed recently and multiple times previously.
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 01, 2020, 12:21:19 am
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2020, 12:23:30 am
The actual verse in Revelations that gets abused for this, says that there is a fire, the smoke of which rises forever and ever. The actual end-result is eternal death, which is what atheists are already "Perfectly OK with."
(specifically, see Rev 14.)
Spoiler: relevant chapter (click to show/hide)
The real etymology of "Burning in hell forever", is a fusion of the old Roman idea of the underworld, fused with the nordic "dishonorable death" afterlife in Hel's frigid household, and then shoehorned into this Rev 14 verse.
The original semitic belief system has a kind of "Holding cell" system, where you have 3 distinct, and physically separated areas divided by an unpassable river, with an area each for the faithful dead, the unfaithful dead, and those that died in ignorance. The souls of the dead are held there until the final judgement, at which time they are judged, and either go on to eternal glory, or are committed to the final eternal death. The point of the resurrection was the decomissioning of this system, and this is the 'triumph of the grave' spoken of in the gospels. EG-- Christ went to the two 'bad' holding cells, and ministered to the dead, allowing them the chance to go with the dead in the good holding cell, to wait at the judgement seat of god. (which is where the dead go NOW-- This is a kind of temporal shortcut straight to the end of days, which is functionally the same as being 'asleep' until that time-- You are not available for comment, and from the persective of the dead, they take the shortcut straight there. This is what is meant when Christ says 'the dead know nothing'; they are totally oblivious to the goings on on Earth, while the timer runs out. It is also why the only way into heaven now, is through him. The old testament is no more.)
See for instance, Apocryphal book of Enoch where this holding system is described.
Pertinent citation (https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe025.htm)
However, the catholic dogma REALLY REALLY likes the idea of eternal torment and damnation, for reasons that can only be described as political.
Post by: Telgin on December 01, 2020, 12:30:18 am
This list of verses does provide some evidence that the Bible supports eternal torment too: link (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/ten-foundational-verses-for-eternal-punishment-in-hell/).
Well I was taught that as long as I accepted Jesus... it wouldn't matter if I sinned in a minor way.
That's a much more reasonable interpretation, but nobody ever preached that around here. Admittedly, it may have just never come up and was me filling in the dots as a kid, but when you're told that everything from liking Pokemon to buying something on Sunday would send you to Hell, it made god seem awfully capricious and intolerant so it wasn't hard to fill in the dots that way.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 01, 2020, 12:39:16 am
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2020, 12:42:32 am
Specifically, the action of repentance-- (acknowledging your sin, and taking pained efforts to not recidivate, even though you are doomed to do so, because of your sin nature) demonstrates your decision to abstain from that sin, and your desire for such reform. This entitles you to the 1000 years of direct tutelage by the christ. After this period, satan will be released from captivity once more to once more test to see if you were really true in your devotions, and the final judgement will then begin, once satan is once more defeated, and his rebellion quelled.
Pertinent chapter (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020&version=NET)
The bible is replete with passages about how the consummate sinner is unrepentant, and returns to their sin over and over again, rather than seeking a way out. (with various descriptive metaphors, such as "dog returning to its own vomit", et al.)
Post by: delphonso on December 01, 2020, 01:02:24 am
Post by: Egan_BW on December 01, 2020, 01:06:49 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 01, 2020, 01:24:16 am
Post by: thompson on December 01, 2020, 01:27:59 am
These days I think mainstream Christian thought (Catholic and Protestant) is moving away from the idea entirely, but with the rise of Pentecostalism it’ll likely carry on through that.
The idea of hell is probably what made me agnostic in the first place. The rules just seemed so arbitrary. What really did it for me was the meme where you have to tick all the gods you believe in. At that point, I realised I had nothing to defend checking one box and not the others. 18 years of Catholic education, and I couldn’t answer that one question.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 01, 2020, 05:21:07 pm
I do like how the Babylonian religion is pretty much "the gods are all evil, there's no hope, you're at the mercy of a capricious and disgusting world, and death is a blessing".At least you can visit the sacred prostitutes to cheer up when the gods curse you for forty by forty generations
Post by: Grim Portent on December 01, 2020, 06:05:47 pm
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on December 02, 2020, 12:26:04 am
Post by: TheSteppeWolf on December 02, 2020, 09:44:19 am
And they deserve every last bit of it and more.
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 02, 2020, 10:17:01 am
I was taught that Hell consists of undescribable torture before you reincarnate if you were a crap person. Like having hot metal sticks impaled through all your orifices also eyes while being skinned alive, and regenerated. For particularly vile people (like Hitler or Mao), it can last for millions of years, while they are fully awake and conscious. And then their soul is destroyed. That is mercy for those people.Based.
And they deserve every last bit of it and more.
Post by: Eschar on December 02, 2020, 10:23:48 am
Post by: McTraveller on December 02, 2020, 10:32:37 am
I've also come to realize that it's likely we are not "sent to hell" as punishment, but that "separate from God" is our default condition, and we can only be "saved out of" that present state. This is markedly different from philosophies that say humans start good or neutral (which are not Biblical views to be sure).
"Torment" is an inevitable result of being separate from God - it's not something that is "added." It's what you get if people are left to their own devices.
Post by: HmH on December 02, 2020, 10:37:22 am
Quote
And they deserve every last bit of it and more.
That's an interesting phrase.
How does one measure the amount of torture any given person deserves?
Suppose you're driving down a road, not violating any rules.
Suddenly, a little kid runs onto the road and gets splattered against your bumper. (Addendum: he emerges too close and too suddenly for you to stop the car in time.)
After that, his mother looks up from her phone and sees what happened.
From the mother's point of view, you killed her kid and deserve to be flayed alive and sewn back together for no less than seven million years.
From your point of view, it's the mother's own fault for not watching her child next to a busy road, and you deserve anywhere from 0 seconds to (if you're feeling really bad for her) 2 weeks of torture.
From outside observer 1's point of view, it's the mother that's at fault for bringing a child into this world and then neglecting him in dangerous circumstances; she's the one who should get punished, not you.
From outside observer 2's point of view, you are a child-murderer no matter the circumstances and therefore, by definition, deserve to be sandwiched by obese lawyers with acid-coated strap-ons for no less than 102 years and 3 months. The neglectful mother, in turn, should be waterboarded for seven days and seven hours. (Nothing personal, it's what his denomination says your actions deserve.)
From outside observer 3's point of view, the kid ran out onto the road of his own free will, so no one should get punished; punishing either of two people for the free choice of a third would be wrong.
So... everyone has a different opinion on what punishment you (and the neglectful mother) would deserve in such a situation.
Even in a really clear-cut case, the one who has wronged and the one who was wronged will usually disagree on that amount, because the one who has wronged always has a few really good excuses for his actions and the one who was wronged will want revenge without regard for what's fair.
And no matter what amount of torture you choose to inflict on every actor involved, some people will think it's undeserved because it's too much torture, and some will think it's undeserved because there's too little torture.
So... if there are only subjective opinions on the matter and if no option will really satisfy even a majority of people, how does one determine the amount of torture that is deserved in any given case?
Post by: feelotraveller on December 02, 2020, 10:52:14 am
Suppose you're driving down a road, not violating any rules.
Suddenly, a little kid runs onto the road and gets splattered against your bumper.
After that, his mother looks up from her phone and sees what happened.
That hell is man-made not a god-made.
Post by: TheSteppeWolf on December 02, 2020, 11:29:37 am
And, it doesn't matter what religion you are.
Post by: HmH on December 02, 2020, 11:49:47 am
Suppose you're driving down a road, not violating any rules.
Suddenly, a little kid runs onto the road and gets splattered against your bumper.
After that, his mother looks up from her phone and sees what happened.
That hell is man-made not a god-made.
It's not hell at all. It's all around us.
Add draconian laws that assume the driver in any fatal accident is guilty of murder by default, with no exceptions (unless he's well-connected in the police or the government; then the case is quietly closed 'for lack of evidence' before it goes to court), and you'll get a very ordinary situation in Russia.
And Russia is probably not even in the top-10 of countries with the most suicidally irresponsible pedestrians.
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 02, 2020, 09:51:10 pm
Post by: Eschar on December 03, 2020, 02:32:23 am
Eh, I've never understood the view of hell as eternal torture of that form. I've always understood it to mean "eternity without the presence of God." So basically life on Earth, but with none of the redeeming qualities. Eternal despair, never having a moment of peace. Always wanting more, and never getting enough.
I've also come to realize that it's likely we are not "sent to hell" as punishment, but that "separate from God" is our default condition, and we can only be "saved out of" that present state. This is markedly different from philosophies that say humans start good or neutral (which are not Biblical views to be sure).
"Torment" is an inevitable result of being separate from God - it's not something that is "added." It's what you get if people are left to their own devices.
I was also taught and believed this, courtesy of C.S. Lewis.
Post by: HmH on December 03, 2020, 06:32:02 am
Eh, I've never understood the view of hell as eternal torture of that form. I've always understood it to mean "eternity without the presence of God." So basically life on Earth, but with none of the redeeming qualities. Eternal despair, never having a moment of peace. Always wanting more, and never getting enough.
I've also come to realize that it's likely we are not "sent to hell" as punishment, but that "separate from God" is our default condition, and we can only be "saved out of" that present state. This is markedly different from philosophies that say humans start good or neutral (which are not Biblical views to be sure).
"Torment" is an inevitable result of being separate from God - it's not something that is "added." It's what you get if people are left to their own devices.
Actually, if being separate from God is our default condition, why would Hell differ from life on Earth at all? Is despair a part of human condition while peace is not?
On the other hand... an Earth-like afterlife might be a lot less appealing if you have to live there for eternity, no matter how shitty it gets.
Imagine living forever in a world that doesn't have enough resources per capita to get past the average living standards of the 18th century. Such a society would be trying to evolve, but there's simply not enough convertible energy for anyone but a tiny minority to employ mechanized labor.
So one person enjoying life only does that because thousands of others are slaving away for him. Which those thousands do not (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution) approve of.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 06, 2020, 11:51:31 pm
First off, the idea of me having continuity into some eternal state is completely absurd unless my brain is copied at some arbitrary time. We all know painfully well that human memory isn't perfect. What would my tortured spirit consist of - me today, me at 15, me from one of the final minutes of brain death, or me from any of the many dreams in which I am a completely different person?
Those last are particularly comforting, even the nightmares, as are the many times we live but don't remember. Nothing is eternal - nothing. Certainly not our biological processes. Every suffering will come to an end.
The idea of consciousness being a shared thread between all beings has some internal consistency I guess, and its own horrors. But there's no reason to picture... a very personal hell of suffocating, for eternity, in a dark place. Such horrors only happen to the living.
Edit: I wasn't in mortal danger or anything, kinda the opposite. Thinking about my future, and inevitable end. A natural end, hopefully outlived by some positive impact on humanity.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 07, 2020, 12:01:50 am
Post by: wierd on December 07, 2020, 12:22:17 am
Last night I was very afraid of dying for a little while, so I'd like to talk about how instinctual andunnaturalirrational that fear is.
First off, the idea of me having continuity into some eternal state is completely absurd unless my brain is copied at some arbitrary time. We all know painfully well that human memory isn't perfect. What would my tortured spirit consist of - me today, me at 15, me from one of the final minutes of brain death, or me from any of the many dreams in which I am a completely different person?
Those last are particularly comforting, even the nightmares, as are the many times we live but don't remember. Nothing is eternal - nothing. Certainly not our biological processes. Every suffering will come to an end.
The idea of consciousness being a shared thread between all beings has some internal consistency I guess, and its own horrors. But there's no reason to picture... a very personal hell of suffocating, for eternity, in a dark place. Such horrors only happen to the living.
Edit: I wasn't in mortal danger or anything, kinda the opposite. Thinking about my future, and inevitable end. A natural end, hopefully outlived by some positive impact on humanity.
You just need to almost die a few times. Your fear of death will diminish.
(Me? Oh, by all accounts I should be dead by now. Almost drown 3x. Run over by car 4x. Drug by horse 1x. Kicked by horse 20x. Fall off roof/out of hayloft 1x. Hypothermia 4x. Indirect lightning strike 1x. .... You get the idea.)
Post by: Rolan7 on December 07, 2020, 12:29:55 am
(Hypothermia was probably the closest call, and was complicated by my amount of will to live. Here I am, though. It still seems peaceful... Though I've heard that the last moments involve a certain illogical panic, so maybe not.)
Also I had the pleasure of caring for horses for a couple years, and they are just a bag of dicks. Pardon my "equestrianism".
Post by: wierd on December 07, 2020, 12:48:11 am
I have been on the receiving end of Angry-Nag more times than is easily counted.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 07, 2020, 12:58:53 am
I just had a friend, whose family has a farm, and they wanted to take a vacation for the first time in a few years. And I looked after their dozen horses. In three shifts - me, one other, and nighttime. I took the morning shifts. The horses grew increasingly agitated over the two weeks, and I did more fence repairs day by day. I never touched the electrified fences - another fear learned from living next to a cattle farm, ha...
Horses are beautiful creatures and this gives me the opportunity to say something I wanted to say earlier:
Brushing their hair was almost as... "valuable"... as brushing my own hair every good morning.
Some things are worth living for. A lot of things are worth living for.
Death is scary and it's always there, and that's why we live as much as we can.
(And try not to fall into a depression trap about how much we fail to appreciate life)
Edit: This is spirituality.
Edit2: Corralling uncooperative horses into their pens is... a little like Minecraft, but some horses are actually intelligent and learn to resent you for not being their human. Or not grooming them correctly.
Post by: wierd on December 07, 2020, 02:43:54 am
With both pros and cons.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 07, 2020, 02:57:00 am
Post by: thompson on December 07, 2020, 03:13:25 am
There’s something to be said for the Western mangled version of Zen Buddhism, where the theology is completely ignored and replaced by the simple notion of having everything you want by wanting nothing. Well, I look liberties rephrasing that, but you know.
Post by: hector13 on December 07, 2020, 08:53:25 am
Post by: wierd on December 09, 2020, 10:21:29 am
It is considered OK english as a colloquial dialective though.
I view it in the same family as "Swim, Swam, Swum" eg, "To day I swim", "I swam yesterday." and "By this time tomorrow, I will have swum."
In this case though, I view it based on who or what is being "dragged". Eg, if the object of the verb is an inanimate object, and the tense is past tense, I use dragged.
"I dragged the bag to the door."
However, when the object is a person, I use drug.
"Suzie's horse drug her all the way down the hill."
Post by: methylatedspirit on December 12, 2020, 04:01:48 am
This is assuming God's using standard notation and meanings that are recognized by mathematicians. Anyone could redefine them, but now you're just playing semantics, and that's not the point. I'm asking if something as fundamental as pi can somehow be changed by God without rendering math meaningless.
Post by: wierd on December 12, 2020, 04:27:08 am
It is similar to say, "The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees". Especially in light of the fact that this is only true on a flat plane. If the surface the triangle is created on is a sphere, the angles do not add up to 180 degrees AT ALL. (https://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTriangle.html)
Likewise, if the surface on which the circle is depicted is not planar, the radius will not have the same relation, if plotted over that surface (and not through a hyperspace.)
Consider for instance, a circle drawn on the pointy end of an ellipsoid.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHpq2Z5p/When-Pi-is-not-Pi.png)
If "The universe" only permits paths over the surface of the ellipsoid, then R will not have the same proportionality as if it went through they hypothetical hyperspace of a plane. (as illustrated), and as such, the relationship with the perimeter will not equal Pi.
Post by: methylatedspirit on December 12, 2020, 04:39:21 am
Post by: wierd on December 12, 2020, 05:01:24 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric
One could then easily determine if the program ever halts, by looking backward in time, since the future is predetermined and must always match the past.
It would then be decidable, at least empirically. (though probably still not mathematically; sorta like how division by zero is undefined. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero) In this case, you would have two perfectly valid states-- One where the machine halts, and one where it does not-- Similar to the two perfectly valid curves of the division by 0 issue. In the case of the Godel spacetime, you could look to see which the universe has selected, but you would never know WHY.)
Post by: methylatedspirit on December 12, 2020, 05:36:47 am
What about rendering Fermat's Last Theorem false? It's completely abstract, and there's no physical trickery that can be done, at least to my knowledge. God just has to pull out some positive integer values of a, b, c and n such that an + bn = cn, n > 2. Real easy, I'm sure.
Post by: wierd on December 12, 2020, 06:34:18 am
I think you have me confused with a deist apologist, or a deist. :P
I am an agnostic. It is very different. Understanding that there are gaps in our understanding of the universe large enough for a god to potentially exist in, is the only reason why I am not atheist. Expecting me to be able to pull a god out of my ass is silly. :P
If I could solve Fermat's last theorem, I would have a fields medal, and would not be wiping asses for a living. :)
Post by: methylatedspirit on December 12, 2020, 06:45:34 am
Post by: Egan_BW on December 12, 2020, 06:49:42 am
Post by: methylatedspirit on December 12, 2020, 07:03:23 am
All it would have to do is erase the entire universe and then start anew with different parameters.Then presumably prevent anything that would lead to the proof of any and all theorems by intelligent life, because (I can't cite anything for this, but I think it makes sense) any logically-consistent, axiomatic system that would allow for the proof of any theorem would allow for this question to be posed. Any form of formal, rigorous treatments of math cannot exist in this new universe. Not even our universe's Euclid can exist in that universe, because he treated geometry formally, with axioms, and managed to prove at least one theorem within those axioms, even if his notation is "primitive" by our standards.
It's an "assassinate everyone who knows" kind of conspiracy, but on the universal scale.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 12, 2020, 07:05:32 am
Post by: Frumple on December 12, 2020, 07:09:30 am
You don't even need god or new math for that, just someone willing to insist that 2+2=69 is actually fermat's last theorem. It's kinda' like insisting a goodness that includes mass intanticide or bioterrorism is still goodness, and not just something entirely unlike it you're still calling the same thing. Good ol' religious language, in other words :P
Post by: methylatedspirit on December 12, 2020, 07:34:00 am
Or to put it differently, if fermat's last theorem was something entirely different, working off different priors and means of interaction, but still called the same, it could be falsified!
But an onmnipotent (and all-knowing, but it's sorta implied from the first) god knows every possible proof in (assuming multiple universes) every possible universe. In his room, there's a gigantic book with every theorem and all its proofs in every possible universe in every possible logical system. Maybe our universe's Fermat's Last Theorem is theorem #2619819871715132 in that book. How would he try and disprove theorem #2619819871715132, then, if in his book, it says that it's true? I suppose he could just define it out of existence, removing the associated universe, logical system, and all the theorems within in the process. Oh, and every universe, logical system and all associated theorems in which Fermat's Last Theorem can exist. Our universe, if it was Fermat's Last Theorem he wanted to remove.
Shit, I think I just came up with Paul Erdos' idea of The Book, but a more unfiltered version where all the elegant proofs are just mixed in with the inelegant ones. The first million pages in my Book must just be proofs for 1 + 1 = 2.
Post by: McTraveller on December 12, 2020, 09:10:34 am
Post by: feelotraveller on December 12, 2020, 03:13:39 pm
It is to confusedly attribute the rose of the rose-coloured glasses as the rose of the snow.
It is certainly within the purview of the Abrahamic god to make humans constituted otherwise. Hence yep, an omnipotent god can do all of the above, and without needing to change 'reality' - other than human cognition.
Post by: McTraveller on December 12, 2020, 04:03:08 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2020, 08:59:43 am
Post by: Egan_BW on December 17, 2020, 10:31:55 am
Post by: Rolan7 on December 17, 2020, 11:47:20 am
Religious intermarriages are increasingly common, which is a nice sign of tolerance! Good on religious people! Even between denominations, that represents a lot of mutual respect (and an encouraging lack of "fire and brimstone" belief).
"The Disappearing Social Benefit of Religious Participation?" is a good section too, though it's phrased a little negatively. It looks like unaffiliated people are no longer as cut off from their communities, reaching near-parity with churchgoers when it comes to sociability and civic involvement. I would guess that's due to widespread cell phones and online social networking, but increased tolerance of nonreligious people help too. Reaching equality by improvement is good news!
Related, "42 percent of Americans have a close social connection with someone who is religiously unaffiliated", up from 18%. That's huge. Having a friend or loved one of any class makes it a lot harder to stereotype that class. And while atheists are still a vulnerable minority in America, I think there's a lot of benefit in having good relationships with religious people. It works both ways.
A surprising number of people "believe in God" at all: 87%. 53% without any doubts, which is wild. But I'm not really bothered by that - the rising number of religiously unaffiliated people is a lot more important to me. My fears about religion come from its powerful institutions and their moneyed involvement in politics, not individuals with spirituality.
Post by: Eschar on December 17, 2020, 12:14:22 pm
Post by: TheSteppeWolf on December 17, 2020, 10:36:17 pm
Here in Mongolia, after the revolution in 1990-1992 that removed hammer and sickle, Buddhism has recovered somewhat, from the cultural genocides taken by the People's Republic.
I don't like to swear, but fuck the MPR.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 19, 2021, 11:13:21 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 19, 2021, 11:15:50 am
I still shudder at the notion the Soviets tried to erase the memory of Genghis Khan
Youd need to kill as many people as he did to even get close to success.
Post by: TheSteppeWolf on January 19, 2021, 11:12:26 pm
Post by: Magmacube_tr on January 20, 2021, 08:50:05 am
I still shudder at the notion the Soviets tried to erase the memory of Genghis Khan
Youd need to kill as many people as he did to even get close to success.
Did they? I didn't knew that. How they were going to do it anyways? Kill all historians and burn all history books?
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 21, 2021, 11:01:48 am
Did they? I didn't knew that. How they were going to do it anyways? Kill all historians and burn all history books?Yes, and as SteppeWolf says, go the extra mile by erasing the people and even the idea of the people
Post by: Rolan7 on May 22, 2021, 11:29:15 pm
And if they misinterpret the Bible to give me shit about my presentation, they can die in a fire of their own making. Because the Bible doesn't even say I'm wrong.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on May 22, 2021, 11:35:18 pm
Post by: hector13 on May 22, 2021, 11:41:47 pm
Anyway, how come, at least in Christianity, the church is bothered about bodies? They say the important part is the soul, which departs when you die, so why give any shits about the now-empty vessel that held it?
Post by: Arx on May 23, 2021, 04:44:03 am
Anyway, how come, at least in Christianity, the church is bothered about bodies? They say the important part is the soul, which departs when you die, so why give any shits about the now-empty vessel that held it?
1. Yup, "for in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be neither male nor female, slave nor free" or words to that effect.
2. It's just a question of how the body and soul interact while they're still glued together, really.
* Edit note: no offence intended with the terminology, the juxtaposition of internet meme and serious theological debate is just -- to me -- amusingly incongruous.
Post by: Frumple on May 23, 2021, 06:55:06 am
Really, one of the things to remember about christian (or religious in general) scripture is that at the end of the day the rules are basically calvinball. They're whatever a sufficient number of believers say they are, which is why denominational canon, interpretation, and such, are all over the place. There's usually general agreements, but when you start talking particulars, beliefs start running around like a spider on drugs, making odd looking webs.
Post by: chaoticag on May 23, 2021, 06:59:20 am
AFAIK you can't actually construct a bulletproof sola scriptura argument against being trans in and of itself. There's a verse in Leviticus against cross-dressing which is probably negated by the Apostles' letter to the Gentile believers in Acts and which gets complicated because you have to deal with gender definitions, but the crux of the matter is really sex. By which I mean the meme question "are traps gay?" is actually a major theological issue.
Not that I'm Jewish, but in addition to that, if you want to add rabbinic authority to the mix, you end up getting way more than 3 genders even on ultra-orthodox opinions.
Anyway, how come, at least in Christianity, the church is bothered about bodies? They say the important part is the soul, which departs when you die, so why give any shits about the now-empty vessel that held it?
1. Yup, "for in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be neither male nor female, slave nor free" or words to that effect.
2. It's just a question of how the body and soul interact while they're still glued together, really.
Any idea what the explanation for the remnants of saints being sacred in Catholicism (and I assume orthodoxy) would be?
Post by: Arx on May 23, 2021, 09:16:08 am
There's also denominations that believe in physical reincarnation/resurrection and whatnot, iirc. The body's still important for them 'cause it's coming back at some point and the soul isn't really separable or whatever.
There are denominations that worry about that, yep. But both the Gospels and the Epistles are pretty explicit that what comes after isn't that much based on what happens now (the woman with... seven? husbands comes to mind), so I personally don't think it's a big deal. Also why I have no problem with cremation, I figure God can un-cremate me just as well as he can un-rot me.
AFAIK you can't actually construct a bulletproof sola scriptura argument against being trans in and of itself. There's a verse in Leviticus against cross-dressing which is probably negated by the Apostles' letter to the Gentile believers in Acts and which gets complicated because you have to deal with gender definitions, but the crux of the matter is really sex. By which I mean the meme question "are traps gay?" is actually a major theological issue.
Not that I'm Jewish, but in addition to that, if you want to add rabbinic authority to the mix, you end up getting way more than 3 genders even on ultra-orthodox opinions.
I actually have a Jewish friend who recently came out as trans and doesn't seem to have any family problems with it, and her family is very religious. Haven't actually spoken with her in quite a long time though, covid and all. (Random topically-relevant anecdote)
Any idea what the explanation for the remnants of saints being sacred in Catholicism (and I assume orthodoxy) would be?
I fear I'm too close to being a Protestant to answer that one. :P Methodism doesn't really have veneration of the saints, and I'm inclined to call it mistaking the messenger for the authority. More of a temporal power thing than a spiritual power thing (or, if you will, a Calvinball rule :P).
Post by: chaoticag on May 23, 2021, 09:26:17 am
Post by: McTraveller on May 23, 2021, 12:38:43 pm
Genre matters when it comes to interpretation. So yeah maybe a "bulletproof" sola scriptura isn't possible, but there are definitely interpretations you can pretty safely dismiss.
Post by: Eschar on May 24, 2021, 01:43:43 pm
I have a thing. I had two things but I can’t remember one of the things.
Anyway, how come, at least in Christianity, the church is bothered about bodies? They say the important part is the soul, which departs when you die, so why give any shits about the now-empty vessel that held it?
Note: Paul is very insistent that the return of Christ will be followed by believers' corpses being transfigured into glorified/purified bodies, and then reunited with their souls. "Disembodied souls floating around forever" is not actually the new testament view of heaven/new heavens.
Post by: Gentlefish on August 17, 2021, 07:36:11 pm
Doesn't help his admonishment of Greek pederasty was warped into a general anti-homosexual thing as well. Seeing as Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the covenant of the hebrews and YHWH meaning they were no longer beholden to the old rules (you know. Leviticus and such. Deuteronomy and all that.)
Post by: Rolan7 on September 30, 2021, 12:54:26 am
...
Covid pulled me away from my faith, which was... is, a faith in nature. Specifically, natural forces we don't understand. Literally, gods of the gaps.
Being ununderstandable didn't stop me from taking comfort from them. To speak, even pray to a certain aspect helped me acknowledge and think about that aspect. To focus my thoughts and act rationally.
I used to be exposed to the elements so often. Of course I wanted to see that as a rite. Even later, safe at home, I would pray thanks for every rainfall. To be caught in the rain was a transformative experience, if a bit gross.
I desperately need a pilgrimage. I need to stand on the mountains. I've greeted and saluted the sun, but it's not the same. The sun is a lousy, vicious god. I need to feel the wind, and see the dizzying heights, and feel the rain wash over me. I need to - to hear the thunder, and flee terrified from the lightning, as I so often did. To be caught on the road and huddle under an embankment, wet and grinning rapturously as I hear the unpatterned rain. Feel the thunder bounce off the dirt. The water washing over me.
I will, before long, walk through the sleeping trees and see the ice hanging from them. I'll feel the snow crystals crumble under my boots and stop for a few minutes. A perfect, frozen moment that lasts forever.
Edit: I did go wading a couple weeks ago, I should do that more often:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: wierd on September 30, 2021, 05:30:47 am
That usually means the water is clear, and reasonably clean.
All the streams here are mud and sand, and turbid as hell. Will ruin your clothes to go wading in them.
As for the desire to go experience the real wild; I share the sentiment, but not on religious terms. Rather, I venerate the natural world as the actually real world, that exists outside of human conceptions of what is right, proper, or necessary-- It does not give two fucks about what humans think.
People have historically be terrified of that aspect of the natural world, but I personally revel in it. I wish I could stay there permanently.
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 30, 2021, 09:47:06 am
Post by: Frumple on September 30, 2021, 01:18:33 pm
Scope and effect, probably, but it's a very human arrogance to look at what we do and claim that we're apart from nature just because you're inside a high rise or something, as if that distinctly cleaves you from atmosphere pressures or tectonics or grasping roots or every tiny ecosystem, like walls magically stop pigeons from roosting on them or bugs from finding their way through life in the crawl ways. The city is nature just as much as the forest, just with different specifics.
... more self destructive than most forests, probably, but it's not like those don't have their equilibriums break down without our influence, too. For all we accelerate a great pile of things, fundamentally most of what we do just... isn't special, in the grand scheme of things.
Post by: Superdorf on November 02, 2021, 01:29:55 am
Any Christian church worth its salt places value on the church body as a source of knowledge, independent from Scripture. Without that backing, the Bible loses its staying power as a historic, moral, and theological framework: isolated interpretation begets distortion, however clever or zealous the person doing the interpreting may be. Sola scriptura doesn't work— it just leaves the reader combing Scripture for confirmations of their own personal/cultural proclivities.
Among the differences between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant versions of the Bible, one of the most notable is that Catholic and Orthodox versions include books such as the Maccabees, which most Protestant versions don't include.
Note the interaction at play here. The church assembles the Bible!
Post by: Rolan7 on November 02, 2021, 01:45:32 am
I personally feel like true faith has to be an entirely personal thing. No other person can teach you the ultimate truth. "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him".
It's okay to believe one's parent's or community leaders about a great many things. Cars: dangerous. Red berries: don't eat. But one's ultimate purpose... one's "role" in existence? That cannot be given, even benignly.
And the structure of the universe must surely be either evident at a primal level, accessible through meditation - or simply beyond human understanding. The idea that some individual received revelation and must be believed... it makes me upset. Particularly after so many transcriptions and translations, and with countless competing assertions.
If there is divine revelation, it must be something anyone can access.
Post by: delphonso on November 02, 2021, 02:44:24 am
Sola scriptura doesn't work— it just leaves the reader combing Scripture for confirmations of their own personal/cultural proclivities.
Particularly after so many transcriptions and translations, and with countless competing assertions.
This point is, I would guess, the reason many people raised Christian abandon the faith (as I did).
The Bible itself is a deeply complex collection of texts from multiple authors with different motivations in their writing. The Old Testament is written from the perspective of before the First Temple, but was certainly written after the Second Temple. There's even an argument to be made that the Old Testament is newer than some parts of the New Testament. To take it as a God-breathed document is to put hypocrisy in God's mouth.
Post by: Superdorf on November 02, 2021, 02:57:23 am
It's okay to believe one's parent's or community leaders about a great many things. Cars: dangerous. Red berries: don't eat. But one's ultimate purpose... one's "role" in existence? That cannot be given, even benignly.
Therein's the rub, though: warnings like "cars: dangerous" are critical to the spiritual life!
If the "supernatural person" occupies an objective reality, it follows that the "supernatural person" can encounter objective perils to its well-being. Thus, preserving the soul safe and healthy becomes a real concern. Some people know more about the process than others. The pitfalls are documented.
This isn't to say the spiritual life isn't ultimately a personal journey! Rather, there's aspects of the journey that are much, much more easily walked with someone else clearing a path for you.
This point is, I would guess, the reason many people raised Christian abandon the faith (as I did).
The Bible itself is a deeply complex collection of texts from multiple authors with different motivations in their writing. The Old Testament is written from the perspective of before the First Temple, but was certainly written after the Second Temple. There's even an argument to be made that the Old Testament is newer than some parts of the New Testament. To take it as a God-breathed document is to put hypocrisy in God's mouth.
Another big reason the church becomes such an important interpretative body. You've got a bunch of fallible, human writers, saying a bunch of fallible, human things— God's there, but discerning the divine from the human is nigh-impossible alone.
The episcopal corpus acts as a standard against which the writing can be safely considered. It's not a perfect process by any means (bishops get it wrong too), but the existence of an ecclesiastic authority keeps the majority of the crazy away when well-exercised.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 02, 2021, 06:21:06 am
Carrying over from the AmeriPol discussion... here's my two cents as a Christian college kid.I agree, however it is also worth noting that having an institutional body of theologian-scholars also opens the door to serious gatekeeping of moral thought, which then introduces its own human pitfalls. It's how you end up with fatwahs and doctrines confirming local custom or prejudice as universal fact despite a lack of adequate reasoning or theological justification.
Any Christian church worth its salt places value on the church body as a source of knowledge, independent from Scripture. Without that backing, the Bible loses its staying power as a historic, moral, and theological framework: isolated interpretation begets distortion, however clever or zealous the person doing the interpreting may be. Sola scriptura doesn't work— it just leaves the reader combing Scripture for confirmations of their own personal/cultural proclivities.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 02, 2021, 06:39:55 am
Before I converted to Christianity, I considered Islam and Buddhism. Decided neither resonated with me.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 02, 2021, 09:00:27 am
Post by: Eschar on November 02, 2021, 01:35:24 pm
I considered Judaism, but I just didn't make the cut. Was too slow for Islam, they told me I had to go fast. Fancied giving Buddhism a spin, but realised I didn't desire it.
took me a minute or two
Post by: McTraveller on November 02, 2021, 02:25:16 pm
That said, I find the arguments about numerous translations and interpretations to be specious; the translations we have today - especially the Christian New Testament - withstand extreme secular scrutiny and the words on the page are as essentially what was written originally. So there's no real argument about the words in the text, the only debate left is in the interpretation.
Most of the "offshoot" interpretations are, interestingly, from "independent" churches that don't have a central systematic method of teaching How to Interpret Ancient Texts. There's nothing particularly unique about interpreting the Bible compared to any other similarly-aged literature - it's just that people want to treat allegory as history or apocalyptic literature as literal events. It's just bad form. It's like if people in 1000 years got a copy of your corporate memo and tried to claim that it meant something that could not have made sense to you when it was written.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 07, 2021, 09:59:52 am
I did however pretty much completely get syncretism with other religions out of my system.What I mean by this is that I basically believe that the Judeo-Christian God is the only god. All other supernatural beings that aren't related to Him that may exist (which I highly doubt) are demons who exist to mislead man, no matter how they may appear. I was conflicted on this, but even the early councils decided so. Gone are the days when I was an agnostic who leaned towards animism.
That said I don't care if you're Muslim, Buddhist, neo-pagan, new-age, universalist, whatever, you can believe whatever you want and I don't care as long as it's not being forced on me.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 08, 2021, 11:43:11 am
or B. we are all characters in the great cosmic comic book. Limited by the nature of our reality in pulling back the veil on another. I would assume in this case that there is a creator or creators, and we continue to exist because someone out there loves this narrative or collection of narratives. But even if they didn't, if we went out of print a thousand years ago and there is indeed a finite end to our reality. Would we know it? Could we? I dont think it really matters. As for free will, I'm sure some things were predetermined and others left up to 5th dimensional authors who wrote us to come up with on the spot. It was someone's free will, and even if it is set in stone for all of eternity it was spontaneous that first time--which is what we are living.
Post by: wierd on November 08, 2021, 12:49:17 pm
Many worlds is true.
All humans are sinners, because all humans have branched world trees where they have done every kind of sin imaginable.
The limited humans in each terminal branch of their world tree, are each oblivious to the billions of iterations of themselves that exist-- but from the POV of god, they are all "That one human."
God, such as it is, is not "active." It is entirely passive, as it represents the sum total of all world trees, in a condition of superposition. It is thus all things, and also, fundementally excluded from any individual world tree. (EG, you can look in every micro-angstrom of your iteration of the universe, and never find it.) Any actions it may have chosen to undertake, were undertaken at the moment the initial flash of the universe was initiated, as this being has perfect knowledge of the total wave-function of the universe, and thus, this is the only time it actually NEEDS to be active.
When people die, and are judged, the many branches of their world-tree are superimposed, to composite their true being. This true being is then judged.
Why approach it this way?
The bible is very consistent in asserting that those that are selected, will be able to understand god, because they will be like him/it. This fundamentally then, requires that humans become similar beings-- eg, ones that are gestalt superbeings of all the possible manifestations of themselves.
I view that this interpretation satisfies all the necessary checkboxes in the literature, while being "plausible" (if taken with a lot of salt) from current cosmological interpretations-- but again, requires Copenhagen to be wrong, and Many Worlds to be true.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on November 09, 2021, 12:25:56 pm
Don't get me wrong. I don't have hate for ones that may believe. I understand, in the end, all can be true, and all can be false.
It's the very concept of religion that I have hatred for. lt neither stems from a trauma, nor is it an actual rebellion even if I refer it to as. Let me elaborate.
We humans love validation. Validation with, as, because and for anything, or nothing in particular. We seek it everywhere. And our minds have specifically evolved to seek things even before our hairy ancestors descended from their ever shrinking pockets of jungle trees eons ago. And the brain that supports this mind has become so good with time and positive feedback at seeking and finding patterns for validation that it detects them even when they are not actually there.
So our ancestors looked upon their surroundings, came up with many ideas right and wrong, which then clustered into stories and charaters, which then got combined with both what they did, and how they did things, and formed the first religions.
Then the lowly and savage tribes became the first civilisations and competition rose, for humans were still savage as they are now. These humans too saw patterns in their circumstances too. But different ones due to their different world. The simple tradition became reinforced into unquestionability, first with a leader, then all the more ideas and stories. They became so large and capable that they were less like patterns now, but entire worldviews that each new generation of humans was introduced into. Of course the children accepted it wholeheartedly, they too inherited the overdeveloped ability to see non-existent patterns.
So things became more and more complicated. Competiton rose. Soon, the weaker and less complex of these clusters of patterns began to be absorbed or straight-out eradicated by the more agressive ones. Leading to a more competitive environment. Ancestral teachings of fruitfulness evolved into demands for more soldiers and baby makers that will make those. Little aesops and sayings got mixed and bastardised and became the ramblings of a non-existent, divine commander who saw nothing but shed blood, assert his dominance and conquer. We know his name.
From the Bronze Age Collapse, and the inherent savagery of the Middle East, came what we today observe as The Abrahamic Triad. Them and their one and only, jealous god, Yahweh. Allah, Jehovah, and as he likes to pompously call himself "God". The most infamous of patterns.
He was the ultimate validation to pillage and conquer for the Isrealites. He was the ultimate validation for slavers to justify what they did. He was the ultimate validation that sunk the Europe into The Dark Ages. The list goes on.
It really does not matters what these patterns are called. They all come from the same little cranny in the human mind. It wouldn't be a problem if they stayed there. But no, all they do is to expand until all the person can see is themselves.
What gives them the right to exist? These contagious, abominable clusters of thought have existed and plagued us. What did they granted us in return. They internally validated our actions for us when we wanted, which only made them stronger for the next generation until they became inescapable.
I hate them. I hate all of them in the basis of their very nature. It does not matters what elaborate stories, legends and tradition they have been vowen from. It is all just means for its spread.
Parasites they are. They are pathetic, for to have substance, to merely exist, they need you. Your attention, your time, your praise, your obedience. And they take it with threats of shunning, of death, of eternal suffering.
Memetic hazards, all of 'em! Cognitohazards, all of 'em! These are primordial filth. They do not deserve their existence. Let them die. Let their corpses rot in the form of ruined temples and molded scripts. Let them be forgotten. Let them ever never be remembered.
Do not listen to them. The feeling of validation they give you only plants them into your mind more.
Tldr: Religions are products of our minds seeing patterns where there is none, and gods are Pattern Screamers. They exist because we want justification for things we do and believe, and are inherently parasitic in nature. I hate them because of this.
Tldr2: Religions are cringy memes.
Post by: Superdorf on November 09, 2021, 01:31:44 pm
At its best, religious structure encourages and contextualizes our most beautiful actions.
Hold churches accountable, yes— but don't lose sight of the best for the worst! Many of the gentlest people on this earth found their kindness in their faith.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 09, 2021, 03:40:33 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on November 14, 2021, 07:27:44 pm
What exactly do I mean by either term? We just don't know.
Sometimes I mean to exalt and reference the heavens.
Other times, I am engaged in an act that many would see as wrong. And I echo and mock their concerns. "Gods below".
And to be clear, I don't just mean sexytimes. There are many times when one does something dark and hated, for good reasons.
Post by: Frumple on November 14, 2021, 07:54:14 pm
Thanking fornication or using for love of fornication is a pretty workable one, too -- folks on the net care a lot more about that (or food, or sleep, for that matter) than religious stuff, in practice. Might as invoke what all the effort's being directed at, y'know?
... they're arguably greater powers, too, heh. Zealot and the atheist both starve just the same, and the gods have been pretty stingy with that whole spontaneous generation or virgin birth thing for the last few millennia. Give credit where it's directly observable, praise the sun, praise fornication, praise sleep. Gods can get credit when they show up to claim it instead of leaving a convoluted IOU (... YOM? You owe me?) behind :P
Post by: Rolan7 on November 14, 2021, 08:05:33 pm
When times are tough, one's mind reels to other gods.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 17, 2021, 09:42:26 am
At its worst, religious structure validates unjust action.Basically. I had an edgy atheist phase where I said stuff much like Magmacube. But now, with the destruction of my old identity? I am a different, and I dare say better and less violent person. Threw my misguided """rationalism""" that was nothing more than an excuse to hate right into the garbage.
At its best, religious structure encourages and contextualizes our most beautiful actions.
Hold churches accountable, yes— but don't lose sight of the best for the worst! Many of the gentlest people on this earth found their kindness in their faith.
My personal take on the abrahamic prototypic god, goes a bit like this:Reasonable. I focus on personal salvation and don't try to evangelize those with "wrong" interpretation but at the same time I make an effort to prevent internal diversity of faith, i.e no syncretism, no new-age bullshit, though I don't care if other people don't and honestly a lot of my friends are atheists. Guess what we talk about? Not atheism.
Many worlds is true.
All humans are sinners, because all humans have branched world trees where they have done every kind of sin imaginable.
The limited humans in each terminal branch of their world tree, are each oblivious to the billions of iterations of themselves that exist-- but from the POV of god, they are all "That one human."
God, such as it is, is not "active." It is entirely passive, as it represents the sum total of all world trees, in a condition of superposition. It is thus all things, and also, fundementally excluded from any individual world tree. (EG, you can look in every micro-angstrom of your iteration of the universe, and never find it.) Any actions it may have chosen to undertake, were undertaken at the moment the initial flash of the universe was initiated, as this being has perfect knowledge of the total wave-function of the universe, and thus, this is the only time it actually NEEDS to be active.
When people die, and are judged, the many branches of their world-tree are superimposed, to composite their true being. This true being is then judged.
Why approach it this way?
The bible is very consistent in asserting that those that are selected, will be able to understand god, because they will be like him/it. This fundamentally then, requires that humans become similar beings-- eg, ones that are gestalt superbeings of all the possible manifestations of themselves.
I view that this interpretation satisfies all the necessary checkboxes in the literature, while being "plausible" (if taken with a lot of salt) from current cosmological interpretations-- but again, requires Copenhagen to be wrong, and Many Worlds to be true.
Post by: WealthyRadish on December 06, 2021, 03:13:31 pm
Quote
I am no atheist. Atheism is a belief just like religion. You cannot prove that god exists, but you cannot prove that god does not exist either.(From the sad thread)
So I consider myself an agnost. I don't know. I put my faith in what we do know. Science.
Genuine question (ok, slightly facetious): Are you an agnostic for the tooth fairy too? Am I basically tooth-fairy-atheISIS because I am 100% willing to claim under oath that a magical being doesn't acquire teeth under the pillows of children in exchange for $USD?
One can add "to my knowledge there's no tooth fairy...", "in my opinion there's no...", "I believe that..." and so on there, but that applies to anything I say. It goes without saying.
Surely it's more useful for "agnostic" to mean people who strongly doubt something but also have contradictory impulses to positively believe it, while "atheists" just lack the latter.
i.e. why does agnosticism get to be either/both of these things:
- Absence of belief in <unprovable claim with poor evidence> without a convincing substitute ("I'm 6 and the tooth fairy seems sus, but I haven't thought that it could just be my parents yet, I'd better play both sides to be safe")
- Absence of belief in <unprovable claim with poor evidence> and a preference for <unprovable claim with some evidence> ("I don't think there's a tooth fairy dude, science says it's just your parents doing it")
...while atheism is defined to be indistinguishable from 2) but tautologically "wrong" because acktchuuually all knowledge is like, whoa, impossible to verify, man!
Just have atheism be 2) and agnosticism be 1).
(To be clear, I'm 100% fine with agnostics who genuinely have contradictory doubts/support and just say "I don't know", but this dumb "technically..." argument gets grating.)
Post by: Egan_BW on December 06, 2021, 04:48:25 pm
Post by: McTraveller on December 06, 2021, 04:54:20 pm
Post by: Rose on December 06, 2021, 04:56:00 pm
Post by: Frumple on December 06, 2021, 05:40:09 pm
I thought agnostic was stronger than "I don't know" - I thought it was "it's unknowable?"It can be either, iirc. If you're getting into technical/actual academic discussion on it, I seem to recall there's specific modifiers for it (want to say it's something like hard or soft agnosticism, or epistemic vs other sorts, or something along those lines, but it's been over a decade since I was held to any kind of standard of rigor regarding that and I don't actually, like... care... about the specific terminology anymore) or other terms for one or the other, but for general conversation you're pretty free to use it for both sorts. As long as folks get the gist of things, it's good enough :P
Post by: EuchreJack on December 06, 2021, 05:49:16 pm
Without God, atheists become nothing. Ergo, the atheists themselves prove God exists. It's the anger that really proves it, more than anything else.
Post by: TD1 on December 06, 2021, 07:50:50 pm
I am no atheist. Atheism is a belief just like religion. You cannot prove that god exists, but you cannot prove that god does not exist either.
So I consider myself an agnost. I don't know. I put my faith in what we do know. Science.
I am an a - theist.
One who is without theism.
Theism is a belief in god/gods.
I am an atheist, someone who lacks belief in gods/god.
This doesn't mean that I can't think of gods/god as possible, only that faith isn't part of my calculation. As per my current understanding of science and the world, the possibility is vanishingly small. But with the right evidence (and it would need to convincingly explain a lot) I'd adjust my worldview.
Atheism does not seek 'to prove that god does not exist.' It doesn't actively push any agenda, really. It just kinda cuts faith out of the equation.
Agnostics believe that we can never prove/disprove the existence of god/gods. Though, granted, each agnostic seems to have a slightly different definition. It doesn't concern itself with what you put into the equation, it's only concerned with the end answer - whether there is or is not some form of divinity.
Edit: To attempt further clarification:
It's possible to be an Agnostic Christian - someone who believes in God, but doesn't think we can ever know one way or another whether he exists.
It is possible to be an Agnostic Atheist - someone who doesn't believe in god/gods, and also thinks we can never know whether they exist.
It is not possible to be an Atheistic Christian - someone who doesn't believe in God and believes in God.
((Some may prefer to replace 'Christian' with 'theist' in the above. I'm just playing to the crowd ;) ))
Post by: hector13 on December 06, 2021, 08:26:53 pm
A/gnosticism, dealing with knowledge of a higher being. and a/theism, dealing with belief in a higher being.
Agnostics believe you can’t know if a higher being exists, gnostics believe you can.
Atheists believe there is no higher being, theists do.
An agnostic atheist thus believes there is no higher being, you just can’t prove it.
A gnostic atheist believes there is no higher being.
An agnostic theist believes there is a higher being, you just can’t prove it.
A gnostic theist believes there is a higher being.
It’s all a bit more complicated than that, but that’s the gist.
However, as a counterpoint to Dwarfy, there are some atheists who are as vocal and fervent in their belief as any theist, Richard Dawkins being a good example.
Post by: Rose on December 06, 2021, 09:05:47 pm
Post by: hector13 on December 06, 2021, 09:15:17 pm
I have a very firm belief that organised religion is one of the most horrible things humanity has come up with, but I suppose I like the idea of a higher being.
Then again I was raised Catholic so that’s probably where the latter part of that came from, as it’s certainly where the former did heh.
Post by: EuchreJack on December 06, 2021, 10:54:19 pm
What about somebody who believes that a higher being is there, but does not believe in them (Does not believe they deserve any respect or worship)?Actually, that isn't Agnostic, as far as I can tell. Agnostic accepts that there is no way to know either way.
Belief means one has faith. Faith does not imply respect nor worship. Frankly, I'd lump you in with most atheists I have heard talking over the years, but that isn't actually true atheism either.
I self-identify as Lazy Christian. I believe in God and Jesus, but can't be bothered to go to church, read my bible, or do the religiously stuff.
I believe other religions are in fact mostly centered in belief towards the same being(s), but structured in different ways.
If it helps, most religious activities, again according to my own beliefs, are not actually for the benefit of the Divine. Higher beings...are well Higher than us. They don't need us to do certain things for their sake. Religious activities are much like academic pursuits, it is to reaffirm and refine one's own faith. I am a Christian because that was the religion I was indoctrinated, the teachings that I know. God would be perfectly happy if I were a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddist, a Hindu, or even an Atheist. God can work around us, if not through us, if They are indeed Divine.
I think that might fall under agnostic theism, as that’s kind of where I’m at.
I have a very firm belief that organised religion is one of the most horrible things humanity has come up with, but I suppose I like the idea of a higher being.
Then again I was raised Catholic so that’s probably where the latter part of that came from, as it’s certainly where the former did heh.
Read your Bible, its the great gift of Protestantism. Jesus was quite critical towards the Pharisees, the religious leaders of His time. He didn't much care for them either. And of course, fast forward to the time when Catholics become predominant, and they're full of Pharisees. Heh, it might be the reason that Protestants never really did get around to organizing themselves, although they encounter the same issues on the local level.
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 06, 2021, 11:06:03 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on December 06, 2021, 11:18:06 pm
I suppose by that definition I am agnostic. Jesus Himself didn't appear before me so how would I know for sure? I do honestly believe but I don't claim to have proof.Yeah, the definition of agnostic as a person that does not know for sure and acknowledges they can never know for sure actually sounds like the basis for very strong faith in whatever religion a person favors.
Although I think agnostic might have more in its definition. However, unlike A-theist where most religious folks are Theists and thus every knows what they opposed, the Gnostics all were killed or died off over 1700 years ago. A-Gnostics don't have a large organized and sortied group to clearly define themselves against. Overall, if you feel agnostic, it's not like the Gnostics will argue with you about it.
Post by: Frumple on December 06, 2021, 11:19:39 pm
... closest thing I've seen to avoiding that curse stateaide is a fair amount of black churches, and other minority ones. My off the cuff guess it's actually the music, or good music helps ward off the blight or something. Explains why it's so prevalent in evangelical ones, their music trends hard towards kinda' shit even for gospel :P
It is one of the things that strikes me pretty often, though. Christian scripture wise, Jesus did not exactly spend much on-screen time in pews or behind pulpits, y'know? Some of the church appearances were pretty aggressive! But they mostly just weren't involved. Folks claiming to believe in the critter and wanting to follows their ways sure don't spend much time actually... doing... what Jesus did. Very little wandering around in hobo clothes like the fellow was basically described as doing, etc. Kinda' makes you wonder.
Mind, that's fairly common for the laity at a minimum among most religions in the world, but still. It's sometimes astounding how little the practice of worship resembles the practices ascribed to the figure the folks involved claim to be worshipping. It's a sort of, "What ass are you people pulling all this shit out of" dealio...
Post by: EuchreJack on December 06, 2021, 11:46:00 pm
I think it mainly is the fact that the more organized, the more corrupt. Larger means more corruption. It's organizations that tend towards corruption.
But Organization is Power, and Power is Influence, and Influence leads to Conversion. It's probably why Jesus tolerated the Pharisees as much as he did.
Remember that among Martin Luther's Big Demands for the Catholics was that people actually have access to the actual religious text and clergy that actually read the text.
Easy to fool people when they don't even know what is going on.
Post by: Frumple on December 07, 2021, 07:58:17 am
Luther, though... Luther was a sack of shit. Relevant to that demand in particular, the amount of folks literate at all during his lifetime and area ranged from around 5% to around 15%. It was an ask he would have been well aware would have little to no actual effect on the power of the clergy (and clearly doesn't to this day if you spend much or any time listening to big name preachers or any congregation influenced by them, ha), and given his own issues when it came to church corruption was likely a rhetorical bludgeon more than anything well intended.
It may (and only may) have made a difference well after his death, but it's probably better not to give much credit to a bloodthirsty jackass's accident, heh.
Post by: Eschar on December 07, 2021, 08:37:41 am
I suppose by that definition I am agnostic. Jesus Himself didn't appear before me so how would I know for sure? I do honestly believe but I don't claim to have proof.Yeah, the definition of agnostic as a person that does not know for sure and acknowledges they can never know for sure actually sounds like the basis for very strong faith in whatever religion a person favors.
Although I think agnostic might have more in its definition. However, unlike A-theist where most religious folks are Theists and thus every knows what they opposed, the Gnostics all were killed or died off over 1700 years ago. A-Gnostics don't have a large organized and sortied group to clearly define themselves against. Overall, if you feel agnostic, it's not like the Gnostics will argue with you about it.
This is because there isn't any relationship, specifically not direct opposition, between "agnostic" and "Gnostic." Note the capital: Gnostic is a proper noun there, with particular meaning, a particular sect. Opposite of agnostic is gnostic, not Gnostic. It's a coincidence caused by two naming choices centuries apart. Agnosticism has nothing to do with Gnosticism, but with a category of gnostic stances.
Tdlr: "the Gnostics aren't going to argue with agnostics" is trivially true, but not relevant in the way Euchre is suggesting.
Post by: EuchreJack on December 07, 2021, 04:24:41 pm
oh.I suppose by that definition I am agnostic. Jesus Himself didn't appear before me so how would I know for sure? I do honestly believe but I don't claim to have proof.Yeah, the definition of agnostic as a person that does not know for sure and acknowledges they can never know for sure actually sounds like the basis for very strong faith in whatever religion a person favors.
Although I think agnostic might have more in its definition. However, unlike A-theist where most religious folks are Theists and thus every knows what they opposed, the Gnostics all were killed or died off over 1700 years ago. A-Gnostics don't have a large organized and sortied group to clearly define themselves against. Overall, if you feel agnostic, it's not like the Gnostics will argue with you about it.
This is because there isn't any relationship, specifically not direct opposition, between "agnostic" and "Gnostic." Note the capital: Gnostic is a proper noun there, with particular meaning, a particular sect. Opposite of agnostic is gnostic, not Gnostic. It's a coincidence caused by two naming choices centuries apart. Agnosticism has nothing to do with Gnosticism, but with a category of gnostic stances.
Tdlr: "the Gnostics aren't going to argue with agnostics" is trivially true, but not relevant in the way Euchre is suggesting.
I actually hadn't know that, sorry.
Post by: TD1 on December 08, 2021, 07:02:44 pm
However, as a counterpoint to Dwarfy, there are some atheists who are as vocal and fervent in their belief as any theist, Richard Dawkins being a good example.
Oh, certainly there are atheists who aim, with fervency, to lead others away from theism. Whether that's a belief is questionable. My personal take is that it's proselytisation based off of empirical research. Dawkins, for instance, had some very interesting ideas concerning social Darwinism, even coining the term 'meme.' Not very pleasant, but not really a belief comparable to religious faith.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 09, 2021, 12:36:42 am
In our reality I don't feel any particular need to "deconvert" teapot believers. If I met one I'd probably just talk to them, find out the specifics of their belief out of curiosity, and basically just chat politely and move on.
But consider a different reality, one where coffee is taboo in almost every human culture. Most of the divine teapots have been dismissed as myths, with some theories hanging on, but mostly everyone believes in a single teapot- though they disagree very violently about the specifics. This monocup permeates every aspect of my local culture and art, to the extent that its absence is an obvious statement.
Our leaders graciously allow us the legal right to drink water if we prefer - not that they'd ever touch the stuff, they all love tea and have public tea ceremonies to make sure they stay electable. After heavy debate coffee is technically legal - though many states leave their anti-coffee laws on the books, just in case the federal government ever changes its mind.
I might... maybe... be curious as to what makes people believe in the teapot, and maybe even how to explain that there's no reason to do so. And also wonder wtf is wrong with me that I don't like the taste of tea, when apparently everyone else does. Is it because my parents gave me water as a child? Or am I just... bad? Do I even like coffee or am I just being weird for the sake of it?
Post by: EuchreJack on December 09, 2021, 02:51:02 am
I can somewhat understand the coffee drinker's position.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 09, 2021, 03:20:12 am
Post by: EuchreJack on December 09, 2021, 04:21:21 am
Clearly we should find this teapot, and smash it for the glory of unlimited refills for mankind.Uh, I think that would instead deprive humanity of tea. But I'm sure some would still advocate for the search-and-destroy mission.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 09, 2021, 04:23:23 am
Post by: TD1 on December 09, 2021, 10:12:27 am
Post by: martinuzz on December 09, 2021, 12:14:22 pm
Post by: HmH on December 10, 2021, 12:25:25 am
We study the shards left behind and make out own teapots ofc. Unlimited refills means unlimited refills.Why study the shards? We can make teapots already.
Certain people have made a lot of money throughout the 20th century by making their own divine teapots that are custom-suited to fit the brand of tea they sell.
And fantasy writers make sets of special teapots for each of the universes they write.
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 10, 2021, 06:25:13 am
Post by: Secretdorf on December 10, 2021, 06:31:56 am
Ok does that mean... that... can science explain that? Otherwise, to me (at least), it means that there isn't only body but also spirit. (Well, I believed that already, but it really strenghthens my belief.)
Post by: HmH on December 10, 2021, 06:39:17 am
Thing is, memories are not set in stone and they're most certainly not objective.
Every time you remember something, your brain reconstructs a believable sequence of events based on a few data points and, importantly, on what you believe had happened.
That's the mechanism that makes hypnotic "retreival" of "repressed memories" basically worthless as evidence. (It is also one of the key mechanisms that make regression to a cause such a powerful therapeutic tool.)
Your brain records a few emotions, a few visual features, a few sounds, a few smells and then reconstructs all of that into what it believes had happened; it doesn't record all the data and play it back like a DVD.
This is why we have a lot of stories about hauntings and a frustrating lack of good camera footage.
Cameras don't have the same data storage and retrieval mechanisms that we do - such as a fluid, unreliable memory that shifts to fit your current beliefs.
---
Of course, science is no arbiter of truth - it is merely a set of methods and prior beliefs that helps people work with facts in an objective manner.
So there's no reason to cite scientific claims as grounds for moral or ideological decisions, including those on spirituality.
At best, if the data is reliable and sufficiently plentiful, science can say what is or is not, but no more than that.
Moral judgments are about what ought to be and ideological ones are about the things we prefer to believe.
Science has nothing in common with moral or ideological decision-making. To pretend otherwise is to invite the creation of utterly abominable things, such as the radical science movement.
Post by: Secretdorf on December 10, 2021, 06:54:39 am
(Also, it was not some common strange thing. It was far more horrible than that.)
Post by: HmH on December 10, 2021, 06:58:17 am
Cameras might get some interesting results. Or not.
A skeptic would explain it as follows: "rumors of ghosts in that particular graveyard turned into a local myth, so people's beliefs were biased from the start. They were jumpy, their perceptions (which are biased too) noticed something odd and their memories made that oddity fit their beliefs".
But my headcanon is that there's a Scooby-Doo villain trying to start a war between your countries.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 18, 2021, 05:30:38 am
Perhaps the most insulting thing is when someone claims that I'm arguing about religion in bad faith. Saying that I believe and am actively rejecting YHW. I have tried so hard to join the flock, I literally can't.
Usually they aren't addressing me specifically, it's just a thing popular Christian demagogues tend to do. They don't represent most Christians but it does scare me that they get so many followers.
I have had plenty of loving Christians in my life, even both my parents. They just both believed in letting my brother and I find faith on our own (letting us drink water instead of tea) and we respect each other's takes on the world. well, nowadays. I certainly went through a cringey internet-atheist phase... when I was looking after my very religious grandma. It's nice to hear about my mother's heartfelt belief in Salvation and also hedge witches. Or my dad's belief in demons that explain the worst aspects of mankind. Both consider themselves Christians but I didn't even know that until I was almost an adult.
I get scared about Abrahamic fundamentalists legislating really awful things. It's strange because most Abrahamists I interact with don't support those things. For years I was terrified that certain Abrahamic groups were trying to go full handmaid's-tale (before that was in the public conscious) and Pence became vice-president-
But Trump didn't get JFK'd and, despite his bluster, things remained pretty okay for a secular person like me. For a little while.
It sure would be nice if people stopped trying to legislate their religion. Especially through the supreme court. I just want to fondly regard some river bugs and treat them like fae, but these MFs all trying to force pregnancies on people.
That's what scares me so much about the "teapot". Some people will do anything to promote it. People in high offices. And they sure don't like what I am!
Post by: SystemsTestCanary on December 18, 2021, 12:44:35 pm
Perhaps the most insulting thing is when someone claims that I'm arguing about religion in bad faith. Saying that I believe and am actively rejecting YHW.
Also annoying that this probably isn't going to go away soon, because this tactic is in the Bible itself, courtesy of Paul (see Romans 1:20.) So this tactic and those derived from it (such as "the existence of atheists proves God exists" or similar canards) are probably going to stick around.
Post by: Schmaven on December 19, 2021, 12:31:50 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 19, 2021, 12:56:38 am
Overall, it seems to me that religion has made people kinder and more compassionate. Though there are many examples throughout history of great evils being done in the name of religion, they do not outdo the benefits religion has provided to societies. One that comes to mind in particular as balancing primarily over on to the benefit side of the scales is Buddhism. Though we humans do have a remarkable ability to use just about anything as a reason to harm one another.Exactly, it's just that the assholes always take the center of attention.
Post by: Frumple on December 19, 2021, 01:04:34 am
As to if organized religion been a net good overall, hell if I know. Most potential historical counterexamples to organized religion ended up hunted to extinction or irrelevance by it, ha.
... my personal experience leans real hard otherwise, though. Church going and whatnot always seems to make people worse over time around these parts. Having something unconfirmable folks consider an absolute truth just seems to go poorly. Ends up with people less reasonable, less charitable, more unkind and fractious... I'm irreligious for a reason, heh. Organized religion just seems to get in the way of everything good, including spiritual beliefs but especially everything else...
Post by: Egan_BW on December 19, 2021, 01:09:40 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 19, 2021, 04:09:25 am
I have absolutely zero interest in either atheism as a movement or unorganized religion as a spirituality. Neither feels correct to me.
Post by: EuchreJack on December 20, 2021, 03:44:28 am
So yeah, Christianity was born in that separation.
My opinion: Most religions are too new. They are like adolescent children that don't know how to behave. The only reason that practitioners of Judaism and Dharma seem better is because they're older. The only reason Islam and Mormonism lend towards extremism is because they are younger.
Also, surviving oppression builds compassion, for whatever that is worth.
Also, I fell into the trap of not understanding the gospel phrase, "You once were Homosexuals, but now you are Christians".
It doesn't mean that Homosexuality and Christianity are mutually exclusive, it means Homosexuals were among the first Christians!
While jarring, I feel it important to say this:
People make the same mistake discussing the Holocaust. It wasn't the Germans killing the Jews. It was the Nazis killing the German Jews, and a whole lot of other people both of Jewish descendant.
I'm not sure how much longer I'm going to be able to continue this discussion. It's too serious for my tastes.
Post by: martinuzz on December 20, 2021, 07:10:21 am
That's kinda disrespectful to all the Polish, Russian, Dutch, French, Belgian, Hungarian, and many more nationalities of jews that were killed by the german nazis.
While jarring, I feel it important to say this:
People make the same mistake discussing the Holocaust. It wasn't the Germans killing the Jews. It was the Nazis killing the German Jews.
Post by: Grim Portent on December 20, 2021, 07:43:03 am
That's kinda disrespectful to all the Polish, Russian, Dutch, French, Belgian, Hungarian, and many more nationalities of jews that were killed by the german nazis.
I think the point was meant to be that the Nazis were targeting the jewish populations of Germany and their occupied nations, rather than them targeting all Jews everywhere. It wasn't meant to handwave their non-german jewish victims, or their non-jewish victims.
Which is strictly speaking correct, in that the 3rd Reich's policies were intended to get rid of all the groups they considered lesser in Germany and the lands they wanted for Lebensraum, but they had no greater plan for worldwide genocide of their target groups. At least not at the point in time they survived to, if the regime had survived more than a decade they may have gotten greater ambitions for expansion and genocide.
Post by: martinuzz on December 20, 2021, 07:51:36 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: McTraveller on December 20, 2021, 08:08:56 am
Also, I fell into the trap of not understanding the gospel phrase, "You once were Homosexuals, but now you are Christians".
It doesn't mean that Homosexuality and Christianity are mutually exclusive, it means Homosexuals were among the first Christians!
Do you mean "epistle", not "gospel"? Also I'm not recalling that verse at all - what's the reference, and what translation?
Also the many instances of "once you were an X, now you are saved" are trying to say "your identity should be in Christ, not in whatever it was in which you found identity before." Those verses aren't to condemn or promote any specific lifestyles - they are to say "only Christ." They also hint at "you don't have to stop doing something or start doing something before you come to Christ - you come just as you are."
Given there is so much in the Gospels and Epistles about dying to self and putting off the old self - I'd argue there's a lot that says Christianity is indeed at odds with most lifestyles, because most lifestyles are self-first, and Christianity most assuredly is not that.
Basically taking the verse to say "early Christians included homosexuals" is true but it's not really making the point you are thinking it's making: Christianity included prostitutes, murderers, criminals, practicers of magic, housewives, soldiers, farmers, peasants, rich merchants, eunuchs, people from all races, religious elite - basically everyone. This is partly what made The Way so unique in that time period - it said you could come as you are, to be made new, rather than simply being restricted by how you were born or raised or life circumstances.
Post by: EuchreJack on December 20, 2021, 10:40:53 am
Good point, I fixed it.That's kinda disrespectful to all the Polish, Russian, Dutch, French, Belgian, Hungarian, and many more nationalities of jews that were killed by the german nazis.
While jarring, I feel it important to say this:
People make the same mistake discussing the Holocaust. It wasn't the Germans killing the Jews. It was the Nazis killing the German Jews.
The point that I was trying to make is that the Jewish people in Germany were as much German as the Nazi people in Germany that were killing them.
Oh, and agree mostly with McTraveller.
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 20, 2021, 11:42:15 am
Also, I fell into the trap of not understanding the gospel phrase, "You once were Homosexuals, but now you are Christians".Most Bible verses that are commonly interpreted as condemning homosexuality are actually condemning pederasty, i.e pedophilia.
It doesn't mean that Homosexuality and Christianity are mutually exclusive, it means Homosexuals were among the first Christians!
Of course, you don't have to be a Christian to hate pedos, I hated them even more before I converted. Now I don't want to kill them, merely give them no tolerance, no special rights, no recognition.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 29, 2021, 11:22:06 pm
I remain terrified that people will use the scripture against me. Because that is what is happening in the USA, despite us theoretically being a nation of free religion.
Post by: EuchreJack on December 29, 2021, 11:30:38 pm
So many Abarhamics offer peace, and I want to accept. Many of the best people I've known have been Christian, and one is Islamic.The best way to protect yourself is to know the scripture yourself.
I remain terrified that people will use the scripture against me. Because that is what is happening in the USA, despite us theoretically being a nation of free religion.
It's amazing how often it gets misquoted.
As Fox mentioned above, understanding the translations helps also.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 29, 2021, 11:47:02 pm
The bible describes abortion and never says it's a bad thing.
Post by: EuchreJack on December 29, 2021, 11:53:51 pm
That's true, that's true.
The bible describes abortion and never says it's a bad thing.
And how exactly does the Book in which the Lord & Savior makes Wine advocate for the outlawing of Alcoholic Beverages?
Post by: wierd on December 29, 2021, 11:58:40 pm
In fact, it says to drink some wine for the sake of your stomach's health (https://www.bibleref.com/1-Timothy/5/1-Timothy-5-23.html), and "God approves of drinking some to brighten the mood" (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%209%3A7&version=NIV) -- but to not drink in excess. (https://www.biblestudytools.com/msg/proverbs/passage/?q=proverbs+23:20-30)
Post by: Rolan7 on December 30, 2021, 12:04:40 am
I don't know what you mean, because I am under the influence of the grape - in a way that the Muslim aren't (theoretically).So many Abarhamics offer peace, and I want to accept. Many of the best people I've known have been Christian, and one is Islamic.The best way to protect yourself is to know the scripture yourself.
I remain terrified that people will use the scripture against me. Because that is what is happening in the USA, despite us theoretically being a nation of free religion.
It's amazing how often it gets misquoted.
As Fox mentioned above, understanding the translations helps also.
I can say with full confidence that the Bible has nothing against abortion. Full stop. It never says a single thing against abortion.
It does explain how to do abortion, in Numbers 5:11. Those wives who go astray know what to do.
God, Jehovah, Yahweh, is extremely clear on this point.
And also: those who follow Muhammed, peace be upon him, reject alcohol. I see the wisdom in that.
Post by: Telgin on December 30, 2021, 10:02:29 am
Exodus 21:22 seems to imply that the death of a baby by premature birth is equivalent to murder, but one could possibly argue that this is a more specific ruling than abortion in general since it's accidental.
Small side note, but Exodus 22:21 is something someone should throw back at anyone who claims to be a Christian but gets wrapped up in politics about keeping foreigners out of the country.
Post by: TD1 on December 30, 2021, 11:48:27 am
Seems to comment on how you should treat foreigners when they're in the country, not the criteria by which they're allowed entry.
Post by: Telgin on December 30, 2021, 11:51:34 am
Post by: TD1 on December 30, 2021, 12:14:07 pm
Your interpretation of 'oppression' and 'mistreatment' is informed by modernity. It's mistreatment/oppression to hurt someone verbally or to offend them. You are concerned for their mental well-being, etc.
This ruling, though, is linked to the Hebrews' time in Egypt, during which (according to the Biblical narrative) they were enslaved and not allowed to leave. Earlier in Exodus it notes that Hebrew 'servants' (read: slaves) were to be allowed freedom after... eh, six years I think? without payment to, or contention from, their master. To do otherwise would be mistreatment.
Anyway, my point is that from a Biblical perspective, mistreatment/oppression probably doesn't mean shouting slurs. It probably means enslavement and forced labour. As with most Biblical laws except those touching on God himself, the emphasis is likely on actions, not words.
And yet, it's still open for interpretation! Gotta love the Bible.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 31, 2021, 02:13:35 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 29, 2022, 10:57:45 pm
Again.
It's fine to worship an idea, even if it's uh. J-wha. (Not spelling them out, out of respect).
It's tragic how these political advances are unbiblical.
Sorry.
I'm upset that organized religion is, as always, forcing itself via political means.
Primaries just started in my state, NC. Religion shouldn't be political, but a lot of people make it political.
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 30, 2022, 12:46:00 am
I wish I could change my vote on a poll. I voted before my conversion. Did a 180 on most things related to religion.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 30, 2022, 03:12:51 am
Post by: TD1 on April 30, 2022, 03:18:44 pm
Then some being or force decided that we could vote on the possibility that we possess free will.
Which seems bizarre in every scenario except that the being or force is non-conscious.
Edit: Although, there is also the possibility that us having the illusion of free will is important to the being for some reason.
Post by: Egan_BW on April 30, 2022, 03:23:01 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 30, 2022, 03:34:35 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 30, 2022, 04:08:56 pm
If we don't have free willI mean, it fucks with a lot of people and causes a lot of misery, so there's a solid possibility for malice with that one :V
Then some being or force decided that we could vote on the possibility that we possess free will.
Which seems bizarre in every scenario except that the being or force is non-conscious.
Edit: Although, there is also the possibility that us having the illusion of free will is important to the being for some reason.
Post by: martinuzz on April 30, 2022, 04:31:20 pm
One can choose to kill, or to let live.
One can choose not to help, or to help.
If you take misery as a measure, surely predestination is more malicious in design.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on April 30, 2022, 05:03:35 pm
He is gonna piss himself and the cage. It's an artifact adamantine cage too, with longnose gars on it.
I say free will.
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 18, 2022, 04:17:09 am
Post by: Quarque on May 18, 2022, 04:40:51 am
Anyway, bad jokes aside. It's really hard to define free will in the first place.
Two dwarves walk in my fortress. One of them does it because he has a free will. The other one does it because his actions are predestined. They both get crushed by a minecart. How do I know which dwarf had free will?
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 18, 2022, 05:06:37 am
Two dwarves walk in my fortress. One of them does it because he has a free will. The other one does it because his actions are predestined. They both get crushed by a minecart. How do I know which dwarf had free will?By engraving their choices into the stone wall of history
Post by: TD1 on May 18, 2022, 07:47:36 am
I place both in the same machine and pulverise them into atoms. I am left with two identical masses of carbon.
But one was still a diamond. And one was still a lump of coal.
((Don't science me about the accuracy of my metaphor dammit, that's not the point ;D ))
Post by: MaxTheFox on May 18, 2022, 08:05:33 am
Post by: Quarque on May 18, 2022, 10:24:48 am
I feel free will requires spirituality to make logical sense
Here I differ. I think that free will and randomness are actually the same thing, in the sense that there is no meaningful way to distinguish them. Randomness is a much deeper phenomenon than it may seem at first sight. It is impossible to write an algorithm that generates truly random numbers; the best you can do is write a pseudo-random number generator that repeats some erratic pattern with a certain period, even if the period can be extremely long.
In my opinion, this is equivalent to saying that you cannot tell a computer how to make a free choice.
In mathematics there is also a deep relation. If you generate a random real number between 0 and 1, there is a 100% probability that you end up with a series of digits that is uncomputable: no sort of finite instruction can generate it. In other words, a repeated coinflip can do something that no set of rules can do, no matter how complicated the rules.
Nature is fundamentally random, because of quantum mechanics. The machines that we build have been designed to be as predictive as possible, to rule out random quantum noise as much as possible. That is why we instinctively feel that a computer has "no free will". Although this isn't entirely true: I would say it has almost no free will. Even a computer can experience a random bitflip because of background radiation, which is caused by quantum mechanics.
An animal or human differs from a machine because they are inherently chaotic systems. That means, roughly speaking, that their large-scale behavior will often be influenced by tiny details. This in turn means that quantum mechanics plays a big role and our decisions are to a good degree truly random.
Now I know that the many-worlds interpretation of QM is not random but deterministic. However, it relies on an infinity of parallel universes which would be unobservable. Many-worlds says that you have no free will because you are simultaneously making every possible choice at the same time, all of the time -- the other versions of you being invisible. In my opinion, many-worlds is a more far-fetched idea than free will.
Post by: Telgin on May 18, 2022, 10:49:47 am
This does bring up a few things to contemplate though. For one thing, it brings up the question of how much like a computer a brain is, since as you say you can't program randomness into a computer. If brains fundamentally work the same way, that means there's no randomness to our behavior and it's all dictated by solid rules that at least in theory could be defined and used to predict behavior perfectly. In practice it would be so insanely complex you can't do that, but I think it does have some merit in religious discussions to consider that as a possibility since it kind of means you're not responsible for anything you do. There's some wiggle room there for sure, but I mostly mean it in the context of things like eternal reward or punishment for religions that believe in that. If you're predestined to do something from birth, how can you be blamed for it?
And of course that goes back to things like Christianity where God presumably does know precisely what you're going to do before you're even born, since he presumably knows everything, including the future with perfect accuracy. If you believe that, and also believe in things like eternal burning Hell where you're tormented forever, how does that influence your feelings on God? I know that predestination is a big religious topic but it's not one I hear discussed in person. I think most people around here, who do believe in eternal punishment for dying as a sinner, prefer to just sweep it under the rug and believe in free will anyway without scrutinizing it at all. God can just make that work for them somehow I guess, like making a rock too big for himself to lift it and then lifting it anyway.
Then, circling back to the nature of randomness in quantum mechanics, you could argue that our behavior is modified by that and isn't subject to harsh rules. Sure, that may even be true. I don't know how much that actually applies to the chemistry or electrical excitations in our neurons, but I can believe that it could manifest some macroscopic changes ultimately. But... if it's random, is that any better than being governed by rules? You still have no say in the matter. It's random.
You could then try to argue that that's where your soul comes in, I suppose. Like God set up the universe in such a way that our souls are manifestations of some kind of driven bias in quantum mechanics that gives us agency. That's impossible to disprove, so maybe it's true. But even if it is, it doesn't sidestep the issues I mentioned above about God knowing the future and what you're going to do, which in a sense means you still have no choice in what happens.
I guess if you don't believe in an all knowing or all powerful God then the problem is less serious.
Post by: MaxTheFox on May 18, 2022, 10:55:36 am
Post by: Quarque on May 18, 2022, 11:01:47 am
I wish I could change my vote on a poll. I voted before my conversion. Did a 180 on most things related to religion.Out of curiosity, what made you change your mind?
Post by: Quarque on May 18, 2022, 11:08:16 am
But... if it's random, is that any better than being governed by rules? You still have no say in the matter. It's random.Right, this is what I really wanted to illustrate with the two-dwarf example.
Let's say Toady magically implements Free Will one day, but only some dwarves have it. Other dwarves behave randomly. (To dodge the pseudo-randomness thing, let's say their choices are generated from quantum noise somehow.) And to be more precise, what they do is not completely random, but a messy mixture of randomness and some unknown rules based on their history and situation.
Now we have two dwarves running about in a fortress. One of them has the new Free Will feature, the other does not. How are they different?
Post by: MaxTheFox on May 18, 2022, 11:11:27 am
I don't know, something shifted inside of me. Hard to explain.I wish I could change my vote on a poll. I voted before my conversion. Did a 180 on most things related to religion.Out of curiosity, what made you change your mind?
Well neither has free will unless they are sapient and thus have souls. Which is a whole other can of worms but let's ignore that for a moment.But... if it's random, is that any better than being governed by rules? You still have no say in the matter. It's random.Right, this is what I really wanted to illustrate with the two-dwarf example.
Let's say Toady magically implements Free Will one day, but only some dwarves have it. Other dwarves behave randomly. (To dodge the pseudo-randomness thing, let's say it their choices generated from quantum noise somehow.)
Now we have two dwarves running about in a fortress. One of them has the new Free Will feature, the other does not. How are they different?
I guess you could tell, from the outside, by the free-willed dwarf doing things that dwarves don't usually do according to their routines. Which is kinda sidestepping the question, because for actual humans you can't really tell from the outside.
Post by: Telgin on May 18, 2022, 11:16:30 am
I don't think free will is the same as quantum randomness, because otherwise electrons have free will and that's just silly, and and I don't believe in predestination. You can't know the future if entities with free will are involved, even if you are God. Just as God can't eruirqeuoiwuif, because "eruirqeuoiwuif" is impossible because it's not a thing in any capacity. It's above impossible: inconceivable. For example, eating the galaxy is impossible, but is at least logically sound. While drawing a triangle with four sides is inconceivable, because it's not logically sound.
This is a reasonable mindset to have I think, but it does mean it restricts God's knowledge. Do you believe God knows the future? Only in broad strokes, or not at all?
Post by: Criptfeind on May 18, 2022, 11:17:22 am
Without finding a way to make that leap I agree you need spirituality for free will. (Although you can use spirituality to make that leap by saying the soul is controlling the quantum fluctuations in the brain, but that's probably the saddest form of free will ever :P)
Now we have two dwarves running about in a fortress. One of them has the new Free Will feature, the other does not. How are they different?
I would feel like this is on you to explain how they are different to demonstrate free will? If there's no difference between something existing and something not existing, then doesn't it not exist?
((edit: This conversations moving a bit fast for poor slow typing cript here so maybe the first part of my post is a little bit outdated by now, oh well :'())
Post by: MaxTheFox on May 18, 2022, 11:29:26 am
God knows the future in broad strokes I feel. He, after all, has a lot of information and is utterly incomprehensibly intelligent. This is essentially knowing the future, with just some exceptions. You can't predict people aside from broad strokes however. Nations, sure. Organizations, sure. But individual people are just too chaotic for anything other than (something that looks like) probabilities.I don't think free will is the same as quantum randomness, because otherwise electrons have free will and that's just silly, and and I don't believe in predestination. You can't know the future if entities with free will are involved, even if you are God. Just as God can't eruirqeuoiwuif, because "eruirqeuoiwuif" is impossible because it's not a thing in any capacity. It's above impossible: inconceivable. For example, eating the galaxy is impossible, but is at least logically sound. While drawing a triangle with four sides is inconceivable, because it's not logically sound.
This is a reasonable mindset to have I think, but it does mean it restricts God's knowledge. Do you believe God knows the future? Only in broad strokes, or not at all?
Post by: Quarque on May 18, 2022, 12:25:03 pm
I don't understand the leap between true randomness on a very small level exists -> free will for macroscopic entities exists.It is a two-step leap. The first part is that for a chaotic system like the human brain, random effects on the microscopic scale will quite often make a difference on the large scale.
A good demonstration of what a chaotic system is can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s4NLA8aAgw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s4NLA8aAgw). A laser beam shines into reflecting balls. If you vary the input angle even the tiniest bit, the outcome will differ dramatically. Almost everything in nature works like that. If you change a tiny detail in the weather today (a butterfly flapping its wings), it will often completely change the weather two weeks from now.
This first step also answers your next question:
Leaving aside the question of how common it is for the human brain to actually be effected in a noticeable way by true randomness and assuming that it does happen even if rarely.I don't think it is rare, because tiny quantum fluctuations influence events at a larger scale through the butterfly effect.
The second step in this leap is that free will and randomness do not differ in any way that can be observed, so the scientific method cannot distinguish them.
So you can make a case for free will without invoking religion.
Rationally I'm sort of agnostic by the way. Emotionally (this is scary to admit) I do believe that there is a God, but not a God that judges us. More of an all-pervasive, all-knowing consciousness that we and the things around us are all part of, without knowing it.
Post by: Eschar on May 18, 2022, 12:28:27 pm
Post by: Quarque on May 18, 2022, 12:40:49 pm
Cells are fairly robust to nanoscale perturbations.Do you have a source? There is a field of study called "quantum biology" that's concerned with questions like these, but I'm not an expert at all. Would be interested to learn more.
Post by: Naturegirl1999 on July 04, 2022, 08:26:40 am
Emotions are not the only thing to cause us to start doing things, there are days where I don’t feel any emotion for a while, so I do something to help me think until one pops up, I think I need to talk about some things
Post by: MaxTheFox on July 04, 2022, 09:05:56 am
Post by: TD1 on July 04, 2022, 09:37:35 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on July 04, 2022, 10:43:47 am
But there is a distinction within the scope of the individual, which is the only universe we will ever know.You, as an individual, would not be able to perceive the presence or absence of free will.
Post by: Schmaven on July 04, 2022, 12:54:29 pm
I know not everyone will agree with this, and that's fine. I just wanted to share why I personally believe in free will.
Post by: McTraveller on July 04, 2022, 02:36:43 pm
If you think there is no free will, then the concept of injustice itself is dishonest; everything is merely the result of the progression of the physical state of the universe, no just or unjust, no "should or shouldn't", etc. The capability to be horrified at anything is a transient pattern in the quantum fields and the spacetime continuum; there is no room for "ought" without free will, there is only "physics." It's a bleak, harsh worldview. The entire existence of social morality is just a solution to the equations of the universe... there is no "individual" as everything literally is part of the same system of equations. Love, hate, good, evil, atrocities - they are all just patterns, they are all valid "solutions" to the equations. There is nothing "behind" the emotion or anything other than just "this is a valid state of mass-energy." There is no true blame; even society "assigning blame" or "attributing responsibility" is just a progression of the universe. There is no true hate, anger, but also no true "love." They are all truly meaningless concepts without free will.
Post by: feelotraveller on July 04, 2022, 02:56:11 pm
Came to post:
I'm not sure if I decided or was destined to like The Diceman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dice_Man) but I do know that I like The Dice Man.
(The only reply to McTraveller's position is to say that it all happens 'as if' we had free will even though we don't. Against the 'as if' position, read that book and see if believing in no free will is still an option.)
Post by: Eric Blank on July 04, 2022, 05:54:46 pm
I believe thus that it's important to teach kids creative thought on any subject they take interest in, as much as how to think inside the box enough to function in our society and use language and math, and only discourage behaviors, not ideas but actions, that are destructive to themselves or those around them. We are made of meat, full of limitations and flaws that hold us back, but that meat is both malleable and adaptable, and those flaws simulate true randomness enough to effectively be indistinguishable from free will.
[Edit]
I realize that I basically wrote a couple paragraph length run on sentences. I don't know why I always do this, and I am sorry.
Post by: MaxTheFox on July 04, 2022, 10:00:36 pm
If you believe in the concepts of injustice, or that there is such a thing as abhorrent behavior, then you believe in at least some level of free will.I disagree.
If you think there is no free will, then the concept of injustice itself is dishonest; everything is merely the result of the progression of the physical state of the universe, no just or unjust, no "should or shouldn't", etc. The capability to be horrified at anything is a transient pattern in the quantum fields and the spacetime continuum; there is no room for "ought" without free will, there is only "physics." It's a bleak, harsh worldview. The entire existence of social morality is just a solution to the equations of the universe... there is no "individual" as everything literally is part of the same system of equations. Love, hate, good, evil, atrocities - they are all just patterns, they are all valid "solutions" to the equations. There is nothing "behind" the emotion or anything other than just "this is a valid state of mass-energy." There is no true blame; even society "assigning blame" or "attributing responsibility" is just a progression of the universe. There is no true hate, anger, but also no true "love." They are all truly meaningless concepts without free will.
From a perspective outside of the universe (like if the universe is a simulation), perhaps that is true. But it is simply strange to say that those things are irrelevant in this universe. We are not outside of it and, let's face it, will never be. Thus, morality should be focused on this universe's perspective. Thus, the existence or lack thereof of free will is irrelevant to my moral framework.
Post by: WealthyRadish on July 04, 2022, 10:03:26 pm
If you believe in the concepts of injustice, or that there is such a thing as abhorrent behavior, then you believe in at least some level of free will.
If you think there is no free will, then the concept of injustice itself is dishonest; everything is merely the result of the progression of the physical state of the universe, no just or unjust, no "should or shouldn't", etc. The capability to be horrified at anything is a transient pattern in the quantum fields and the spacetime continuum; there is no room for "ought" without free will, there is only "physics." It's a bleak, harsh worldview. The entire existence of social morality is just a solution to the equations of the universe... there is no "individual" as everything literally is part of the same system of equations. Love, hate, good, evil, atrocities - they are all just patterns, they are all valid "solutions" to the equations. There is nothing "behind" the emotion or anything other than just "this is a valid state of mass-energy." There is no true blame; even society "assigning blame" or "attributing responsibility" is just a progression of the universe. There is no true hate, anger, but also no true "love." They are all truly meaningless concepts without free will.
Here's my perspective from that bleakness:
The bridge is understanding that while we can clearly see the true physical reality (suggestive of no free will and no meaning) the observation is itself made mostly irrelevant by other facts of living. Mere exposure to knowledge of meaninglessness (and even lengthy brooding upon it) are rarely enough to alter the other inescapable drives that actually occupy a person's life and keep them emotionally engaged with others. Internalizing meaninglessness has some effects I'm sure, but the bottomless capacity for humans to rationalize anything, move on, and drop it completely later is at least one strong mitigating factor on how dangerous an idea can actually be. (I might also add that the alternative model of reality is very frequently used to mentally justify the very same indifference and carelessness for others listed above; the actual cause of these problems is clearly something else.)
While the abyss might open up beneath your feet momentarily when thinking about things like the experience of death, the number of stars in the universe, every person being a sack of chemicals and electricity and so on, eventually you'll just get hungry or fall asleep. When not left alone to sit around brooding and instead put in the physical presence of other people, a person goes back to running on autopilot doing what a social animal does (the knowledge that those other animals are just sacks of chemicals becomes a conversation piece).
Fortunately, justice and morality are also part of that autopilot for most people, and human life and culture also contain the means to propagate and rediscover "moral" behavior with or without an intellectual belief in free will (only a commitment to life and respect for it in others is necessary). One observation is that the abstract question of whether a bad actor is technically "responsible" or not often doesn't affect how people should respond to a problem if they have a sincere interest in fixing the problem. Instead, the question of responsibility is often used to smuggle in a needlessly expedient or careless response (one case where adhering too strongly to the alternative model of reality creates real problems rather than merely hypothetical).
A simple reconciliation of meaninglessness with continued investment in living could be described like this. When confronted with the physical truth and our own insignificance within it, which of the alternatives will we select in light of this, with that free will of ours? The question erodes to nothing and generates an answer: there is no alternative. The decision to continue anyway has already been made. A bird pecking in the dirt for seeds outside your window will spend most of its life locked in a tragic state of meaningless fear and suffering, but it won't stop. There's little that can make us stop either. Recognizing this "decision" as yours (despite not having ever had a choice in the matter) is one way to resolve the various mysteries well enough to move on completely and appreciate a new understanding of significance.
Post by: MorleyDev on July 04, 2022, 10:28:28 pm
It may be one day that humanity will live at a scale where the simplification is no longer useful, just like how we now operate at such a scale of perspective that the Earth being round is relevant. It may be we can never reach that kind of scale.
Post by: lemon10 on July 04, 2022, 11:00:16 pm
If you believe in the concepts of injustice, or that there is such a thing as abhorrent behavior, then you believe in at least some level of free will.I mean, there is no such thing as objective injustice, just as there is no such thing as objective morality, but that sure as hell doesn't mean that subjective injustice or me thinking something is right or wrong aren't things.
If you think there is no free will, then the concept of injustice itself is dishonest; everything is merely the result of the progression of the physical state of the universe, no just or unjust, no "should or shouldn't", etc. The capability to be horrified at anything is a transient pattern in the quantum fields and the spacetime continuum; there is no room for "ought" without free will, there is only "physics." It's a bleak, harsh worldview. The entire existence of social morality is just a solution to the equations of the universe... there is no "individual" as everything literally is part of the same system of equations. Love, hate, good, evil, atrocities - they are all just patterns, they are all valid "solutions" to the equations. There is nothing "behind" the emotion or anything other than just "this is a valid state of mass-energy." There is no true blame; even society "assigning blame" or "attributing responsibility" is just a progression of the universe. There is no true hate, anger, but also no true "love." They are all truly meaningless concepts without free will.
But even if there was free will, I don't see how that makes objective injustice a thing.
Is it fair that a dude is sitting eating while a kid on the sidewalk is starving to death a few feet away when he could just feed her? Not at all. Such a thing is horrible and clearly unfair.
Would the situation be more fair if unbeknownst to him his decision not to feed the kid and the fact that the kid would starve was fated from the start of the universe? Still no.
Post by: martinuzz on July 20, 2022, 05:45:14 am
Post by: Rolan7 on July 20, 2022, 09:33:35 am
What I find interesting about that is how difficult it is to anthropomorphize a being which is basically the universe. It seems that the Christian Trinity may be a result. Y-hw-h remains the creator, master, and literally is the universe. Jesus is god as a human being. The holy spirit is... perhaps the aspect of god one can have a personal relationship with? Since I don't think most Christians around the time of Constantine believed they could pray directly to Jesus, much less Y-hw-h, at least not 2-way.
I'm not clear on the Holy Spirit either historically or contemporarily though. ("contemporaneously"? That's TOO pretentious, I'm not correcting that)
Post by: EuchreJack on July 20, 2022, 10:47:34 am
But it could be thought of as:
God is God as the Universe & Time (it's not just the Universe)
Jesus is God that visited humanity
Holy Spirit is God within us
Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost is as old as Jesus, as Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost.
Monotheist are basically atheists. By claiming there is only one god, they deny the existence of so many other gods that their single god becomes so insignificant that it approaches zero.I think the counterargument is that Polytheists dilute their god among many entities, to the point that they stop being truly divine.
OR
Atheists are basically Monotheists. By claiming god does not exist, they deny the existence of god or gods so fervently they create their own all powerful and all knowing solitary divine being.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 16, 2022, 06:08:38 pm
Which one is more philosophically important
Post by: McTraveller on December 16, 2022, 06:21:33 pm
Post by: hector13 on December 16, 2022, 06:33:40 pm
Post by: Magmacube_tr on December 16, 2022, 06:42:40 pm
Is the universe not part of reality?
Isn't universe the reality, as far as we know?
Post by: Schmaven on December 16, 2022, 08:08:40 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on December 16, 2022, 08:12:27 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 17, 2022, 08:06:05 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 17, 2022, 09:40:23 am
Post by: Egan_BW on December 17, 2022, 09:53:05 am
Better said, contextual. Many realities, one universe?no.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 17, 2022, 10:22:27 am
Post by: Travis Bickle on December 17, 2022, 10:20:47 pm
Reality vs The UniverseNeither one can be more important than the other. They're both just concepts to be discussed in the realm of metaphysics.
Which one is more philosophically important
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 17, 2022, 10:28:02 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on December 17, 2022, 10:38:31 pm
I think you can say which is more important to the user of the concepts.Following on that, we all experience Reality, yet Universe is mostly a theoretical outer boundary that we won't even prove in one lifetime.
Thus, Reality is vital and Universe is useless.
Post by: Travis Bickle on December 17, 2022, 10:50:42 pm
Depends entirely on how you define either term.I think you can say which is more important to the user of the concepts.Following on that, we all experience Reality, yet Universe is mostly a theoretical outer boundary that we won't even prove in one lifetime.
Thus, Reality is vital and Universe is useless.
I'm not really seeing this question's tie-in to either religion or spirituality.
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 17, 2022, 11:14:42 pm
Welcome to Scoops Novel posts, where everything feels oddly familiar but nothing makes sense, almost like the forum equivalent of a stroke simulation image.Depends entirely on how you define either term.I think you can say which is more important to the user of the concepts.Following on that, we all experience Reality, yet Universe is mostly a theoretical outer boundary that we won't even prove in one lifetime.
Thus, Reality is vital and Universe is useless.
I'm not really seeing this question's tie-in to either religion or spirituality.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on December 18, 2022, 08:49:32 am
Too bad we are too scatterminded to properly feed it information.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 23, 2023, 01:58:42 pm
This is a time of cyclic balance and rebirth. Of trees reawakening and seeds sprouting out of the soil. It's no wonder it's the time I chose, a bit less than a year ago, to finally rebuild myself. Fortuitously that time is very close to my birthday next month~
Equinoxen might be more universal than solstices. The seasonal effects are still different across the globe, even near the equator, but the lengths of day and night are momentarily equal for everyone everywhere. That's kinda cool.
Here's hoping for a good year!
Post by: TD1 on March 24, 2023, 06:48:14 am
I hope it's a good year, too, and for you in particular!
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 25, 2023, 06:11:53 am
Post by: EuchreJack on March 25, 2023, 11:33:18 pm
Did any of you guys catch the sight of Venus besides the Crescent Moon? Good omen if I've ever seen one :P
Was she nekkid?
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 26, 2023, 09:34:31 am
Was she nekkid?Planet earth got mooned
Post by: Magmacube_tr on March 26, 2023, 10:26:21 am
Did any of you guys catch the sight of Venus besides the Crescent Moon? Good omen if I've ever seen one :P
Was she nekkid?
ye
Post by: Duuvian on March 26, 2023, 10:37:41 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 27, 2023, 08:21:39 am
Post by: Rolan7 on April 08, 2023, 03:22:07 am
"Gods above": Truly, something nice has happened. And for some reason it's appropriate for me to mention my spirituality, instead of just going along with everyone else. this is rare
"Gods below": fuck. Fuck shitd godwdfsm HHHHH We can do this. We can DO THIS. It's not over until we're out of blood. GET UP, YOU! Over there- there, yes! YOU! Over here!
"Gods": Stars above, that's a grand statement you just made. And I want to add emphasis to my response without mentioning stars so soon. Gods, you're cool.
Post by: Frumple on April 08, 2023, 07:02:32 am
Post by: Schmaven on April 08, 2023, 08:28:28 am
Post by: delphonso on April 08, 2023, 08:34:27 am
Post by: Strongpoint on April 08, 2023, 09:37:07 am
Post by: Grim Portent on April 08, 2023, 01:13:31 pm
So Goddamnit would be 'taking the lord's name in vain' as it was interpreted for a long while. Best thing to check would be what ancient clergy thought on the subject. If a priest in the 300s was saying how to interpret it, they would probably be the closest to the original intent we're likely to get.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 08, 2023, 02:04:15 pm
I think it refers to oaths and curses. A lot of older curse words involved invoking god in some manner, and it's not exactly pious to cry out to god because you stepped in dog shit or to break an oath sworn over a bible.
So Goddamnit would be 'taking the lord's name in vain' as it was interpreted for a long while. Best thing to check would be what ancient clergy thought on the subject. If a priest in the 300s was saying how to interpret it, they would probably be the closest to the original intent we're likely to get.
It is way too recent. Taking the Lord's name in vain comes from Judaism (and it is stricter there.)
Post by: Grim Portent on April 08, 2023, 03:56:43 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on April 09, 2023, 01:58:32 am
True, so I guess the better source would be an ancient rabbi.Buy him a cheeseburger when you ask him.
Post by: TD1 on April 09, 2023, 03:52:39 am
Post by: McTraveller on April 09, 2023, 06:37:34 am
A significant enough event to reset the year-counting of a major calendar (you can "common era" it all you want, but you won't be able to erase the reason why it was marked as zero, don't quibble over it being 4 or 7 years off or whatever that's irrelevant).
A significant enough event that even secular and skeptical scholars are confident that something happened that caused such an unusual (for the time) movement to take root and grow so quickly.
For those of us who believe, it's basically the defining moment in our lives - if Christ did indeed rise from the dead, verifying all his claims, existential death is defeated and we can live knowing it's not dependent on our own understanding or skill but on the agape love and sacrifice of Christ.
If not, as the letter attributed to Paul says, we're kind of the silliest, saddest bunch...
Post by: Duuvian on April 09, 2023, 07:56:23 am
I'd say from an outsider's perspective that your last sentence is inaccurate, that the more important justification of religion is not based solely on that event, but how JC does good through you. I confess, in my youth I was angry at the local Christians for what I considered at the time their domineering and exclusive nature, and this also drove my father in his youth and thus myself forth from the religion of my grandparents. I have learned since that it is not the precepts that are to blame, should they be led by example rather than imposition, but that the falsehoods of man and willingness to forget these lessons in empathy leads to a drive to domination which is the bane of such individual (heretics?) as much as to those who are victims of such.
If I may recommend a book that changed my view, it would be the novel Quo Vadis. There was no work I have encountered that has softened my heart against practictioners as this one, though I reserve the right to be critical of individuals seeking to impose through authority or force their own beliefs in ways of living harmlessly, to the point I am reminded of St. Justin's First Apology. If I may tender a joke through role reversal, at times I almost feel as, an outsider in a very conservative Christian area, the barbarian princess in Quo Vadis. While this is a burden of questionable weight that I bear and have very much overstated here, I still will do my best to choose forgive this, as I feel this is a reflection of an excellent tenet.
So, happy Easter to those who care for the poor, service the unwanted, welcome those who are different, and do good deeds in the name.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 09, 2023, 06:28:10 pm
I am not a Christian, but I loved this day growing up as day of rebirth and growth.
It also happens to be near my birthday.
That's probably why I chose it as my personal day of... reinvention.
This has been a fantastic year. With shortfalls, and difficulties. But I can honestly say there's been more life in this year than in the past 10.
Post by: EuchreJack on April 09, 2023, 06:32:04 pm
Post by: Magmacube_tr on April 09, 2023, 06:42:17 pm
I mean has been here. For some time now...
...Whatever.
Post by: Schmaven on April 09, 2023, 08:28:11 pm
Post by: Magmacube_tr on April 09, 2023, 08:34:32 pm
I don't know much about Ramadan, but it sounds like a nice opportunity for focusing on spiritual growth. Lunch breaks usually still happen, and even a few extra minutes reading can go along way. Is it okay to wish someone a "Happy Ramadan"?
I dunno. I kinda can't do the spiritual growth thing. I am VERY anti-theistic, soooooo...
It is acceptable to say "Happy Ramadan", though.
Post by: Frumple on April 09, 2023, 09:03:45 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on April 09, 2023, 10:59:41 pm
I don't know much about Ramadan, but it sounds like a nice opportunity for focusing on spiritual growth. Lunch breaks usually still happen, and even a few extra minutes reading can go along way. Is it okay to wish someone a "Happy Ramadan"?
I dunno. I kinda can't do the spiritual growth thing. I am VERY anti-theistic, soooooo...
It is acceptable to say "Happy Ramadan", though.
Heh. I am an anti-theist for quite some time. Last year pushed me deeper into it, to a degree I am uncomfortable with... I am actively annoyed by anything religious and it becomes so hard to smile and ignore. I understand that it is not a good time to jump on religious people because, during a war, their drug of self-delusion is really necessary for them to maintain sanity (hey I am even sometimes jealous of that)
I fail to understand how one can preach the love of god when their social network feed is a long obituary mixed with stories of people who got their lives destroyed.
Calls for praying instead of doing something useful for victory are more eye-rolling than ever.
I feel anger seeing how various religions, big and small, actively recruit future sources of profit, attacking stressed and depressed people like an opportunistic pack of jackals, dragging them into religions when they are vulnerable.
I can't tolerate that an almost openly hostile Russian Orthodox Church is allowed to operate while working for the enemy because striking them would be somehow immoral and offensive to an imaginary character.
I find it weirdly amusing how Christians on our side conveniently ignore that the other side has many fanatics who believe in the very same God as they are. That their priesthood is openly calling for genocide. They just brush it aside with "those are not true Christians" which is just wrong.
And the list goes on. Easter, which is next week there, will be a hard time for me.
Post by: Travis Bickle on April 10, 2023, 03:36:52 am
(At least, for Protestants and many others, I think maybe not Eastern Orthodox?)The Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome will celebrate this next coming Sunday, which in the West will be Quasimodo Sunday. Apparently the days will actually line up with one another in 2025.
I don't know much about Ramadan, but it sounds like a nice opportunity for focusing on spiritual growth. Lunch breaks usually still happen, and even a few extra minutes reading can go along way. Is it okay to wish someone a "Happy Ramadan"?I don't know much about Islamic religious customs but it seems to me that you wouldn't wish someone a happy Ramadan for the same reason you wouldn't wish someone a happy Lent: they're penitential seasons of fasting (at least as far as I understand the concept of Ramadan). I believe "Ramadan Mubarak" is considered an acceptable phrase. If you're like me and you'd feel tacky throwing in foreign expressions during small talk, "Blessed Ramadan" would probably suffice.
Post by: Robsoie on April 10, 2023, 06:46:55 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 10, 2023, 07:42:00 am
Post by: Strongpoint on April 10, 2023, 09:23:48 am
I have long since decided that my religious beliefs are immune to logic and thus I will never deconvert. There is no atheist argument that can convince me to, because I believe religion and secular stuff must be kept fully separate-- and that separation includes rationality. I apply it to science or beliefs opposed to Christianity however, in fact I am proud to be a skeptic.
Such a pure and honest example of special pleading.
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 10, 2023, 09:49:54 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 10, 2023, 05:37:37 pm
Post by: Schmaven on April 10, 2023, 06:24:12 pm
I have long since decided that my religious beliefs are immune to logic and thus I will never deconvert. There is no atheist argument that can convince me to, because I believe religion and secular stuff must be kept fully separate-- and that separation includes rationality. I apply it to science or beliefs opposed to Christianity however, in fact I am proud to be a skeptic.
Personal experience is hard to disprove.
Post by: Frumple on April 10, 2023, 06:33:07 pm
Post by: Schmaven on April 10, 2023, 07:36:34 pm
Edit:
Personal experience is hard to disprove for certain things.
Post by: hector13 on April 10, 2023, 07:38:37 pm
Elizabeth Loftus has done a lot of work on it; I’m pretty sure she was among the authors of the paper that found changing the descriptive verb in a car crash (such as “crashed”, “collided”, or “touched”) resulted in people changing how fast they recall the vehicles going in a pre-recorded car crash the week before.
Post by: Schmaven on April 10, 2023, 07:43:20 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 10, 2023, 08:03:21 pm
I've mistaken random people for folks I lived with for well over a decade, just due to not being particularly close yet -- probably only three or four times in my life between them all, but it's happened more than once.
It's understandable how much trust folks put in their own senses -- you kinda' have to, to some degree, just to live -- but... past a certain point, that trust is probably unwarranted. It's definitely something I've internalized as true after hallucinating nonstop for the last 30+ years, heh, but it's just as true for folks that don't have conditions causing outright hallucinations. Just not as easy for them to notice.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 10, 2023, 08:51:02 pm
I have long since decided that my religious beliefs are immune to logic and thus I will never deconvert. There is no atheist argument that can convince me to, because I believe religion and secular stuff must be kept fully separate-- and that separation includes rationality. I apply it to science or beliefs opposed to Christianity however, in fact I am proud to be a skeptic.
Personal experience is hard to disprove.
It is not about personal experience. It is ignorance. As is a desire to ignore knowledge. She basically said "I decided that I'll keep believing even if proven wrong. "
You know, if Jesus will come to me tomorrow and have a chat with me proving his
My personal problem with people who claim personal experience with supernatural of any kind is not even the possibility of hallucinations or another glitch of a human brain. How do they know which supernatural they felt? What is their methodology to determine if they had a chat with Jesus or Satan playing Jesus? Or perhaps it was Zeus or Ra? Or some small spirit.
Post by: Schmaven on April 10, 2023, 08:53:58 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on April 10, 2023, 10:53:39 pm
I meant more the sort of personal experience like 'the more I look for good qualities in others, the more kindly I regard them' than 'Thor showed me his hammer'
Do you mean something like "I feel good being a Christian therefore Christianity is true"?
Post by: Schmaven on April 11, 2023, 04:52:52 am
I meant more the sort of personal experience like 'the more I look for good qualities in others, the more kindly I regard them' than 'Thor showed me his hammer'
Do you mean something like "I feel good being a Christian therefore Christianity is true"?
I don't know much about Christianity to be honest. What I mean is that the spiritual teachings I have applied in my life have worked, and work repeatably, so for me, those teachings are true and effective. No one can convince me they don't work for me, because I have personally experienced them work over and over. The mechanism by which they function however is certainly up for debate.
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 11, 2023, 04:59:16 am
Post by: Strongpoint on April 11, 2023, 10:46:12 am
Quote
I don't know much about Christianity to be honest. What I mean is that the spiritual teachings I have applied in my life have worked, and work repeatably, so for me, those teachings are true and effective. No one can convince me they don't work for me, because I have personally experienced them work over and over. The mechanism by which they function however is certainly up for debate.
Or you persuaded yourself that they work and have a heavy confirmation bias.
And of course, some of the ancient wisdom do work. Suff like "if you are acting like a jerk towards others you will suffer" is true but there is no need for the supernatural to explain it.
Ah, the thing is: I'd stop believing if it was really disproven (somehow). But it can't, so the only way to convince me to deconvert would be non-objective arguments. And since I made up my mind on my ideology and philosophy by now...
God-creator as a concept can't be disproven*, soul and afterlife can't be disproven but Christianity and its dogmas? Why exactly can't it be disproven? What makes it immune to disproval? Besides - "I won't accept any proof because of magic"?
*I'll never understand why what is asserted without evidence should not be dismissed without evidence and requires any disproval
Post by: Schmaven on April 11, 2023, 11:21:32 am
Post by: McTraveller on April 11, 2023, 11:40:23 am
On the flip side, if you can find any evidence (and people have been looking, to no reasonable avail* as far as I know) that Jesus was dead-dead at some point after Easter, then yeah it's just another "be nice to your neighbor" teacher with some questionable supernatural claims that make you wonder why so many followed him in the first place.
*Sure there are conspiracy theories, but nothing considered to be academically robust.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 11, 2023, 11:46:48 am
Spiritual beliefs are on 1 hand, simply internal tools we can use to affect change within our own minds. It's always a risk that we fool ourselves into believing we've accomplished more than we actually have. But sometimes random other people will comment about noticing changes in us, in which case, it is likely actual change has ocurred. Some spiritual wisdom is lost in translation over the years, just like not all ancient wisdom works either. That's why we need to be logical in our approach and not be mislead by mistaken views.
Many techniques of modern psychology are similar to rituals of the past and we can learn a lot from studying how and why certain religions evolved. And yes, religions evolve in ways very similar to biological evolution.
Also, I am not someone to discard cultural roots simply because I don't believe the stuff that our ancestors did.
If anything, one of my largest issues with Christianity is that it violently destroyed millennia of the culture of so-called pagans all over the world, leaving us only with scraps. Mostly stuff that Christianity twisted and stole. Like... you know... Easter. Or Christmas.
Post by: EuchreJack on April 11, 2023, 11:52:32 am
Post by: Strongpoint on April 11, 2023, 12:05:35 pm
Christianity uniquely has the "show me the body!" veracity argument. Then you get into "if Jesus did resurrect, then it's probably worth considering what he was reputed to have said, because the general scholarly consensus on the early writings is they are good enough eyewitness accounts - at least as far as 'these are authentic accounts of people who saw something, and the way their documented makes it likely they believed what they saw and it disagrees enough between the sources to make it unlikely to be fabricated.
There are still huge leaps from "a historical Jesus" to "Christianity is true".
Even if you will provide me with 100% evidence that there was a person who died and was resurrected and his name was Jesus Christ, I see no reason to believe that Christianity is true. I'll simply conclude that like many myths this one had something real in its foundation. After all, the Gospels aren't compatible with each other, they can't all be true. (and that not counting non-canonical ones. Who exactly decided which are true and which are not? By what method? How can we know if it was the correct method?)
Even if you prove that Jesus is historical and every event in the Gospels is somehow true. All that you will really prove that there was a being with supernatural powers claiming some stuff with no way to check if he (or rather it) wasn't lying.
Also, even if the Gospels are true, Paul's letters remain his opinion... you need to prove that those are God-inspired. Good luck. I wanna know your methodology.
Even if you prove that you'll need also to explain why we should take seriously modern interpretations of stuff like Angels, Satan, Hell, etc. Those are not what Bible says.
And last but not least, you'll need to find a way to find the denomination that gets it correctly.
Post by: jipehog on April 11, 2023, 02:46:39 pm
Post by: WealthyRadish on April 11, 2023, 02:51:10 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on April 11, 2023, 02:58:45 pm
FYI most religious think about god much less than you do.
I know. It is one of the reasons why they are still religious people. Note I don't imply they are stupid, they simply forbid themselves to think about it.
Post by: Egan_BW on April 11, 2023, 03:07:12 pm
and they're called baptists
Post by: jipehog on April 11, 2023, 03:25:09 pm
FYI most religious think about god much less than you do.
I know. It is one of the reasons why they are still religious people. Note I don't imply they are stupid, they simply forbid themselves to think about it.
Love also have component of faith and often contingent on not overthinking it. And some of the smartest people are unhappy.
Post by: McTraveller on April 11, 2023, 03:53:55 pm
Incidentally almost all scholars agree there was a historical Jesus, even according to the decidedly secular Wikipedia; there is definitely scholarly debate on just about everything else about Jesus though. If you just study Jesus (mostly with the Synoptic Gospels) you get a different picture than what the institutional church developed over the years. Unsurprisingly, because for many many years it was politically motivated, fairly opposite what Jesus reportedly taught.
It's also interesting reading about the academia regarding the gnostic gospels for instance (which is why they aren't in the Canon, incidentally) - how their authorship is unknown, or they pulled in works provably from other religions, etc.
Post by: jipehog on April 11, 2023, 04:37:13 pm
Like in any fable the only thing that matter is the moral of the story not the details.. and works best if adjusted to suit the time and tailored to the audience whether its the bible or any other story you read before bed time.
For example, currently Jews are celebrating Passover, which tells of event that modern evidence suggest that almost certainly never happened. And yet it is a great foundational story that work on various levels with themes like the struggle for freedom and justice that work today just as well, a tradition of shared experiences[1] that connects them to the past and to each other.
[1] contradiction? sure, but each one of our lives is full of them anyways, though we don't necessarily realize.
Post by: TD1 on April 11, 2023, 06:31:03 pm
I'm fairly critical of my own faith, and still have it. So "mileage may vary" I guess? Sure lots of people just blindly follow what their parents or some charismatic person tells them. Others are pretty measured and serious in their pursuits.'Works provably from other religions' is interesting, if that's a metric for exclusion. Plenty of the Bible, and in particular the Old Testament, has similarities to other religions/narratives. See, most obviously, the story of the Great Flood which is predated by Gilgamesh's Epic.
Incidentally almost all scholars agree there was a historical Jesus, even according to the decidedly secular Wikipedia; there is definitely scholarly debate on just about everything else about Jesus though. If you just study Jesus (mostly with the Synoptic Gospels) you get a different picture than what the institutional church developed over the years. Unsurprisingly, because for many many years it was politically motivated, fairly opposite what Jesus reportedly taught.
It's also interesting reading about the academia regarding the gnostic gospels for instance (which is why they aren't in the Canon, incidentally) - how their authorship is unknown, or they pulled in works provably from other religions, etc.
Of course, the Abrahamic argument would be that there is One True narrative, and the others are just riffing off that event. But it's interesting when said others likely predated Abrahamic narratives.
As for the historical Jesus, yes, it's quite likely he existed. The Jewish author Josephus wrote about him within a century of his death, though the narrative was likely corrupted/edited by subsequent Christian interpolators. In its broad strokes, it has Jesus live as an educator and die under Pilate. It mentions his brother, James, and how he died.
I'd say these broad strokes are likely true, and all we can really say on the man without becoming involved in mythology.
Edit: Though, the historicity of the Bible is an entirely different subject. Take, for instance, the supposed census. This was called for a governor who ruled after Herod died, meaning one of the two statements (there was a census, and Jesus was born during Herod's reign) must be false.
Additionally, any such census would require Jesus' family to go to Nazareth, their current hometown, not Bethlehem.
It seems overwhelmingly apparent that the census, and Jesus' family's trip to Bethlehem, was written into the narrative later by Luke, who wanted to cement Jesus' claim to the title of Messiah (the saviour who was meant to be born at Bethlehem).
Which, incidentally, disagrees with Matthew's account of the family living in Bethlehem, sans-census/inn/manger.
The takeaway being that the Bible, for obvious reasons, is an unreliable and often contradictory account, being composed by various authors with various intentions and understandings of what happened.
Post by: Schmaven on April 11, 2023, 07:12:21 pm
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 11, 2023, 08:37:12 pm
If anything, one of my largest issues with Christianity is that it violently destroyed millennia of the culture of so-called pagans all over the world, leaving us only with scraps. Mostly stuff that Christianity twisted and stole. Like... you know... Easter. Or Christmas.I have a limited amount of empathy and I'm not spending it on random pagans who lived 1000 years ago. Simply put I don't care what was done in the medieval era.
Post by: hector13 on April 11, 2023, 08:39:34 pm
Thou Shalt Not Kill, unless your priest says it’s okay.
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 11, 2023, 10:14:52 pm
Post by: hector13 on April 11, 2023, 10:34:30 pm
Fuck does it affect me?
Sounds about right.
Post by: Telgin on April 11, 2023, 10:52:32 pm
Playing god's advocate here: Given the flaws and unreliability of human memory and perception, I don't see how the accounts of many people given 2000 years ago could be any other way but inconsistent. Yet somehow still, a meta-analysis of their meaning, and even also including other religions, seems to converge together. No 2 people can experience the same event exactly the same, so even without the addition of human error, the accounts would necessarily be different. Add in linguistic and cultural differences across the ages, and there is a broad spectrum of beliefs in our modern world that all appear quite different, but I suspect have a lot more in common than not.
It's a pretty core belief among some Christians at least that the Bible is supposed to be divinely inspired and all, so with that is supposed to be inerrancy. It's hard to be inerrant if there are contradictory statements.
As an aside, I find it funny that some of the more fundamentalist Protestants seem to believe that the only true version of the Bible is the King James Version, and I wonder sometimes if those people think the Bible was originally written in early modern English. They think trying to retranslate it into modern English is a vile sin for some reason. I wonder how they feel about the Bible being translated to other languages.
Otherwise, I don't disagree with you.
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 11, 2023, 11:00:00 pm
Post by: hector13 on April 11, 2023, 11:03:43 pm
“Well it says that, but what it really means is this.”
Post by: Strongpoint on April 11, 2023, 11:14:29 pm
Conveniently glossing over the Crusades. Also the early part of the Reformstion, and the back and forth murder of Catholics and Protestants depending on who was in charge.
Thou Shalt Not Kill, unless your priest says it’s okay.
You forgot modern Russian priests calling for genocide. Or modern Russian priests saying certain things about LGBT people like her.
What would such a disproof even look like? A philosophical takedown of my values? If someone can convince me my core values are wrong, sure... but good luck. Not happening.
Who said that your values should change? You know, I, like many atheists, was a theist in my younger years. I didn't notice that I started believing that murder and rape are suddenly OK once I concluded that "holy texts" have nothing divine in them and there is no single piece of evidence that I am somehow immortal
I did stop believing nonsense like "abortion is murder" but those were hardly my core values and GOOD RIDDANCE.
Post by: hector13 on April 11, 2023, 11:19:07 pm
I mean, even today the biggest religions prop up things like misogyny, child abuse, and fraud.
To be perfectly honest the whole “don’t take the book literally” allows a whole lot of leeway for people to “interpret” it in a manner that benefits them at others’ expense. It seems a bit pointless to have a holy book if different people can take different things from it.
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 12, 2023, 12:18:57 am
That’s a pretty good excuse for being able to pick and choose which bits should be adhered to.Well yes, I interpret what feels right to me. Actually, most mainstream theologians don't interpret it literally either so authority is on my side too.
“Well it says that, but what it really means is this.”
Well answer my question then. And I had far worse core values before converting, to be entirely honest. As for the priests, I am not specifically of Russian Orthodox, so I can say that Kirill can go and... oh wait I swore to not go into fantasies on this forum anymore.What would such a disproof even look like? A philosophical takedown of my values? If someone can convince me my core values are wrong, sure... but good luck. Not happening.
Who said that your values should change? You know, I, like many atheists, was a theist in my younger years. I didn't notice that I started believing that murder and rape are suddenly OK once I concluded that "holy texts" have nothing divine in them and there is no single piece of evidence that I am somehow immortal
I did stop believing nonsense like "abortion is murder" but those were hardly my core values and GOOD RIDDANCE.
It seems a bit pointless to have a holy book if different people can take different things from it.I don't think everything in life should be objectively defined. If people interpret it in a bad way sucks for them I guess. I don't see why I should care about them when it's my personal beliefs.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 12, 2023, 12:35:58 am
Well yes, I interpret what feels right to me. Actually, most mainstream theologians don't interpret it literally either so authority is on my side too.
There is a huge leap between "The Bible is full of allegories and hard to understand" followed by mainstream theologians and "I pick and choose what is inerrant and what is not based on my feelings."
Quote
Well answer my question then. And I had far worse core values before converting, to be entirely honest.
I don't know what you even mean by core values. I assume those are stuff like "rape is wrong" and then I don't think that it comes from your religious beliefs. It comes from your empathy, reason, logic, and experiences.
Post by: Criptfeind on April 12, 2023, 12:48:53 am
I have long since decided that my religious beliefs are immune to logic and thus I will never deconvert. There is no atheist argument that can convince me to, because I believe religion and secular stuff must be kept fully separate-- and that separation includes rationality. I apply it to science or beliefs opposed to Christianity however, in fact I am proud to be a skeptic.
Why did you choose Christianity? Do you think that if you lived in a place predominantly some other religion that you would have become that religion instead? I hope these questions aren't... Uh... too personal. The first one I know can sometimes be very personal to some people so don't feel pressured to answer if you don't want to of course!
Post by: hector13 on April 12, 2023, 02:00:25 am
You, identifying as LGBTQ, are haram in the vast majority of strands of Christianity, and probably all the other major religions in the world. You could take the Rasputin tack that in order to be forgiven you need to sin first, but I’m pretty sure you have to be sorry for, like, being you, which I think is a little ridiculous. We’re taught that humans are made in god’s image, so is the existence of non-heteronormatives god’s image or people tempted in some capacity by [insert your Big Bad of choice here]?
Why should theologians be considered authorities in this anyway? They’re human beings, they aren’t privy to what god is or wants.
Spoiler: long-ass personal journey nonsense (click to show/hide)
So yeah, when you say things like people interpreting scripture badly, or that rationality should be kept separate from spiritual matters, you are basically, from my perspective, justifying either not thinking about things enough and could misinterpret something - willfully or otherwise - or you are ceding decision making to some sort of “authority”, who is just as informed as you on a deity’s will; both can be used to justify interpreting things in a way that mistreating anyone is god’s will, which is wholly unacceptable.
Indeed, as an example, it seems like the vast majority of religions don’t allow women to serve as priests or the equivalent, which makes zero sense. Women are at least as capable as men at providing teaching and guidance. Even in strands of Christianity that do allow women in these positions, there are still people within them that think they are somehow incapable of performing their duties (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/14/female-clergy-church-of-england-ordination-bishop) and that you can’t accept the sacrament from them, or others ordained by them.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 12, 2023, 03:00:45 am
Quote
You, identifying as LGBTQ, are haram in the vast majority of strands of Christianity, and probably all the other major religions in the world. You could take the Rasputin tack that in order to be forgiven you need to sin first, but I’m pretty sure you have to be sorry for, like, being you, which I think is a little ridiculous. We’re taught that humans are made in god’s image, so is the existence of non-heteronormatives god’s image or people tempted in some capacity by [insert your Big Bad of choice here]?
One of the more disgusting aspects of Christianity is that one should be guilty not only for their actions but for their thoughts and desires, too. Even if you are a devout Christian who accepted that homosexual sex is a sin and restrain yourself, you still must despise yourself for merely wanting it and be grateful that God loves such a pathetic being as you.
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 12, 2023, 04:16:24 am
What question? "How would you disprove Christian dogma?"Well yes, I interpret what feels right to me. Actually, most mainstream theologians don't interpret it literally either so authority is on my side too.
There is a huge leap between "The Bible is full of allegories and hard to understand" followed by mainstream theologians and "I pick and choose what is inerrant and what is not based on my feelings." It all boils down to interpretation in the end. I interpret it this way.QuoteWell answer my question then. And I had far worse core values before converting, to be entirely honest.
I don't know what you even mean by core values. I assume those are stuff like "rape is wrong" and then I don't think that it comes from your religious beliefs. It comes from your empathy, reason, logic, and experiences. I don't know how to put it to words.
Why did you choose Christianity? Do you think that if you lived in a place predominantly some other religion that you would have become that religion instead? I hope these questions aren't... Uh... too personal. The first one I know can sometimes be very personal to some people so don't feel pressured to answer if you don't want to of course!Very personal reasons. I don't feel comfy saying to randoms on a forum.
Since I became a Protestant after being raised Orthodox, then becoming an atheist, I feel I'd flip to Protestantism no matter where I lived. But you know the idiom. "If my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bike."
If people interpret it in a bad way it tends to go badly for other people, though.
Yes and since it is a personal belief others interpreting it in a bad way doesn't really matter to me. I will consider them idiots.
You, identifying as LGBTQ, are haram in the vast majority of strands of Christianity, and probably all the other major religions in the world. You could take the Rasputin tack that in order to be forgiven you need to sin first, but I’m pretty sure you have to be sorry for, like, being you, which I think is a little ridiculous. We’re taught that humans are made in god’s image, so is the existence of non-heteronormatives god’s image or people tempted in some capacity by [insert your Big Bad of choice here]?
Actually it's mostly the fundamentalists who would consider me haram. The specific sect I am in doesn't really care as it's a progressive one. So your whole argument kind of falls apart. I don't know if non-heteronormativity is "in God's image" and honestly I don't care enough to think about it much.
Why should theologians be considered authorities in this anyway? They’re human beings, they aren’t privy to what god is or wants.
Because they studied the Bible for years or decades and thus I will listen to them over myself (or people who never actually read the Bible).Spoiler: long-ass personal journey nonsense (click to show/hide)
So yeah, when you say things like people interpreting scripture badly, or that rationality should be kept separate from spiritual matters, you are basically, from my perspective, justifying either not thinking about things enough and could misinterpret something - willfully or otherwise - or you are ceding decision making to some sort of “authority”, who is just as informed as you on a deity’s will; both can be used to justify interpreting things in a way that mistreating anyone is god’s will, which is wholly unacceptable.
Yes I am ceding it to authority-- but specifically the authority of progressive churches. I trust them enough and value self-reliance little enough to feel comfortable doing so. Authority is fine if I agree with said authority.
Indeed, as an example, it seems like the vast majority of religions don’t allow women to serve as priests or the equivalent, which makes zero sense. Women are at least as capable as men at providing teaching and guidance. Even in strands of Christianity that do allow women in these positions, there are still people within them that think they are somehow incapable of performing their duties (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/14/female-clergy-church-of-england-ordination-bishop) and that you can’t accept the sacrament from them, or others ordained by them.
Tell me how this affects me.
Like what it boils down to-- why should I care about what the fundamentalists think of me for being myself, if my chosen sect is progressive and accepts me, and I consider it "the real Christianity"? Before you ask, I refuse to take some nebulous "responsibility".
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 12, 2023, 04:34:03 am
Post by: Strongpoint on April 12, 2023, 04:38:45 am
Quote
Like what it boils down to-- why should I care about what the fundamentalists think of me for being myself, if my chosen sect is progressive and accepts me, and I consider it "the real Christianity"?
It is not merely what fundamentalists think. It is what the Bible says. Just because you and your chosen sect chose to ignore certain parts of the bible (for the better), it doesn't mean that those words will disappear from the source material and that the next generations won't extract homophobia and other bullshit from that vile book.
If you made the first steps and rejected parts of the Bible, why limit yourself and don't reject all of them? Because those are of your liking? Create a non-biblical moral code then. What stops you?
PS. What is being a Christian? How do you define it?
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 12, 2023, 04:47:19 am
What stops me from just rejecting it all is that I actually think most of the New Testament is alright. And I want to believe in an afterlife. Just feels right to me ya know. Of course nothing is stopping me from making my own religion or moral code. But I don't care enough to spend effort on doing so. This is good enough for me.
And being a Christian just means taking Jesus' teachings to heart. You don't have to follow the rest of the Bible word-for-word. Most fundamentalists don't do that-- and I have a hunch most of them haven't actually read the Bible and just follow what their pastor tells them, and he has his own agenda. Not much I can do about it so I don't feel guilty for having them in the same faith.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 12, 2023, 05:57:21 am
Actually the part about killing people for gay sex was mistranslated from the original. Originally it referred to "sex with a boy", i.e a minor. It was written against the Green and Roman practice of pederasty, which really was the only kind of homosexuality common in the time and place it was written in, and thus is not comparable to modern homosexuality. It's like the Old Testament prohibition of pork. Nobody's going to Hell for eating a hamburger.
You are asserting a well-known assumption as a fact. I think this assumption is quite dubious.
What could Jew Paul, who was used to the expression "man lying with men as with a woman" mean when using a compound word arsenokoitēs where arsen = “male,” and koite = “bed”? Yeah, pedophiles look like the most likely explanation.
I see creative translations as an attempt to modernize the Bible, to make it fit in the modern word.
Also, "homosexuality is unacceptable" can be seen in the whole idea of the image of god and a "proper" family.
And outright rejecting Old Testament... let's say not that many people will agree that you are a Christian after that.
Quote
What stops me from just rejecting it all is that I actually think most of the New Testament is alright. And I want to believe in an afterlife. Just feels right to me ya know. Of course nothing is stopping me from making my own religion or moral code.
So you don't reject morals of the New Testament you agree with? Maybe... Just maybe... Your morals have nothing to do with the New Testament? Maybe it IS your own moral code?
Also, I'd love to have some form of non-stagnant immortality (Heaven looks awful), too. I'd love to believe it. I just don't. Wanting something to be true is not a good enough reason to believe that it is true.
Quote
And being a Christian just means taking Jesus' teachings to heart. You don't have to follow the rest of the Bible word-for-word.
Now that is an interesting definition.
Do you believe that Jesus is the son of God, our Lord and Savior who died for our sins, was resurrected, and will come again to bring the Kingdom of God? Not a wise man (some atheists believe that) not a prophet (Muslims believe that) but the bolded part.
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 12, 2023, 06:26:40 am
See, I take most of it as applying literally only to the culture it was originally aimed at. The modern world does not need to prohibit homosexuality as there are equal, non-pedophilic gay relationships which are harmless. The modern world does not need a procreation-focused family when adoption exists (and eventually artificial wombs will exist). And so on, and so on. Common sense trumps the more restrictive stipulations.Actually the part about killing people for gay sex was mistranslated from the original. Originally it referred to "sex with a boy", i.e a minor. It was written against the Green and Roman practice of pederasty, which really was the only kind of homosexuality common in the time and place it was written in, and thus is not comparable to modern homosexuality. It's like the Old Testament prohibition of pork. Nobody's going to Hell for eating a hamburger.
You are asserting a well-known assumption as a fact. I think this assumption is quite dubious.
What could Jew Paul, who was used to the expression "man lying with men as with a woman" mean when using a compound word arsenokoitēs where arsen = “male,” and koite = “bed”? Yeah, pedophiles look like the most likely explanation. "Arsen" could also mean boy, and again there was basically no non-pedophilic homosexuality at the time so they could have only meant pederasty. It just wasn't really a thing in their society. Hence the prohibition was to stop the practice of pederasty.
I see creative translations as an attempt to modernize the Bible, to make it fit in the modern word.
Also, "homosexuality is unacceptable" can be seen in the whole idea of the image of god and a "proper" family. "Proper" if you want procreation yes. The modern world does not have a drastic need for procreation unlike that era.
And outright rejecting Old Testament... let's say not that many people will agree that you are a Christian after that. I don't outright reject all of it, I just hold it to higher scrutiny than the rest.QuoteWhat stops me from just rejecting it all is that I actually think most of the New Testament is alright. And I want to believe in an afterlife. Just feels right to me ya know. Of course nothing is stopping me from making my own religion or moral code.
So you don't reject morals of the New Testament you agree with? Maybe... Just maybe... Your morals have nothing to do with the New Testament? Maybe it IS your own moral code? No, the New Testament basically lines up with my morals enough for me to not say I reject it.
Also, I'd love to have some form of non-stagnant immortality (Heaven looks awful), too. I'd love to believe it. I just don't. Wanting something to be true is not a good enough reason to believe that it is true.QuoteAnd being a Christian just means taking Jesus' teachings to heart. You don't have to follow the rest of the Bible word-for-word.
Now that is an interesting definition.
Do you believe that Jesus is the son of God, our Lord and Savior who died for our sins, was resurrected, and will come again to bring the Kingdom of God? Not a wise man (some atheists believe that) not a prophet (Muslims believe that) but the bolded part.
Yes. But that is in addition to what I said.
Post by: jipehog on April 12, 2023, 07:15:50 am
As for the historical Jesus, yes, it's quite likely he existed. The Jewish author Josephus wrote about him within a century of his death, though the narrative was likely corrupted/edited by subsequent Christian interpolators.
yes, in other words historical Jesus =/= Biblical Jesus.
Interestingly the Biblical Jesus, the monumental figure that achieve such extraordinary and awe-inspiring miracles, is not mentioned by any historian of his time and century later. Although there were several historians that covered Jewish affairs at the time, with several records of other proclaimed messiah who caused trouble and got killed by the Romans, couple of them even had similar story elements to the Biblical Jesus like making miracles and helping the poor.
Otherwise I believe that the story of Biblical Jesus and his teachings were created and evolved over a couple centuries later, by highly educated urban elites and had little to do with historical Jesus the Jewish man who was born and raised in Galilee with his fishermen disciples. At the time early Christians were few and poorly treated by Jewish communities, and were actively seeking to convert pagans (as in rural or non-Jewish folks) and had theological conversation with them. I believe that this process brought about many pagan influences and made Christianity more accessible and ultimately such a success.
Post by: delphonso on April 12, 2023, 07:30:54 am
Post by: McTraveller on April 12, 2023, 08:37:15 am
So everything we have is a corruption of the original state. Even "hetero-normative" sexuality is corrupted. When humanity tries to play god, we inevitably get it wrong - and this includes when we try to claim we know exactly what God is saying, through scriptures or otherwise.
There's a large number of folks that don't quibble about the specifics of "oh the text meant only this type of sexual perversion, not this one, so I'm justified". In fact, the whole point of "we are OK to do this because..." is the actual debilitating sin - it's saying "we know better, we're the arbiters of what is Good and Evil, not God."
So "being" non-normative isn't the sin. Having urges and tendencies isn't a sin even. Living your life pursuing those tendencies, and thinking that they're ok just because they are the things that make you feel good about yourself and the world, without considering if those align with a general right relationship with other people and a right relationship with God, that is the sin. I believe you can be a non-heteronormative Christian just as you can be an alcoholic Christian, or a porn-addicted Christian, or even a murderous Christian. At the end of the day the question is, are you serving yourself (or the world), or are you glorifying God? Are you missing the mark?
And yes, Jesus did supposedly say that it wasn't just "acting" on things that is sinful, it's what's going on in your heart - the whole "if you think about hurting people, it's murder. If you lust after someone in your heart, it's adultery" stuff. It's hard and and it doesn't often feel good - but it's not about our feelings. A big miss on modern (especially US) Christianity is it seems to put things too much on the individual - when it's a pretty easy read of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) to see that it's all about the glory of God and the relationship of all of humanity with God - sure you have some individual benefit, but that's a side benefit, not the main point! Jesus main message wasn't "you are individually saved" it was "the Kingdom of Heaven is here!" A kingdom is corporate, not individual.
At the end of the day you either believe there is a standard outside yourself or only inside yourself. You believe it's either absolute or it is contingent on circumstance (social, cultural, situational, doesn't matter).
Post by: Frumple on April 12, 2023, 08:53:23 am
And outright rejecting Old Testament... let's say not that many people will agree that you are a Christian after that.Eh... huge swaths of protestantism does that to varying degrees, at a minimum? There's actually a lot (like, probably multiple hundreds of millions) of people that call themselves christian that reject some or all of the old testament's laws and strictures, and other parts of it to varying degrees as well.* Something something new covenant something.
Can't even say I blame 'em, with all due respect to judaism the old testament is incredibly fucked up on a lot of levels. Yeeting those writings (get rid of revelations while you're at it, it'll do you good) from your metaphysics drops a ton of really nasty baggage.
* ... not necessarily consistently, mind, but if you're expecting consistency from christianity (or any religion, for that matter) you haven't been paying attention, heh.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 12, 2023, 09:41:42 am
And outright rejecting Old Testament... let's say not that many people will agree that you are a Christian after that.Eh... huge swaths of protestantism does that to varying degrees, at a minimum? There's actually a lot (like, probably multiple hundreds of millions) of people that call themselves christian that reject some or all of the old testament's laws and strictures, and other parts of it to varying degrees as well.* Something something new covenant something.
Yes... but no. There is always stuff like "This and this from Old Testament no longer applies because (insert a long and convoluted theological explanation)" or "That part of the Old Testament is an allegory and should not be taken literally. It actually means..." but outright rejecting Old Testament as the inerrant word of God is not typical Christianity.
Post by: Scoops Novel on April 12, 2023, 09:58:31 am
Lights out is really simple for something that IS light.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 12, 2023, 12:35:36 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 12, 2023, 12:42:20 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on April 12, 2023, 01:00:39 pm
My "eyes" were just painted slits~ My entire head was no more than a terrifying visage and decoy target.
I actually only had the two arms this time, though. I like my arms.
Post by: jipehog on April 12, 2023, 01:37:41 pm
Post by: hector13 on April 12, 2023, 01:49:50 pm
Post by: McTraveller on April 12, 2023, 02:11:04 pm
its like you were raised by wolfs
Syntax error(s) on line 1
Post by: jipehog on April 12, 2023, 02:33:00 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwyVQmuX2aY
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/RaisedByWolves2020
Post by: Rolan7 on April 12, 2023, 02:57:09 pm
Its a tv-show which takes place in the midst of struggle between Atheist and Theist society. Where the main protagonist is a guardian angel, an android that can fly, have sonar mapping, shoot lighting from the eyeballs and other cool stuff. Dreams too iirc. Jumped to my head when reading Roland comment in this thread.Omigosh that sounds incredible and the title sequence definitely has my attention, thank you very much!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwyVQmuX2aY
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/RaisedByWolves2020
executing protect.sh *_*
Post by: TD1 on April 12, 2023, 03:19:44 pm
There's one theory that the only one who did exist around the time was Paul, who presented Christ similar to how channels present their...aliens or whatever they think they're talking to. The messiah claimants were common, as they still are today, so Jesus's story might be a conglomeration of several of them, after Paul's teachings got some traction.
Two things were required for the creation of a messiah: poor communication channels, and need.
The Jewish people (or a vocal element thereof) wanted a King of the Jews to fix their society and challenge Rome. So they made one, even one who did not fit the prophecies, and left future interpolators, compilers, transcribers, and editors to rationalise.
I find Max's distinction between rational and spiritual fairly interesting. By my reckoning, faith ought to be rational - even when making unsubstantiated claims, there should be internal consistency. An all-loving God should not act out of hatred or pettiness, and so on.
The flaws and hatreds espoused in religious texts are humanity's fingerprint in the clay of the divine - and, were they transcendent truth, would not be there.
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 12, 2023, 08:21:53 pm
Post by: jipehog on April 13, 2023, 09:37:33 am
By my reckoning, faith ought to be rational - even when making unsubstantiated claims, there should be internal consistency. An all-loving God should not act out of hatred or pettiness, and so on.What do you mean by faith?
Post by: TD1 on April 13, 2023, 05:29:10 pm
Post by: Schmaven on April 13, 2023, 07:11:39 pm
Edit: I'd have to put more thought into it to give a satisfactory definition, but faith might be described as belief in something as being good and worthwhile to pursue and gain more familiarity with, whether via some practice, or activity (such as study). That can certainly be based on logical reasoning and analysis, but can also be blind.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 13, 2023, 11:23:51 pm
A lot of secular people have faith as well. Science has even mislead millions of people many times over the years to have faith in incorrect and even harmful views. It's not limited to the religious by any means, despite it being perhaps the main criticism of religion.Weird definition.
Edit: I'd have to put more thought into it to give a satisfactory definition, but faith might be described as belief in something as being good and worthwhile to pursue and gain more familiarity with, whether via some practice, or activity (such as study). That can certainly be based on logical reasoning and analysis, but can also be blind.
There are many definitions of the word faith, as with any complex idea, the same word can describe quite different things. If you want an 'averaged' definition I'd say it "Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence."
Thankfully, the Bible has its own definition of Faith.
Hebrews 11:1 – “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen
When science gets something wrong, it is not of the conviction of things not seen. It is a wrong interpretation of observations. And real science doesn't assure anything with no evidence. (Pseudosciences do, it is a good method to tell them apart.)
When you trust an authority (like a scientist or a politician)... it is exactly that - trust. And have little in common with religious faith. Only blind trust in something can be similar to religious faith and even then it is not quite it.
Post by: EuchreJack on April 14, 2023, 01:15:53 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on April 14, 2023, 06:37:34 pm
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/supreme-court-showdown-sabbath-change-workplaces-us/story?id=98027258 (https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/supreme-court-showdown-sabbath-change-workplaces-us/story?id=98027258)
Post by: Frumple on April 14, 2023, 06:50:44 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on April 14, 2023, 06:59:39 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 14, 2023, 07:19:52 pm
If they want the pews to be filled, they need labor protections and welfare and whatnot, not protected leave without pay for religious observance, heh.
E: Well, those things plus for the church leadership to stop being ghoulish antichristian sacks of filth, but, y'know, baby steps. First labor protections, then maybe we can get to things like outlawing child marriage or them not being antichristian assholes.
Post by: jipehog on April 15, 2023, 05:53:54 am
Religious faith can have different meanings depending on the context and perspective e.g. for some it is just a way of life or a support system e.g. people who experienced trauma and grief may seek comfort, support from a community, and way to come with terms with what happen and find new purpose possibly like the Ukrainians you mentioned above.
Otherwise how about faith in yourself/spouse/kids? Optimism? Hope?
Your concept of trust and faith seem different on paper (one is confidence in something based on evidence or past experience the other is belief without requiring evidence or proof) but in practice I think they have a lot in common. We know that its not information and understanding that drives the average joe political\ethical belief system, so isn't it fair to say that the vast majority of people political views are faith like blind trust and fallback to familiar dogmatism they were raised on?
I believe that what you really have an issue with is religion resistance to change.
It's more interesting when you realize Science predates the Scientific Method.More so when people realize our epistemic limitations and how often people claiming facts are widely over-reaching with enthusiastic interpretation. Especially in social science which deals with human emotions and behaviors and involve numerous variables that are often unpredictable or beyond our control.
Many social issues are wicked problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem) characterized by complexity, uncertainty and lack of clear cut solutions, these include things like poverty or climate change, we all know they exist but we don't know what the best way to solve the, only faith-based approaches that involve subjective perceptions of situation, values, needs and wants.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 15, 2023, 06:09:42 am
Otherwise how about faith in yourself/spouse/kids? Optimism? Hope?
Actually, the difference is observations and reasonable expectations. There are tons of observations that serve as evidence that my relatives love me. This is why I believe that they do love me. The fact that I want this to be true doesn't mean that observations don't exist
There are no observations that any form of afterlife exists, nevertheless, billions believe it, because they want it to be true.
This is why those are very different forms of belief.
Post by: Frumple on April 15, 2023, 07:36:07 am
Many social issues are wicked problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem) characterized by complexity, uncertainty and lack of clear cut solutions, these include things like poverty or climate change, we all know they exist but we don't know what the best way to solve the, only faith-based approaches that involve subjective perceptions of situation, values, needs and wants.I mean, it's a point worth making that while we don't know the best ways to solve things like poverty or climate change, we do in fact know really damn good ways to. We know cutting emissions would help with climate change and know a slate of highly effective ways of doing so, we know dozens of ways to slash poverty that are within most societies' means of effecting, from housing to various sorts of welfare.
Many social issues factually have entirely clear cut solutions that we're 100% certain work and often aren't even particularly complicated*, they're just ones certain segments of the population with more societal power than they bloody should have are very insistent we don't implement.
General point being, for all the so-called soft sciences are indeed working with wicked problems that are much more difficult to address and handle than the hard sciences are, they're not just faith based guessing games throwing stuff at a wall without being able to tell what sticks. They've advanced a long bloody way over the years, and for all the problems with them and the distance left to go there's a lot they've managed to piece together that's pretty damn solid.
*Just as an example, just about the most effective and cost efficient means of reducing homelessness we're aware of is to just goddamn give people a home. Don't gate it, don't make it have hoops to jump through, just give them three hots and a cot with a permanent address. The costs are less than the costs involved in leaving them on the street, it's just about the most effective means we're aware of for keeping them from ending up back on the street, so on and so forth. Homelessness is a problem with a solution that would be cheaper than not addressing the problem and more effective and efficient than more or less any other proposed solution in existence.
Except people are brainwormed, unfortunately especially among the world's religious (just world fallacy is a hell of a drug), and refuse to just. Do. That. For a pile of reasons, none of them good.
Post by: Schmaven on April 15, 2023, 11:39:05 am
There are no observations that any form of afterlife exists-
It is nevertheless a very compelling theory as the existence of previous lives would explain very well the existence of child prodigies, as well as why some people have very strong habits and tendencies from an early age that are otherwise unrelated to their environment or upbringing. The existence of previous lives would also explain why good things happen to bad people, and bad things to good people. I admit none of those conveniences are themselves proof, but as a basis for belief, they are observational ties to our experience in the world. You mentioned afterlife however, and not previous lives. Some people even claim to recall previous lives. Feeling some unusually strong connection to someone you've just met could likewise be explained by having had a very close relationship to them in some way in some form in a previous life as well. And logically, if previous lives exist, then this present life is the "afterlife" of some previous life, which implies the existence of an afterlife.
Unfortunately, I have a hard time even remembering much of what happened in the earlier years of this current life I'm living, so I don't expect to be able to remember further back to the completely different experiences of being in a womb, let alone whatever I may have been experiencing even before that. Death is generally regarded as a traumatic experience for many, so that likely impedes memories between lives as well.
The practical side of a belief such as the existence of past and future lives, would be that all we seem to take with us are our habits and tendencies. So the stronger we make our good tendencies and habits of mind now, the more likely it is we'll be able to reap the fruits of those actions in future lives as well as this one. Similarly, overcoming bad habits both would help now and in the long run. It can give even more motivation to the normal motivational force to make whatever changes in life we seek.
Yet this is all still within the realm of spiritual beliefs, and as such, deals with the more meta-approach to life than the "what is the best way to brush your teeth" level of life.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 15, 2023, 01:33:02 pm
Quote
It is nevertheless a very compelling theory as the existence of previous lives would explain very well the existence of child prodigies, as well as why some people have very strong habits and tendencies from an early age that are otherwise unrelated to their environment or upbringing.
This is a good start and, indeed, observations. But does this theory explains it better than the alternative one of random DNA producing slightly different brains? We have detected and tested DNA and while we don't understand it completely it is definitely a real thing and behavioral traits are definitely inheritable. We, humanity, know that behavior is inheritable since the early days of animal husbandry.
Quote
Some people even claim to recall previous livesFalse memory is known to exist and it is also a way more plausible explanation
Post by: hector13 on April 15, 2023, 01:40:20 pm
Post by: jipehog on April 15, 2023, 02:37:43 pm
Otherwise how about faith in yourself/spouse/kids? Optimism? Hope?
Actually, the difference is observations and reasonable expectations. There are tons of observations that serve as evidence that my relatives love me. This is why I believe that they do love me. The fact that I want this to be true doesn't mean that observations don't exist
There are no observations that any form of afterlife exists, nevertheless, billions believe it, because they want it to be true.
This is why those are very different forms of belief.
We aren't talking about scientific observations. Our observations are always based on lack of information, incomplete understanding and shaped by our biases. As kids we have lower mental capacity and biologically wired to blind-trust our parents, as adults I believe that our attitudes are often shape by leaps of faith. Otherwise, can't we similarly say that religion is the generational tested observational wisdom?
As for afterlife but "grandpa its just a story.. :P"
Many social issues are wicked problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem) characterized by complexity, uncertainty and lack of clear cut solutions, these include things like poverty or climate change, we all know they exist but we don't know what the best way to solve the, only faith-based approaches that involve subjective perceptions of situation, values, needs and wants.I mean, it's a point worth making that while we don't know the best ways to solve things like poverty or climate change, we do in fact know really damn good ways to. We know cutting emissions would help with climate change and know a slate of highly effective ways of doing so
And if the the question was how can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions you'd have clear cut solution.
Post by: hector13 on April 15, 2023, 03:17:04 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on April 15, 2023, 03:49:14 pm
Quote
We aren't talking about scientific observations. Our observations are always based on lack of information, incomplete understanding and shaped by our biases. As kids we have lower mental capacity and biologically wired to blind-trust our parents, as adults I believe that our attitudes are often shape by leaps of faith.
This is why we must doubt and check our views not follow them blindly because "I decided that this sacred thing is immune to logic and doubt"
Why we must? Garbage in, Garbage out. If you base your actions on incorrect information, results of those actions will be detrimental to you and society.
Quote
Otherwise, can't we similarly say that religion is the generational tested observational wisdom?
No. Because religions reliably fail tests as new knowledge is acquired. Again and again. Despite those failed tests faith remains.
Post by: Frumple on April 15, 2023, 04:17:14 pm
And if the the question was how can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions you'd have clear cut solution.I mean, short-term effective start (or ramp up, where it's already started) steadily shifting the massive subsidies we're feeding into fossil fuels into... not fossil fuels. Even beyond various sorts of regulation or direct investment opportunities in renewables or emission capture/reduction, you do that and suddenly the market becomes even more interested than it already was in building infrastructure et al that puts less emissions in the air.
And that's just one pretty bloody straightforward solution to greenhouse gas emissions, maybe not a silver bullet or "best" solution, but an effective one that isn't some kind of convoluted 20 year plan or whatever.
It's not exhaustive, folks more plugged in to the renewable et al field have been beating their various drums on stuff like that probably longer than either of us have been alive. There's a pile of pretty bloody clear cut ways to help on that front if certain folks with more money than sense would stop getting in the friggin' way.
Post by: EuchreJack on April 15, 2023, 06:21:38 pm
Post by: jipehog on April 15, 2023, 08:33:35 pm
And if the the question was how can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions you'd have clear cut solution.I mean, short-term effective start (or ramp up, where it's already started) steadily shifting the massive subsidies we're feeding into fossil fuels into... not fossil fuels. Even beyond various sorts of regulation or direct investment opportunities in renewables or emission capture/reduction, you do that and suddenly the market becomes even more interested than it already was in building infrastructure et al that puts less emissions in the air.
And that's just one pretty bloody straightforward solution to greenhouse gas emissions, maybe not a silver bullet or "best" solution, but an effective one that isn't some kind of convoluted 20 year plan or whatever.
It's not exhaustive, folks more plugged in to the renewable et al field have been beating their various drums on stuff like that probably longer than either of us have been alive. There's a pile of pretty bloody clear cut ways to help on that front if certain folks with more money than sense would stop getting in the friggin' way.
Bloody clear cut is not the scientific method. Unlike the previous proposition, the debate on climate change is inherently political involving economic, social, and political ramifications. For example in the UK, many would find your bloody straightforward solution vastly insufficient arguing that UK should do much more than steady shift, although interestingly even if tomorrow UK drop from the face of earth it this will not significantly effect climate change.
Addressing climate change requires international cooperation (particularly that of China) meaning that you have to worry about international actors which have conflicting perspectives, sense of urgency, capabilities, and focus on their own interests.
I already touched on this in another thread, but that was about narratives and Russia:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
* The argument is that shift to a low-carbon economy can provide new economic opportunities, it would also impact existing industries and those who depend on them (cost of living too?) and historically these things tend to effect disproportionately particularly low-income communities with job retraining may not be accessible everywhere
* The high cost of infrastructure can be a barrier to developing and even developed countries, an opportunity cost loss that would have negative effects on their economic growth.
* Tough its called green tech it would require significant resources, the extraction and manufacturing of which would inevitably cause much environmental degradation and human rights abuses in the usual suspects with weak environmental and labor protections.
* Power politics, I am sure that if the west give it Taiwan China would be amicable to a big compromise.. ( Not sure that anything short of a blowjob from Biden could do the same for Putin )
Anyway. Your expletives hide that your greater good equitable solution is faith based. You nor anyone else can formulate a clear solution for climate change that would address all the above. This is why international effort have been lackluster with everyone agreeing on a small step in the right direction that everyone can live with.
Post by: Duuvian on April 16, 2023, 04:28:13 am
1: Horse and buggy argument. EDIT: That sounds callous and I don't like it, but I also don't think it's a forever industry. Plus I think I remember suggesting in the past new social supports in regards to at least US fossil fuels workers if they lose employment, so that's about the best I can do.
2: Cost of at least of some of the things have come down where they are competitive in price to fossil fuels (except for maybe coal IIRC). Also to further decrease the cost, upscaling of production capital would be desirable which requires demand.
3: You are comparing this to fossil fuels industry
4: Mutual interest but I don't know or tell them what to do so you could be right (though I don't think it would be effective as it's already difficult to pursue a change to cleaner energy and carries a high risk of abandonment at even mild headwinds, or if the next R in the White House isn't quite some time from now)
Post by: delphonso on April 16, 2023, 07:22:18 am
Also, this is a religion thread.
Post by: jipehog on April 16, 2023, 07:38:53 am
Otherwise, modern fission reactors are also more expensive than other solutions (https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/), this could change with upcoming small modular reactors which should reduce construction cost substantially.
[1] After all we are setting a new business model one that may not deliver the same level of profitability and economic development for everyone.. For example, currently there many in the global south say leave us be, let the rich west deal with it.
[2] This is as part of the thread about the limits of science, and my suggestion that its not necessarily science that governing our stance on some of the biggest political issues (that not to suggest that religion should)
Edited.
Post by: EuchreJack on April 16, 2023, 01:37:44 pm
Also, this is a religion thread.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 17, 2023, 03:12:58 am
Post by: hector13 on April 17, 2023, 03:42:21 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 17, 2023, 05:15:30 am
Part of that is that accidents in nuclear plants tend to cause quite significant harm, plus the waste that lasts thousands of years has to go somewhere, plus the whole commercial side of it in that making money requires cutting costs, which could result in cutting corners, making accidents more likely.Coal kills FAR more people per megawatt of electricity than nuclear. I'd rather have waste in a vault somewhere than CO2 in the atmosphere. Nuclear isn't the panacea but some countries aren't very suitable to "fully green" energy, e.g Russia. If I was prez here I'd spam nuclear plants.
Post by: delphonso on April 17, 2023, 06:43:49 am
Part of that is that accidents in nuclear plants tend to cause quite significant harm, plus the waste that lasts thousands of years has to go somewhere, plus the whole commercial side of it in that making money requires cutting costs, which could result in cutting corners, making accidents more likely.
This is something along the lines of the nirvana fallacy. The fact is, any energy not coming from nuclear is coming from fossil fuels. Coal also produces radioactive waste (https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/) and all fossil fuels produce much more immediate heat and CO2. Natural gas is about as clean as you can get when it comes to fossil fuels, so I'm all for it, just because presumably anything in that direction is away from coal.
Well, there is something religion-like in how people who supposedly care about ecology fight against nuclear power ignoring reason and facts.
I've become very interested in this in the past few years. I used to be very pro-Organics until I learned more about the actual math and impacts on the environment. Organic farming is both terrible for the planet and worse at producing food.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 17, 2023, 07:20:22 am
I've become very interested in this in the past few years. I used to be very pro-Organics until I learned more about the actual math and impacts on the environment. Organic farming is both terrible for the planet and worse at producing food.
And that means that you are a rational person. You had some information, you had a certain opinion about it. Then you got more information and changed your opinion.
The problem with followers of religions and certain religion-like views is that they ignore any information that contradicts their established beliefs. Antivaxxers are a good example of that, they will reject any knowledge about vaccines you'll try to shove into them through any kind of propaganda. And many of the "protectors of the Mother Earth" are also in this category.
Post by: jipehog on April 17, 2023, 07:26:28 am
I was on topic.. Tldr faith/blind-trust is part of everyone life and religion is more than just faith in god. You on the other hand may want to read rule #7. Also wtf #8 ?!Also, this is a religion thread.
Btw have you heard of Naïve realism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology))? I think that some people takes this to religious-like levels, especially on the extremes of political polarization. Interestingly even though we always like to attribute reason to our decision, some recent brain scans suggest that our decision are emotional rationalized after the fact.
p.s. i see people going off rail about nuclear. In the context of climate change wicked problem, I think its important to realize the impact on other people, many people even entire economies depend on fossil fuels. For example, Saudi Arabia entire future is at stake! and understand that the aren't going to enjoy the potential benefits of green tech, for them it is net loss that could lead to destabilization and even civil war, they are not transitioning any time soon and will put sticks in all our best laid plans that don't have their interest at heart. Luckily they are also very rich, many other countries and sectors are not as lucky and will struggle along
Post by: delphonso on April 17, 2023, 09:06:46 am
The economic question is interesting. Most studies suggest the long term impacts of climate change (even an idealist 2 degree shift) are worse than any short term impacts of extreme infrastructure and economic overhaul. That is, of course, still a hard pill to swallow and even harder to sell.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on April 17, 2023, 07:06:19 pm
Unfortunately, "classical studies" is the new way to teach that LGBTQ doesn't exist.
What do you mean I don't- A-
Post by: Schmaven on April 17, 2023, 07:29:12 pm
Well, there is something religion-like in how people who supposedly care about ecology fight against nuclear power ignoring reason and facts.
Some might even define such a blind adherence to their views, despite reason, logic, and facts pointing the opposite way, as a secular form of faith. Only, I might argue that in this specific case, no good comes from such stubbornness; whereas I can imagine people perhaps developing some good qualities - such as patience and compassion, if a religious faith was held instead.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 18, 2023, 02:00:01 am
Well, there is something religion-like in how people who supposedly care about ecology fight against nuclear power ignoring reason and facts.
Some might even define such a blind adherence to their views, despite reason, logic, and facts pointing the opposite way, as a secular form of faith. Only, I might argue that in this specific case, no good comes from such stubbornness; whereas I can imagine people perhaps developing some good qualities - such as patience and compassion, if a religious faith was held instead.
Or they could develop qualities like hatred of specific minorities or just anyone not following their faith.
I very much prefer, let's say, an irrational and arrogant Vegan who preaches at me about corpse eating, how unnatural and unhealthy consuming meat is, and how animal husbandry is the main source of all economic and environmental problems, to a religious fanatic who wants to kill me because his God orders him to do so.
Post by: jipehog on April 18, 2023, 04:56:51 am
The economic question is interesting. Most studies suggest the long term impacts of climate change (even an idealist 2 degree shift) are worse than any short term impacts of extreme infrastructure and economic overhaul. That is, of course, still a hard pill to swallow and even harder to sell.The devil is always in the details e.g. worse for who? There are arguments that climate change fanatics are at best arguing in bad faith trying to promote alarmism/action and at worst are simply virtue singling promoting fear-mongering and immediate action that have limited impact and primarily benefit the wealthy and thus diverting attention and resources from more substantive solutions that would help solve climate change problems and elevate poverty for hundreds of millions.
I went with wicked problem because it was relevant to the topic and easy to prove. I wouldn't know where to start unpacking climate change arguments, but if anyone want to dive in here is a very nice (though four hours long!) conversation on the topic that covers a verity of views grounded in science that are different from the usual clickbait you'd see on the topic: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gk9gIpGvSE
Only, I might argue that in this specific case, no good comes from such stubbornness; whereas I can imagine people perhaps developing some good qualities - such as patience and compassion, if a religious faith was held instead.
I think that the strength of religion is in the combination of tradition, cultural heritage and institutions (e.g. there is a reason why there are less suicides in religious active communities) but otherwise there are far better and more influential sources of wisdom. I might argue that even Disney cartoons had more effect in modern times..
I very much prefer, let's say, an irrational and arrogant Vegan who preaches at me about corpse eating, how unnatural and unhealthy consuming meat is, and how animal husbandry is the main source of all economic and environmental problems, to a religious fanatic who wants to kill me because his God orders him to do so.
Worth noting that through out history many held beliefs with a level of fervor or conviction similar to that of religious belief and their actions directly or indirectly led to much death and or suffering. One doesn't need god to find rationalization to do harm for the sake of their idea of greater good.
Post by: Schmaven on April 19, 2023, 06:27:15 pm
I very much prefer, let's say, an irrational and arrogant Vegan who preaches at me about corpse eating, how unnatural and unhealthy consuming meat is, and how animal husbandry is the main source of all economic and environmental problems, to a religious fanatic who wants to kill me because his God orders him to do so.
Worth noting that through out history many held beliefs with a level of fervor or conviction similar to that of religious belief and their actions directly or indirectly led to much death and or suffering. One doesn't need god to find rationalization to do harm for the sake of their idea of greater good.
I may be in the minority here, but in my view, any "religious person" who wants to kill someone because God told them to, is neither religious, nor following an actual religion. They are insane.
Post by: lemon10 on April 19, 2023, 07:12:29 pm
I disagree. Presuming you follow (and truly believe in) say, Christianity, where someone not being converted means they will suffer eternally in the fires of hell any action taken that results in even a single less person going to hell is logically and morally justified.I very much prefer, let's say, an irrational and arrogant Vegan who preaches at me about corpse eating, how unnatural and unhealthy consuming meat is, and how animal husbandry is the main source of all economic and environmental problems, to a religious fanatic who wants to kill me because his God orders him to do so.
Worth noting that through out history many held beliefs with a level of fervor or conviction similar to that of religious belief and their actions directly or indirectly led to much death and or suffering. One doesn't need god to find rationalization to do harm for the sake of their idea of greater good.
I may be in the minority here, but in my view, any "religious person" who wants to kill someone because God told them to, is neither religious, nor following an actual religion. They are insane.
Same (to a lesser degree) for stuff like the human sacrifice in the Aztec religion, where they believed that if there were no sacrifices the sun would go out and everyone would die.
Honestly a few deaths seems like a pretty fair bargain to avoid the end of the human race.
---
Obviously though if they actually believe that God himself is talking to them and seeing visions or whatever they are nutso.
Post by: McTraveller on April 19, 2023, 08:42:36 pm
I disagree. Presuming you follow (and truly believe in) say, Christianity, where someone not being converted means they will suffer eternally in the fires of hell any action taken that results in even a single less person going to hell is logically and morally justified.
That's not Christianity at all though. At least not any kind of mainstream Christianity. It's not even a coherent argument which incidentally supports the original "insanity" claim: if someone is "on track" for hell, how is killing them going to change that track?
At least the Aztec-style sacrifice was consistent - sacrifice a few for the sake of the many. Although I can't say if they thought the sacrifice was condemned or was somehow glorified because they were the sacrifice.
Post by: lemon10 on April 19, 2023, 10:17:29 pm
That's not Christianity at all though. At least not any kind of mainstream Christianity.Obviously not, cause it turns out that people with *squints* literally any religion or denomination don't like when you kill them, so actually promoting stuff like that as any kind of religious authority just gets you thrown in jail.
There are plenty of denominations out there though that believe the only way to heaven is through believing in Jesus Christ though. So it doesn't mean the logic isn't sound.
if someone is "on track" for hell, how is killing them going to change that track?It wouldn't obviously. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other stuff you can do, such as killing them then re-educating their kids, or killing them so they *won't* have kids that wouldn't do the same thing.
which incidentally supports the original "insanity" claim
E: Depends on the definition of sanity I suppose.
E2: Although in a more general case of "anyone that is willing to kill over religion is crazy" he's def wrong. People are often willing to kill over very small thing, and being willing to kill over a core pillar of your personality (eg. religion, nationality, family, morality in general) is completely normal human behavior.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 20, 2023, 01:02:37 am
I very much prefer, let's say, an irrational and arrogant Vegan who preaches at me about corpse eating, how unnatural and unhealthy consuming meat is, and how animal husbandry is the main source of all economic and environmental problems, to a religious fanatic who wants to kill me because his God orders him to do so.
Worth noting that through out history many held beliefs with a level of fervor or conviction similar to that of religious belief and their actions directly or indirectly led to much death and or suffering. One doesn't need god to find rationalization to do harm for the sake of their idea of greater good.
I may be in the minority here, but in my view, any "religious person" who wants to kill someone because God told them to, is neither religious, nor following an actual religion. They are insane.
If it is literal voices in the head then yes, this person is insane.
But there are different types of "Gold told me to". It includes certain interpretations of holy texts or following orders of prophets\leaders.
Please don't tell me that everyone who preach that LGBT people are abominations who should be killed are merely insane. Also, don't tell me the same about Muslims who call for murder for (real or imaginary) insulting of Muhammad.
Post by: jipehog on April 20, 2023, 03:54:54 am
Post by: Strongpoint on April 20, 2023, 05:16:04 am
Quote
Religion typically espouse to a set of beliefs that promote good actions and behaviors
Not really. At its core, religion is a belief in mighty supernatural being(s) who must be obeyed and appeased for rewards. Good actions and behaviors are not required. Or rather good = following orders of God(s) (read clergy)
Post by: jipehog on April 20, 2023, 06:06:08 am
Obviously no single religion, nor religions as whole hold monopoly on wisdom[1]. I think there are medium that either better at exploring different philosophies about life or had more impact in doing (even games). However, I would argue in favor of traditions, because some things in life are like learning to ride a bicycle, it can't be explain only experienced. For example, spending holidays with your family is something that universally young people love to hate but generally they would understand its value until much later in life.
[1] which can be outdated/flawed, it is best to recall the conditions in which these views were shaped, just as you would when reading any other story from a different time/culture.
edited.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 20, 2023, 06:14:57 am
Post by: McTraveller on April 20, 2023, 08:13:54 am
Quote
At its core, religion is a belief in mighty supernatural being(s) who must be obeyed and appeased for rewards. Good actions and behaviors are not required. Or rather good = following orders of God(s) (read clergy)
I'm going to disagree on several fronts.
First, Religion doesn't have to be supernatural at all - many people are more religious about their sports team or social cause than about any kind of supernatural. That is, the more broad definition "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." So supernatural religion is a subset of all religion.
Second, there are many supernatural religions that don't have a concept of appeasement or reward. A large subset of Christian denominations, for instance, are revolutionary in that "the good news" is that your standing with God is not dependent on your behavior. It also contested the old views of "something bad happened to you, you must have displeased God." There are other religions, of the more mysticism flavor, that are all about harmony, not about appeasement or "reward."
Short story: over-general statements are over-general. Including this one ;D
Post by: Strongpoint on April 20, 2023, 12:01:07 pm
Quote
First, Religion doesn't have to be supernatural at all - many people are more religious about their sports team or social cause than about any kind of supernatural. That is, the more broad definition "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." So supernatural religion is a subset of all religion.
It is not a common definition of the word religion. What you describe is being devoted to something, not a religion. Few will say that freedom of religion refers to the right to cheer for a particular sports team.
Quote
A large subset of Christian denominations, for instance, are revolutionary in that "the good news" is that your standing with God is not dependent on your behavior.
Is this why Christ is the Lord and the only way to be saved is through him? Yes, those certain denominations say clearly it is irrelevant how much you sin as long as you belong to their church. (aka do as they say). If anything, they are more direct that the morality of your actions is unimportant, licking the Lord's ass is.
Quote
There are other religions, of the more mysticism flavor, that are all about harmony, not about appeasement or "reward."
Buddism and similar practices are indeed somewhat different but the concept of karma is all about reward and there are still supernatural beings.
Post by: McTraveller on April 20, 2023, 12:20:06 pm
Is this why Christ is the Lord and the only way to be saved is through him? Yes, those certain denominations say clearly it is irrelevant how much you sin as long as you belong to their church. (aka do as they say). If anything, they are more direct that the morality of your actions is unimportant, licking the Lord's ass is.
I'm sorry this has been your experience with Christianity. Maybe I'm spoiled in that I've been in circles that don't claim that this exact church is the only way, that it really is Christ that's the only way, and we do our best to understand what that way is.
I'd argue that "licking the Lord's ass" is totally against some of the gospels anyway - "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve." Yeah there's some personal purity stuff in there - but it's about "don't put yourself first, you're not God" rather than "you will be damned if you listen to guitar music!", but so much of the New Testament is about "don't fall into legalism, please!" I honestly don't know how so many people fall into that trap, other than it's "easier"?
Post by: Telgin on April 20, 2023, 03:15:17 pm
People definitely get very bent out of shape over the legalism here, and being "holier than thou" is a real problem. I can't even say I blame some people for thinking like that when they believe the slightest unforgiven transgression will lead to eternal torment in fire. That's the kind of stuff that leads to people saying that drinking is a sin despite Jesus literally turning water into wine in the Bible, since drunkenness is a sin so you might as well not even take the risk. Or wearing jewelry, since that's vanity. Or men having long hair, because "god made man and woman separate" or whatever the justification is. Or going to Walmart on Sunday and buying a bottle of Mountain Dew, since that's desecrating the sabbath day.
So, you know, you do exactly what the Bible says, and take zero chances, because literally nothing is worth eternal torment in fire.
Except, of course, even then nobody can really agree on what's correct. Thankfully most people do still ignore large parts of the old testament, even the Pentecostals, but to be honest I don't know what their theological justification for that is. Obviously modern people are squeamish about a lot of it, and doing something like murdering a person because they're gay or worked on Sunday is also illegal, but I actually haven't met anyone saying that we should still do it because the Bible says so.
Anyway, I think one reason people fall into the legalism camp and trying to be "holier than thou" is because they want to be part of an exclusive club. It's part of human nature. They want to be better than their neighbors or competitors. They know the true way.
Post by: Maximum Spin on April 20, 2023, 04:17:13 pm
Their fundamental conceit that underlies the movement (started in Methodism but adopted by other Holiness denominations) is that it's possible for a human being to be so faithful that that human being no longer has any sin at all, not even temptations.
This is fundamentally opposed to the actual Biblical text, and to essentially all other denominations. Also, the fact that it's obviously impossible seems to make them extremely insecure about whether they're Holy Enough.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 21, 2023, 02:02:10 am
I'd argue that "licking the Lord's ass" is totally against some of the gospels anyway - "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve."
I sometimes wonder what kind of religion could be formed if using only the Gospels, discarding old Jewish laws and stories, Paul's ideas of how to run Church\worship God, and Book of Revelations (oh that thing...)
But we have no such religion. You can't quote Jesus and say that it is what Christianity teaches as a religion. It doesn't. Not only there are more different quotes of Jesus, there is also the rest of the Bible, Sacred Tradition (yes I know that it is irrelevant for "Sola Scriptura" Protestants but those are a minority of Christians), customs and superstitions (often incorporated from Pagan Religions), etc.
Post by: jipehog on April 21, 2023, 02:44:25 am
People definitely get very bent out of shape over the legalism here, and being "holier than thou" is a real problem. I can't even say I blame some people for thinking like that when they believe the slightest unforgiven transgression will lead to eternal torment in fire.Silence commie bastard! /s
There are always people like that e.g. many green activist have replaced biblical ideas of purity with body purity with natural diets, or have extreme ideas about global warming and make life hell on earth for anyone who commit slightest transgression in their eyes.
Post by: Schmaven on April 21, 2023, 05:38:24 am
There are always people like that e.g. many green activist have replaced biblical ideas of purity with body purity with natural diets, or have extreme ideas about global warming and make life hell on earth for anyone who commit slightest transgression in their eyes.
The new green religion is a funny one. They claim to be following the science, and yet ignore observations, logic and reason. Many of their goals, if actually enacted, would result in much more environmental destruction than otherwise. It's a very logically inconsistent bunch of views. That wouldn't be so bad if they would keep to themselves, but they also seem to have a hard bent toward activism (ie. vandalism), that only seems to be getting more violent.
Based on them, I can see how religion is viewed in the minds of the non-religious. Not only do I fail to see any logic in their views, but I see much better ways to accomplish their stated goals than anything they propose be done. Much in the same way I suppose people see so much logical inconsistency in the Abrahamic religions, and also, very effective ways to be a good person based on modern psychology and so forth. Additionally, there have been so many wars fought in the name of religion, the inquisition, etc.
Very interesting parallel there.
Post by: Frumple on April 21, 2023, 08:24:09 am
I sometimes wonder what kind of religion could be formed if using only the Gospels, discarding old Jewish laws and stories, Paul's ideas of how to run Church\worship God, and Book of Revelations (oh that thing...)You're basically talking about something built off the Jefferson Bible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible), or something of similar intent. There's definitely not much of anything of significant note organized like that, but there's been the occasional effort at it over the centuries.
I think a lot of the problem with efforts like that is that once you've done that project you're basically just left with "Don't be an asshole", which... doesn't need a special religious figure to anchor it, y'know? It's just some dude saying be good to one another. From there it either regresses back into ritualized junk or discards the spiritual aspect more or less entirely.
Post by: Telgin on April 21, 2023, 09:16:37 am
One could argue that some or maybe even much of it was intended to only apply to Jews, but I'm not sure how much theological traction that really has.
Post by: Frumple on April 21, 2023, 09:25:07 am
Far as I'm aware tossing out the old testament rules doesn't have huge grounds for theological justification based on scripture (most seriousface theologians I've noticed would agree it's post-hoc justification nonsense with no basis in the text, to whatever degree they think that's actually important), but when the hell has that mattered? Theology's fun, but it ain't what's pulling the metaphorical cart when it comes to religion.
Post by: Schmaven on April 23, 2023, 01:19:48 am
I think that applies to more than just swimming. Perhaps all skills that take time and effort to develop, require belief. Some things we just learn through exposure and unwanted repetition, and so wouldn't require belief at all. But I hypothesize that religion is one of those areas where belief is required to experience the benefits, and that the more practice we have, the more we can appreciate. Also, that belief can be cultivated, and destroyed, depending on how we think. We can exert effort to generate a stronger than normal belief for a short while, and just see what it's like. Similarly, we can exert effort to reduce our belief about a certain thing for some time. Through sustained regular effort, our normal equilibrium of where we naturally tend to believe can be altered. Because of this, I think it is very difficult for athiests and the religious to understand one another.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 23, 2023, 09:27:25 am
Quote
Through sustained regular effort, our normal equilibrium of where we naturally tend to believe can be altered.
Yes. We, humans, are wonderful beings. We can create cognitive dissonance in ourselves. We can repeatedly lie to ourselves until we (kinda) start believing the lie. Not that the truth goes away, it gets buried in the subconscious.
Quote
Because of this, I think it is very difficult for athiests and the religious to understand one another.
Many, many atheists are formerly religious. Vice versa also happens.
Post by: Schmaven on April 23, 2023, 09:52:29 pm
Yes. We, humans, are wonderful beings. We can create cognitive dissonance in ourselves. We can repeatedly lie to ourselves until we (kinda) start believing the lie. Not that the truth goes away, it gets buried in the subconscious.
Not only that, but also we can eliminate beliefs that are incorrect, and even adopt correct beliefs we don't yet fully understand. The mind is a powerful tool at our disposal.
Quote
Many, many atheists are formerly religious. Vice versa also happens.
Likely from each it was those who better understood the other.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 23, 2023, 10:45:35 pm
Not only that, but also we can eliminate beliefs that are incorrect, and even adopt correct beliefs we don't yet fully understand. The mind is a powerful tool at our disposal.
There are three ways to eliminate your beliefs.
1) Create cognitive dissonance by repeatedly telling yourself something you don't truly believe.
2) Learn the truth.
3) Admit that you don't (can't) know the truth about a particular thing.
Post by: jipehog on April 24, 2023, 05:41:58 am
But I hypothesize that religion is one of those areas where belief is required to experience the benefits, and that the more practice we have, the more we can appreciate.
Praise krishna?! Or is it just the religion that you happen to be born into and know is conveniently offers the best experience and benefits.
I think that positive thinking/attitude are important, but these has aren't contingent on any one notion of god or religion. Btw the Church of Scientology smartly has avoided the common trap about god, instead of set dogma for god they allow individuals to come to their own understanding of God. Its much more blunt in way, focusing on the workings of the human mind and how to unlocking our true potential, and their by we by achieving spiritual enlightenment we become godlike. Kind like the old idea of apotheosis where individual who had distinguished themselves through extraordinary feats or deeds were elevated to hero or godhod status.
Because of this, I think it is very difficult for athiests and the religious to understand one another.
There might be a perception gap at play here. Like in politics, where despite most people holding views that are not be so different from one another, they hold deeply distorted view of their political other which lean into the extreme.
Bearing obvious external symbols most would not know the wiser who is who. I seen a show format that does just that, in one episode they actually put a group of orthodox and former orthodox atheist and they had to figure out who is who in 10min, and it was amusing how much differences was ingroup and not so much among the outgroup.
Then there is politics.. for example myself, though [i believe that] i don't have an issue with religion or religious, living in country that has no separation of state and church and growing power of religious parties I have very strong, even uncompromising opinion, on several topics.
Post by: Schmaven on April 26, 2023, 08:06:32 am
Post by: TD1 on April 26, 2023, 08:14:06 am
On a personal level, I'd prefer not to have false hope.
Post by: Schmaven on April 26, 2023, 08:37:46 am
Yes, religion brings hope. Along with other things, of course - dependence, elation, community, politics.
On a personal level, I'd prefer not to have false hope.
What do you mean by false hope?
Post by: jipehog on April 26, 2023, 08:39:55 am
Quick google:
https://psychcentral.com/anxiety/the-9-types-of-hopelessness-and-how-to-overcome-them
Post by: TD1 on April 26, 2023, 08:59:39 am
Hope that is unfounded, or without substance. False hope leads to unrealistic expectations.Yes, religion brings hope. Along with other things, of course - dependence, elation, community, politics.
On a personal level, I'd prefer not to have false hope.
What do you mean by false hope?
There's a difference between saying 'your wife will be fine, the scans have come back and the cancer is benign' and saying 'we have prayed for your wife, and God will intercede on her behalf.'
That's obviously a crude metaphor, but you get the idea. It's also specific, but more general metaphors could be created. Say, about the role of religion in giving people hope about life after death.
Edit: I'll also add that while I admit false hope can be useful, I'm not convinced that it's morally appropriate to (knowingly) spread, or adhere to, it. I suppose (enjoy a crude simile this time) it would be like the doctor in the above scenario concealing that the cancer is, in fact, malicious and likely fatal. The patient has more hope, but has been cheated the opportunity to make well-informed decisions thereafter.
I suppose good intentions do not always have good results, or that the hedonistic calculus (an equation for determining moral action based on ensuring maximal happiness) is indeed imbalanced, flawed, and actively damaging.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 26, 2023, 09:41:24 am
While her son was on a road of minor crime (including, of course, stealing from his own mother), she also wasted her limited resources donating unreasonable amounts to her church.
End result? Her son died from an overdose. She withered soon after. Was this hope of hers helpful? Absolutely not. Could she save her son by acting differently? Most likely not. But the probability of saving her son with prayers was exactly ZERO.
No, empty hope is not a good thing. I'd even say that it is a drug no less dangerous than heroin.
Post by: Schmaven on April 26, 2023, 10:13:53 am
Post by: Strongpoint on April 26, 2023, 10:29:28 am
Would you say that someone with a disease, who does not have a good prognosis, should not have hope that maybe they'll be one of the 6% (or whatever) who beat the odds? Unlikely as it is to be in that 6%, hope gives inspiration to more effectively apply the remedies. It may still be the case that such a person is in the 94%, and such hope is false, but since the future is uncertain, what is the harm of such hope?
But it is not the kind of hope religions preach. Religions preach to act as if this 94% of death don't exist. It actually goes - I have hope that I am in those 6% and be the strength of the hope alone I am guaranteed to be cured and don't need to waste my time on treatments. And stuff like preparing for your own death? Forget about it!
Post by: hector13 on April 26, 2023, 10:33:41 am
Post by: Telgin on April 26, 2023, 10:44:21 am
They still pray for healing though, of course.
Post by: Schmaven on April 26, 2023, 11:02:11 am
Would you say that someone with a disease, who does not have a good prognosis, should not have hope that maybe they'll be one of the 6% (or whatever) who beat the odds? Unlikely as it is to be in that 6%, hope gives inspiration to more effectively apply the remedies. It may still be the case that such a person is in the 94%, and such hope is false, but since the future is uncertain, what is the harm of such hope?
But it is not the kind of hope religions preach. Religions preach to act as if this 94% of death don't exist. It actually goes - I have hope that I am in those 6% and be the strength of the hope alone I am guaranteed to be cured and don't need to waste my time on treatments. And stuff like preparing for your own death? Forget about it!
I think that's a bit of a straw man argument. Personally, I have received many spiritual teachings about preparing for death, and that death can come to us at any moment, so really, preparing for it is arguably the most important thing we can do while we still can. Which religions would you say argue the opposite of this?
Post by: Frumple on April 26, 2023, 11:24:13 am
It's not exactly good advice, but that's what you get when you buy into heresy that inimical to basic decency. It definitely offers suggestions for preparing for death.
So I guess the question would be how bad does the teachings have to be before they stop counting? "Don't think about it and keep praying" is as much teaching on end of life preparation as anything, it's just staggeringly shit teaching.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 26, 2023, 11:37:45 am
I think that's a bit of a straw man argument. Personally, I have received many spiritual teachings about preparing for death, and that death can come to us at any moment, so really, preparing for it is arguably the most important thing we can do while we still can. Which religions would you say argue the opposite of this?
I didn't imply that religions don't care about death. Religions revolve around Death and its inevitability.
I merely went along with your analogy. There is a huge difference between the "I may be cured" and "I will be cured" kinds of hope.
There is no the "may" type of hope in religion. It is the "will" type of hope. It is kinda harmless when it is outside the real world* "I will have an eternal life" but it is not OK when it is "I am immune to Covid"
* unless it is the hope of "I hope I'll get my 72 virgins in the afterlife if I'll blow up those godless people" variety
Post by: Schmaven on April 26, 2023, 11:49:09 am
I admit I am not familiar with most religions, so your view that most of them are of the former type of faith may in fact be correct. I just hope not for their sake.
Post by: TD1 on April 26, 2023, 12:39:28 pm
Would you say that someone with a disease, who does not have a good prognosis, should not have hope that maybe they'll be one of the 6% (or whatever) who beat the odds? Unlikely as it is to be in that 6%, hope gives inspiration to more effectively apply the remedies. It may still be the case that such a person is in the 94%, and such hope is false, but since the future is uncertain, what is the harm of such hope?Of course they should have hope.
In your hypothetical, the hope is well-founded. The individual is aware their chance is 6% and they hope (and ergo, often, work) to fall within that bracket. But they're aware that nothing is shifting the scales in their favour, and they should probably prepare for the most likely and worst scenario. Their expectations are realistic and well-informed.
Your scenario doesn't really qualify as hope-through-religion/faith, though.
Imagine the patient had a superstition that a root with no proven medicinal qualities, purchased from shamans, could increase her survival chance to 94%. She'd have a lot of hope, but it would be unfounded, and she'd not be preparing for the most likely and worst scenario. She'd be poorly informed.
The distinction between the two is the interceding force, whether of spirits, God, ancestors, angels, rhino horns, roots - whatever. Something which has no proven impact on the situation but, through misplaced hope, is unrealistically thought to increase a 6% chance of survival to a 94% chance of survival.
Can you see how damaging such false hope could be? There are a few anecdotal examples in the last few posts here.
Post by: Schmaven on April 26, 2023, 01:42:43 pm
If it weren't for the placebo effect, I would be inclined to agree with you. Since it works in up to 30% of cases, there is definitely some real value to belief, regardless of the source. Though the mechanisms behind it are not well understood yet unfortunately. Is it a reduction in stress from a belief that the "medicine" is effective causing the improvement? Surely that is a component of it. But it seems to be more than that. Could there be a similar effect attributable to spiritual beliefs? Seems likely to me. But I am not aware of any specific placebo studies that take into account that variable.
How would you explain the placebo effect?
Post by: EuchreJack on April 26, 2023, 05:58:17 pm
Years later, I learned that Vitamin D does in fact help with stomach issues.
Sometimes, the "placebo" works.
Post by: delphonso on April 26, 2023, 06:02:39 pm
Post by: jipehog on April 26, 2023, 11:00:48 pm
In many cases a persons mental well-being affect health outcome, particularly in cases involving long treatment/management of illness and recovery (especially if your stuck watching the celling in the hospital). Things like good relationship with your doctor through personal interaction (even the "fake" touch) help, and a support system of people who are there for you helps to maintain positive expectations, enthusiasm and motivations which have an impact.
To bring it back to religion, as noted before religion is about the sum of its parts, and I say that generally it lends to less individualistic more community and family oriented ideas which could help with later regardless of how you'd call it.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 26, 2023, 11:19:27 pm
How would you explain the placebo effect?
Anyone can Google many studies of the placebo effect. Many factors are in play and medical science is in the process of understanding all of them. It is a good enough answer for me.
I don't need a full explanation of everything, I am satisfied with evidence that a certain thing is real and can be (at least partially) predicted. Does it REALLY matter why Gravity works unless you are on the cutting edge of science?
Post by: EuchreJack on April 27, 2023, 03:37:38 pm
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/26/us/debt-jubilee-medical-trinity-moravian-cec/index.html (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/26/us/debt-jubilee-medical-trinity-moravian-cec/index.html)
Maybe refer to this (https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc431) before trusting them for your tax advice. Even better, ask a damn accountant instead of trusting CNN...
Post by: Frumple on April 27, 2023, 03:55:36 pm
Incredibly wildly insufficient as a means to mitigate or manage the general issue in society, of course, but it's not nothing for the folks it helps out. Sometimes churches actually do charity that's something other than a half-assed recruitment drive for tax grift purposes.
Post by: jipehog on April 27, 2023, 08:25:51 pm
I think the point is that faith/perception is powerful determinant of health in certain disease conditions i.e. giving sham medicine could work better than being informed..How would you explain the placebo effect?
Anyone can Google many studies of the placebo effect. Many factors are in play and medical science is in the process of understanding all of them. It is a good enough answer for me.
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2023, 04:47:47 am
Quote from: https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect
Placebos won't lower your cholesterol or shrink a tumor. Instead, placebos work on symptoms modulated by the brain, like the perception of pain. "Placebos may make you feel better, but they will not cure you," says Kaptchuk. "They have been shown to be most effective for conditions like pain management, stress-related insomnia, and cancer treatment side effects like fatigue and nausea."
So being given sham treatments might improve how people experience their condition (which in turn likely aids healing!), but it won't actively help the underlying issue.
Which makes sense, I guess. A purely psychological treatment gives psychological benefit.
My sentiment therefore remains the same: It is better to be well-informed so that appropriate steps may be taken.
Post by: delphonso on April 28, 2023, 05:06:19 am
You've had a bacterial infection and must take an antibiotic 3 times a day. A study researches the beneficial effects of 'chemical X' on patients taking antibiotics.
3 groups are studied: average outcomes of patients on said antibiotics with said infection, a placebo group (still on antibiotics), and the test group (antibiotics and chemical X).
The placebo group will likely fair better than average, because they are getting additional attention and care, plus reminders to actually take the antibiotic 3 times a day (while also participating in the study, taking Chemical X [but actually a placebo]).
Post by: Strongpoint on April 28, 2023, 05:38:48 am
We don't fully know how our mind can influence other parts of our body (like the immune system) but there is nothing weird that one part of the system influences other parts of the system.
Post by: jipehog on April 28, 2023, 07:31:00 am
So being given sham treatments might improve how people experience their condition (which in turn likely aids healing!), but it won't actively help the underlying issue.
That not a very holistic approach:
Quote
Migraines, joint pain, arthritis, asthma, high blood pressure, and depression are some disease conditions that are more sensitive to the placebo effect. It is a complex phenomenon with several underlying psychological and neurobiological mechanisms.
And I believe there are far greater effects in long term recovery. For anecdotal example is my mother, she fell and broke her leg in really bad way, luckily the surgery went flawlessly (the tape was reviewed by family friend surgeon) and was told that next few month of recovery would determine whether she will retain full function or suffer mobility impairment and pain. She always had strong will and went through the daily painful exercises like chump and finished early. Lets just say that my father is more of the whinner type that goes like a zombie after even mild cold, I have no doubt that if it was him, he would be still struggling in after 3 month and whine about the bolts to date.
Anyway, personally I'd go with something more complex to test like education outcome e.g. who do you think will fare better a school kid that is well informed of the statistical fact that he is likely to end up a looser who achieved nothing in life, or one growing in a supportive environment that always had faith in him?
---
Placebo is not magic. It is not "You can will things into existence" or "if you believe something hard enough it becomes real."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC81284/
Post by: McTraveller on April 28, 2023, 07:52:38 am
Post by: Schmaven on April 28, 2023, 05:57:33 pm
The reverse is also interesting: psychosomatic illnesses. Though if the main mechanism involved is stress, then this would likewise explain the otherwise unexplainable onset of those issues. Stress wreaks havoc on so many systems in the body.
It does seem to me however that our state of mind influences the hormones released throughout our body. Whether they be stress hormones, or more beneficial ones. And while there are indeed many ways to influence one's state of mind, faith is a very effective method to generate positive states of mind. Similar to how the placebo effect appears limited to affecting conditions originating in the mind (pain levels, nausea, stress, psychosomatic eczema, etc.), faith also appears to primarily affect the mind. Arguably the most controversial aspect of spirituality, faith is by no means the bulk of it. In my estimation, the primary function of spirituality in general, is to give rise to happiness and inner peace in the practitioner. The effects of such happiness can then be observed by reductions in stress, and the associated illnesses that are exacerbated by stress. Also, with increased clarity of mind (from less stress), comes better decision making, among many other benefits.
Within each spiritual tradition / religion, there are people who practice it well, people who totally misinterpret it to the detriment of others, and people who distort it to fulfill their own selfish agendas. Science seems to have perhaps less extreme cases of people using it for nefarious purposes, but has many examples throughout history of people misunderstanding it, and harming others from the conclusions they come to. Many if not all of the criticisms of faith, can likewise be leveled at those who misunderstand and/or misuse science, although I concede perhaps to a far lesser extent globally, and throughout history as well. People in the past misused and abused religion in terrifying ways, but this does not negate the benefits that spiritual practices do provide; just as unskilled and uninformed science mishaps, or possible nuclear wars, do not discredit the benefits that science can provide.
I don't think there has to be a conflict between science and religion. Both are valid for different purposes. Science is for understanding the physical world. Spirituality is for understanding how to be happy. (Other valid purposes exist too, and there is overlap. I oversimplify in order to juxtapose.)
Post by: jipehog on April 28, 2023, 07:13:31 pm
Post by: Schmaven on April 28, 2023, 07:24:21 pm
Btw, how do you define spirituality?
I'm sure it has many various definitions, and I'm no authority on the matter. Just posting my musings here for the discussion.
Edit: The first resultant definition in a google search seems good enough.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 28, 2023, 09:28:29 pm
Quote
I don't think there has to be a conflict between science and religion. Both are valid for different purposes. Science is for understanding the physical world. Spirituality is for understanding how to be happy.
No. Spirituality offers no understanding whatsoever. Understanding is achieved by experiments, gathering data, analysis, formulating hypothesis, developing theories and, most importantly, questioning everyone who did all of the above including yourself. It doesn't matter what you try to understand - the origin of the universe or how to be happy.
Making stuff up and\or believing "holy texts" has nothing to do with understanding.
Post by: Schmaven on April 28, 2023, 09:53:02 pm
No. Spirituality offers no understanding whatsoever. Understanding is achieved by experiments, gathering data, analysis, formulating hypothesis, developing theories and, most importantly, questioning everyone who did all of the above including yourself. It doesn't matter what you try to understand - the origin of the universe or how to be happy.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.
From my perspective, spirituality is an inner science. There are theories and hypotheses regarding states of mind. Certain thoughts give rise to certain feelings. These can be tested, and observed with reliable repeatability to generate patience, love, discipline, lucidity, determinations to sieze the day, overcome anger, indifference, and so forth. The data is how we feel. When tested 100s of times, finding consistent results, an understanding that it works develops. The entire point is to test it ourselves, not to simply take someone's word for it, no matter who they are. It doesn't matter at all if we know how to be kind if we never apply the methods to actually be kind. And we'll never know the methods truly work unless we test them ourselves. The holy texts offer theories and hypotheses we can experiment with. They're not meant to be just academic knowledge. Happiness comes from within.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 29, 2023, 12:22:37 am
No. Spirituality offers no understanding whatsoever. Understanding is achieved by experiments, gathering data, analysis, formulating hypothesis, developing theories and, most importantly, questioning everyone who did all of the above including yourself. It doesn't matter what you try to understand - the origin of the universe or how to be happy.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.
From my perspective, spirituality is an inner science. There are theories and hypotheses regarding states of mind. Certain thoughts give rise to certain feelings. These can be tested, and observed with reliable repeatability to generate patience, love, discipline, lucidity, determinations to sieze the day, overcome anger, indifference, and so forth. The data is how we feel. When tested 100s of times, finding consistent results, an understanding that it works develops. The entire point is to test it ourselves, not to simply take someone's word for it, no matter who they are. It doesn't matter at all if we know how to be kind if we never apply the methods to actually be kind. And we'll never know the methods truly work unless we test them ourselves. The holy texts offer theories and hypotheses we can experiment with. They're not meant to be just academic knowledge. Happiness comes from within.
IMO, it sounds like you want to say that spirituality is your own experience which is a weird definition.
Let's say you have a goal... Something simple. Let's say learn to play chess well. How will you do it? Sure, you'll study what other people learned. But you'll still need personal playing experience, you'll still need to do your own tests, and you still need to choose what style of play works for you.
If the goal is more complex, like "becoming happy", "raising decent children", "achieving success in life", etc. The process is the same, just harder.
When learning chess you should prefer learning from people who actually know how to play chess to some random dude from the 17th century who claims that he got a revelation from the God about how to play chess perfectly even if there are some useful advice in his writings.
And when learning how to be happy, how to be contributing member of society, if you are a rational person, you should also look at people who STUDY this stuff not try to extract this from some fiction from a few thousand years ago written by people who considered ethnic cleansing, slavery, and rape to be OK. But yes, you can't learn how to love happily by simply reading an academic book. You need practice, you need your own experience. But it helps to use good and accurate theory when learning by trial and error.
Post by: jipehog on April 29, 2023, 05:53:06 am
As long as you accept that spirituality and all its advantages can be achieved without adherence to a religion.Btw, how do you define spirituality?
I'm sure it has many various definitions, and I'm no authority on the matter. Just posting my musings here for the discussion.
Edit: The first resultant definition in a google search seems good enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_spirituality
Post by: Strongpoint on April 29, 2023, 10:34:07 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 29, 2023, 10:53:41 am
Post by: jipehog on April 29, 2023, 11:04:51 am
Wrong topicI disagree, not all spiritual concepts revolve around god or higher power.
My pre-conversion self was utterly rotten. You think current me is violent? You never met me then.What did that process entail?
Post by: Strongpoint on April 29, 2023, 11:46:16 am
Wrong topicI edited my message after posting in the wrong topic. Should have been more clear)My pre-conversion self was utterly rotten. You think current me is violent? You never met me then.You found a welcoming and understanding community and started taking a conscious effort to improve your attitude, right?
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 29, 2023, 08:49:41 pm
Post by: Schmaven on April 29, 2023, 08:59:04 pm
That and also generally taking Jesus' teachings to heart as much as I can. I'm still not applying them fully
Applying them fully is hard to do. It seems we humans always fall short and miss the mark - especially when compared to a higher ideal way of being. But in the trying, failing, and trying again, there is a lot to be learned, and it does get easier. Since ultimately, it is we who have to encourage ourselves, it's helpful to not beat ourselves up too harshly for imperfect results, but to just be satisfied with what we are able to do. Like planting an acorn, and expecting an oak tree: at first, it's just a little sprout. No height, no girth, no protective bark... Useless for most tree purposes. Better to be patient and tend to it, allowing it to grow, than to smash it for not being a mature oak tree right now. Positive changes in ourselves start small, and have to be nurtured (also by us) to grow.
Post by: Rolan7 on April 29, 2023, 09:27:41 pm
If they had the strength to perpetuate their ideologies, they would do so.
As they did.
Now they don't.
Because half of us are women, and the time of the patriarchy has long since passed.
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 29, 2023, 10:19:19 pm
Yeah.That and also generally taking Jesus' teachings to heart as much as I can. I'm still not applying them fully
Applying them fully is hard to do. It seems we humans always fall short and miss the mark - especially when compared to a higher ideal way of being. But in the trying, failing, and trying again, there is a lot to be learned, and it does get easier. Since ultimately, it is we who have to encourage ourselves, it's helpful to not beat ourselves up too harshly for imperfect results, but to just be satisfied with what we are able to do. Like planting an acorn, and expecting an oak tree: at first, it's just a little sprout. No height, no girth, no protective bark... Useless for most tree purposes. Better to be patient and tend to it, allowing it to grow, than to smash it for not being a mature oak tree right now. Positive changes in ourselves start small, and have to be nurtured (also by us) to grow.
Obviously, all patriarchal deities are bullshit.My sect isn't patriarchal.
If they had the strength to perpetuate their ideologies, they would do so.
As they did.
Now they don't.
Because half of us are women, and the time of the patriarchy has long since passed.
Post by: Strongpoint on April 30, 2023, 01:40:44 am
My sect isn't patriarchal.
Yeah, It is nice that your sect chose to ignore the clearly patriarchal* structure of the Bible. I'd say it is a good step towards ignoring all of the Bible.
*Including the original meaning of the word - autocratic rule of the oldest male in a family\clan in which God is meant to be the oldest of all Men, the supreme despot
Post by: MaxTheFox on April 30, 2023, 01:43:15 am
Post by: jipehog on May 01, 2023, 05:00:37 am
You found a welcoming and understanding community and started taking a conscious effort to improve your attitude, right?Yeah, that is usual the case. People do all sort of things in pursuit of acceptance/approval, love/companionship, sense of purpose, fulfillment, etc. Often all we need is just something to keep us motivated or in more extreme case some structure to ground them and allow for some balance/distraction and opportunities for positive interactions.
Post by: jipehog on May 01, 2023, 05:17:18 am
Obviously, all patriarchal deities are bullshit.What do have faith in ?
If they had the strength to perpetuate their ideologies, they would do so.
As they did.
Now they don't.
Because half of us are women, and the time of the patriarchy has long since passed.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on May 02, 2023, 07:39:56 pm
What do have faith in ?
no
Post by: Rolan7 on May 02, 2023, 08:07:44 pm
I actually don't know, these days? I actually have a lot more faith/hope in my life, but I'm not what one thing I most... "take strength from" or "prioritize most" or whatever meaning of faith we're talking about.
Despite everything I still have faith in people, I think. People have so much potential, we grow and change and often for the better. So I guess I'm still a secular humanist haha, as a general thing.
(I said "other people" at first, but nope! I have faith in myself too now!)
Post by: jipehog on May 03, 2023, 02:08:24 am
[..]we grow and change and often for the better.[..]Sound great. In the context of your last post I would like to emphasize this part, as I have been arguing against reductionist notion that religion is about god but a tapestry of cultural traditions. If you happen to like history there are some interesting material on how these traditions have been evolving and likely will continue to grow in one way or another as people shape it to their own needs.
Post by: TD1 on May 03, 2023, 07:33:39 am
Post by: Strongpoint on May 03, 2023, 07:57:13 am
I was thinking about something similar earlier today. A lot of Christians assume that religion shapes history, but I've always found that history shapes religion.
Both are true, you can't argue that a leader of an obscure apocalyptic Judaism sect, Jesus Christ, (and to a larger extent the later leader of the sect - Paul) didn't influence history. Same for Muhammed and others.
But religions mutate and adapt to the world, too. The current in-progress adaptation of Christianity is the acceptance of LGBT. It didn't arise in the church(es) as a result of internal theological discussion, it is the result of external secular forces.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on June 04, 2023, 06:14:56 pm
So, Apollo is
Then there is Helios, The Titan of the Sun. Literal personification of the sun itself. He is the sun.
Does this mean, Apollo drags Helios around the sky everyday? Like, is Helios literally tied to the chariot and flails around like a ribbon while Apollo rides the vessel in hypersonic speeds?
Post by: Rolan7 on June 04, 2023, 06:51:08 pm
hot
while doing it.
Never underestimate a twink!
Post by: Strongpoint on June 05, 2023, 12:08:39 am
Guys. Listen. This is stupid question, but it is also very, very important.
So, Apollo isan hot piece of assthe Olympian God of Youthful Radiance, Music, Medicine, and most importantly to this question, the Sun. He has a chariot that he uses to pull the sun across the morning sky. It is his gig. It is his job.
Then there is Helios, The Titan of the Sun. Literal personification of the sun itself. He is the sun.
Does this mean, Apollo drags Helios around the sky everyday? Like, is Helios literally tied to the chariot and flails around like a ribbon while Apollo rides the vessel in hypersonic speeds?
It means that Apollo and Helios became merged into one God in some areas, a common process in early religions. Thre is some evidence the the Abrahamic God is also a result of a similar merge.
Helios IS the rider of the golden chariot not the personification of the sun. His son, Phaeton, also attempted to ride the chariot... with unpleasant consequences. Early versions of Appolo had nothing to do with that chariot but myths mutate.
________________________
I love Greek mythology. It is so much better than ancient Jewish mythology. it portrays gods as cruel, power-hungry, callous dicks in constant struggle instead of pushing the narrative of an all-powerful abusive sky daddy who loves to give genocidal orders. It also has much less misogyny in it with some kickass female goddesses and other female mythical beings, while in Jewish folklore women are either furniture, baby-making machines (note that they often don't even bother to tell names of mothers), or petty villains.
Post by: EuchreJack on June 05, 2023, 12:41:51 am
Of course, those areas were erogenous areas.Guys. Listen. This is stupid question, but it is also very, very important.
So, Apollo isan hot piece of assthe Olympian God of Youthful Radiance, Music, Medicine, and most importantly to this question, the Sun. He has a chariot that he uses to pull the sun across the morning sky. It is his gig. It is his job.
Then there is Helios, The Titan of the Sun. Literal personification of the sun itself. He is the sun.
Does this mean, Apollo drags Helios around the sky everyday? Like, is Helios literally tied to the chariot and flails around like a ribbon while Apollo rides the vessel in hypersonic speeds?
It means that Apollo and Helios became merged into one God in some areas, a common process in early religions. Thre is some evidence the the Abrahamic God is also a result of a similar merge.
Helios IS the rider of the golden chariot not the personification of the sun. His son, Phaeton, also attempted to ride the chariot... with unpleasant consequences. Early versions of Appolo had nothing to do with that chariot but myths mutate.
________________________
I love Greek mythology. It is so much better than ancient Jewish mythology. it portrays gods as cruel, power-hungry, callous dicks in constant struggle instead of pushing the narrative of an all-powerful abusive sky daddy who loves to give genocidal orders. It also has much less misogyny in it with some kickass female goddesses and other female mythical beings, while in Jewish folklore women are either furniture, baby-making machines (note that they often don't even bother to tell names of mothers), or petty villains.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on June 06, 2023, 09:21:39 am
Post by: TD1 on June 06, 2023, 10:10:36 am
Firstly, let's address its basic premise - that worship/devotion/obeisance to a god was considered to in some way increase their power. In an Ancient Greek mythological context, it did not. Prayer was intended to assuage the god's wrath, to draw their favour, or to pit them against certain enemies. Alongside sacrifices, it could calm seas, ease childbirth, bring prosperity. But it was intended to curry favour and not provide something the gods, who were themselves personified power, required.
In a modern context? American Gods, Percy Jackson, Harry Dresden, and various media concerning gods make the connection between prayer/sacrifice and the survival of divinity clear. Perhaps this is a result of Christology, for in likening pagan divinity to a parasitic (or possibly symbiotic) relationship the "true" deity is shown to be all the more powerful, significant, and supreme. More likely, this is a facet of a broader quirk within monotheistic-centric modern popular culture and not the cause. Or, indeed, a response to the supposed 'death' of these gods through lack of worshipers which we, standing at the ever-moving pinnacle of history, can look back on.
But, for the sake of your question, we will assume the latter and modern interpretation is correct. Pagan gods derive their power from worship.
However, all sources also agree that intent is important. Think back on the Chronicles of Narnia. Those who worshiped the 'devil' out of love were directing their prayer, not to Satan, but to Aslan and Christ. And vice versa.
Though the rainbow is Iris' symbol, the devotion and meaning directed towards it does not belong to her. No one looks upon the Flag of Pride and feels stirring in their hearts a love for the Wife of Zephyrus (or, if they do, not on any meaningful scale).
As such, and in conclusion, I would contend that Iris does not become more powerful during Pride. Firstly, worship does not necessarily act to empower divinity. Secondly, even were it to do so, Intent would channel the devotion to a more appropriate vessel. Perhaps Ganymede or Eros, or, in this author's personal opinion, a new divinity constructed from the patchwork of pride flags, from the empowering ambrosia of faith, trust and love.
Name this recipient what you will.
Post by: EuchreJack on June 06, 2023, 11:17:57 am
Another question, does Iris get more powerful in Pride month?Of course they do!
Post by: Rolan7 on June 11, 2023, 07:39:19 pm
There's obviously anger at her time in the church, and mockery of the whole "Repent, sinner!" shit. (Someone did mention she suffered emotional manipulation then especially). Felt pretty standard really. But as I let it play in the background, it seemed to shift. It sounded so *wistful*. She sang about the comfort of being forgiven, and the certainty of conviction. Sure the forgiveness requires emotionally surrendering yourself, body and soul, but... well. In a slightly different context, I've experienced how good that can be. Building such a powerful bond requires sacrifice and trust.
It ends with someone explaining to a reporter how the blood of Jesus keeps her safe. She sounds happy and confident, polite even. Her phrasing is a bit creepy... well, "being covered in the blood" keeps her safe from the sickness of outsiders... but it almost sounds reasonable. It certainly sounds reassuring. She sounds happy.
I think maybe the point is that she *isn't* happy. This state of being is reliant on her continued surrender, and perhaps the repression through emotional and physical means of her true identity. But there were many times growing up where I tried to discard my fucked-up individuality for just a taste of normalcy and comfort.
It all reminded me of being on a starry lakeside as a troubled young... queer person. At Bible Camp. I hadn't been forced to go, though I'd told my parents I was doing it as a favor to my grandmother. That was a lie. They were splitting up, painstakingly, and my grades were crashing, and I kept dreaming about boys in my class kissing me, but also this imaginary girl who was my soulmate and guide or something.
I wanted it all to stop. I guess I daydreamed about death, but I never came close to trying it. My body and mind were too important to my family, and I didn't want to hurt them. I owed them too much already just for existing. I only wanted to replace my soul.
...wow
The Bible itself was still ridiculous, but that didn't actually matter. It was obviously only tenuously connected to what all these happy Christians had. So for weeks I had attended the youth group, making my grandma happy and even sorta-kinda making friends. I didn't really lie, I just sang songs and stuff and tried to understand them.
They knew, of course. I had hardly lied and it was pretty clear. That was fine, I was very polite for a teen atheist at the time so they were happy to be good Christian role-models and help me along. Culminating in this camp, which culminated in a Christian Rock event, where I stepped forward to be saved and they were all "Yaaay you did it!" and I said all the words and stuff.
just in case that'd help
And then afterwards, came out here to this lakeside to *actually* accept Jesus. If I could. Just me and the dizzying night sky, and the gentle sound of the water. It was deeply spiritual in all the right ways.
...
...
Eventually I tried words again, just in case. I asked him to come into my heart. I listened. I apologized for all the things I actually regretted. ... I apologized for the things I didn't like about myself, for being, broken and wrong, and gross. Not just the guys, or the girl in my head, but all the weird things about my thought process. I was sorry for it. I wanted to be a good son, I had been doing so well up until recently. We all have parts we have to play, we're not supposed to LIKE IT. I could do that! I just needed someone to tell me to... someone who actually mattered. I needed some plan to live for, something to surrender to.
...
...
anyway, that's why I don't believe in that concept of God. Or demons for that matter, because JFC talk about an opening.
Devils and angels, maybe...
But if that God is out there, it rejected me. I don't know why, but I did my best.
Cuz I really, REALLY wanted that comfort. I would have joined a cult to get it, I tried, I had *no* pride left.
anyway it turns out that people can offer comfort, and it's often worth the vulnerability
sometimes they want to be worshiped and let me tell you, it's a lot of fun to worship someone tangible and sympathetic. Someone who values me and also consent. Someone who hears your prayers, someone who cares /j
Post by: Egan_BW on June 11, 2023, 08:45:13 pm
How are any of your sins worth mentioning to the Maker?
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 11, 2023, 08:48:00 pm
After that I basically rejected all sorts of mysticism and became about as much of a skeptic as a religious person can ever be.
Post by: McTraveller on June 11, 2023, 08:54:44 pm
Post by: Frumple on June 11, 2023, 09:27:35 pm
Really, if there's anything I've picked up over the years about religion, it's that being a majority in an area is just pure fucking poison for it. If there's ever an argument for secularism or heavily religiously divided cultures, or just against organized religion in general, it's how organized groups invariably act if they gain any particular amount of secular power, even just by dint of population numbers. It just bloody never goes well, especially for basically any minority group in the area, even ones not specifically targeted by the relevant dogma.
World'd be better off without that kind of concentration of power drugged up on the certainty of religious doctrine. Believe what you want, but let the metaphorical church be rubble.
Post by: Telgin on June 11, 2023, 11:38:20 pm
But if that God is out there, it rejected me. I don't know why, but I did my best.
This describes my experience with Christianity very well too, and is ultimately why I've abandoned it. In my case it wasn't about sexual orientation or anything and was just a matter of having an overly rational and materialistic view of the universe. God hadn't given me any evidence to believe he existed, presumably he knew I'd never accept his existence without it, but he still refused to ever talk to me like all of the old people at church claimed he did to them. So... what was I supposed to do?
Well, I just kept putting on the show so people wouldn't bother me about it, mostly, but I just treated it as a show at that point. I still haven't forgiven the Pentecostal Holiness "church" for essentially turning me into an emotional hostage for my formative years as a kid though. Not sure I ever will totally forgive them for that.
I put "church" in quotes since it's more a movement or philosophy among the Protestant churches in the southeast than a formal group. As a whole they're like "what if we took Christianity and marinated it in pure 'Murica for a hundred years." Which is to say that they believe a central church authority is wrong and they just answer to Jesus. I think there is a central conference for the Pentecostal Holiness church, but I know of at least one Baptist church that claims to also be Pentecostal Holiness so it clearly goes beyond that.
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 12, 2023, 02:22:37 am
Post by: Strongpoint on June 12, 2023, 02:58:31 am
When I decided I didn't want to be an atheist anymore (very personal reasons), nothing I was offered resonated with me in the slightest. Except my particular branch of Protestantism. I turned down Islam, Buddhism, and new-age spirituality after reading up on each of their history. idk got cold feet.
I am curious, how one makes a decision to start believing something?
I can't start believing that 2+2=5 even if my life will depend on it. At best, I can pretend it. It is the same with any form of theism.
I also have another question. Why the God wants a ton of people not believing in him(her, them, it)? Because if he didn't want, atheists wouldn't exist. God can make me a theist in a second by providing evidence that will be enough to change my belief.
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 12, 2023, 04:10:43 am
As for your second question, I don't know. Nor do I really care.
Post by: Strongpoint on June 12, 2023, 04:34:53 am
Well somehow I felt my pure materialistic worldview wasn't right and I was looking for something to provide meaning. Christianity felt right and the other religions didn't feel right. It was an emotional decision.
This doesn't answer the question. It answers "why?" or "for what?". I asked HOW.
How do you make yourself believe something you didn't believe before simply because you think it will be beneficial for you? Not pretend to believe but actually believe.
Post by: TD1 on June 12, 2023, 06:44:03 am
Sorry that you folks experience such a poor cross section of Christianity.Christians are people, and Christianity a thing they perform at certain points of life.
The woman sings in the choir, but brags about her affairs in the pub.
The drunkard cusses passersby, but gets on his knees to pray at his mother's funeral.
The takeaway: it's not a 'poor cross section,' it's a normal sample of the human population.
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 12, 2023, 07:07:46 am
Well I suppose it felt true to me. The others... didn't. I don't know how to explain it other than that.Well somehow I felt my pure materialistic worldview wasn't right and I was looking for something to provide meaning. Christianity felt right and the other religions didn't feel right. It was an emotional decision.
This doesn't answer the question. It answers "why?" or "for what?". I asked HOW.
How do you make yourself believe something you didn't believe before simply because you think it will be beneficial for you? Not pretend to believe but actually believe.
Post by: TD1 on June 12, 2023, 07:27:37 am
So on.
Post by: McTraveller on June 12, 2023, 08:03:26 am
The takeaway: it's not a 'poor cross section,' it's a normal sample of the human population.
I should have clarified to mean poor ideology, not individuals. Of course, I acknowledge that rating of "poor ideology" can easily suffer from white-tower syndrome, because of course the version of Christianity to which I subscribe is the correct one. ;D
I mean the whole discussion on "God rejected me" stems from the most fundamental axioms or core beliefs of a world view. I'd personally say that doesn't align with the overall story of the Bible - sure there are individual stories of rejection, but the overarching theme of the Bible is God being faithful to humanity (first by proxy through Israel, then in general through Christ) despite humanity basically behaving as if they were themselves gods and could just do whatever they want.
I mean so much of the Gospels at least is Jesus challenging the prevailing worldview and specifically showing how God cares for the marginalized and rejects the self-righteous. Jesus teaching also showed how it's not about the religious practices, but about the contrition of the heart. Essentially, knowing that God is God, and you are a human, and that, despite living in a corrupt world where we personally and we collectively as a society have tendencies to destructive and harmful behavior, God in fact doesn't reject us - but at the same time, God gives us the freedom to stay away if we want. We aren't automatons.
We choose to try to emulate Christ not out of obligation, but out of love. We put our own preferences and desires second, not because those things give us salvation, but because we are sure in our salvation already and are free from wondering "am I good enough?"
Being a Christian isn't about "going to heaven when you die1" even though that does appear to occur - the main message of Christ wasn't "you get the kingdom of heaven when you die" it was "the kingdom of heaven is here." It's about having a restored life now, regardless of the physical circumstances. It's "free" in the sense that you can't do anything to earn it - but it isn't "free" in the sense that you have to die to yourself; Mainstream American Christianity especially doesn't seem to be willing to do that - and even other offshoots - people want to do what "makes them happy" even though personal happiness has never really been something we are to strive for as far as I've read the Bible.
My heuristic is: does what I believe put God first? Does it put other people next? Self comes last, if at all. This is very different than "self first" which is often promoted these days. And note that "self last" doesn't mean "self neglect" - it just means, in all you do does it reflect the best of things, or is it just doing what you want?
1This is one of the worst teachings of "American" Christianity - that it's only about your personal relationship with Jesus and kind of an existential insurance policy. It's taking Pascal's Wager at its worst interpretation.
Post by: Strongpoint on June 13, 2023, 06:47:13 pm
Quote
the main message of Christ wasn't "you get the kingdom of heaven when you die" it was "the kingdom of heaven is here."
It is simply untrue, Jesus was a leader of an apocalyptic cult and promised the end of the world "before the last of you will taste death" (Luke 9-27 can't be more clear)
But you are right, he didn't promise "heaven when you die.". He promised that God will come, resurrect everyone and judge both them and the currently living. And bad will go to Gehenna (Not hell or another mystical place as later Christians would twist! A real valley near Jerusalem) and burn while others will live forever in the kingdom of God
Post by: McTraveller on June 14, 2023, 06:50:53 am
At the very least consider that your reference, the Gospel of Luke, is part one of a two part series, the second of which is Acts which centers on the arrival of the Holy Spirit and the events that proceed from that.
The more accepted view, and the one you get if you consider all the Gospels, not just pieces of one, is that the "end" you're talking about is the arrival of the Spirit and the "birth of the church." It literally is God coming and dwelling with(in) us. Also don't forget that Jesus's favorite teaching method is parables; if you're taking anything merely literally you're probably missing something, because that style is not meant to be taken literally.
Post by: Robsoie on June 14, 2023, 07:11:55 am
Also don't forget that Jesus's favorite teaching method is parables; if you're taking anything merely literally you're probably missing something, because that style is not meant to be taken literally.Indeed, there's also the whole temptation in the desert ( in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 ) that is also a warning about taking verses litterally by ignoring their spirit and quoting then them against someone else to fillfull your own agenda.
Post by: hector13 on June 14, 2023, 07:26:51 am
Edit: also a bit of an oddity you can’t take the word of god literally.
Post by: MorleyDev on June 14, 2023, 08:35:58 am
It appeals to my atheist prejudices, plus makes for a way better inspiration for writing stories than the mainstream view xD
Post by: Strongpoint on June 14, 2023, 09:00:05 am
Quote
The more accepted view, and the one you get if you consider all the Gospels, not just pieces of one, is that the "end" you're talking about is the arrival of the Spirit and the "birth of the church." It literally is God coming and dwelling with(in) us.Of course, there are theologian explanations why Jesus's words don't mean what they mean (else it would mean that he lied\was mistaken). And yes this one is common.
If you look at the character of Jesus as he is written in the Gospels, he was preaching the end is near, that people should stop caring about worldly things and prepare themselves for the new kingdom. It is my main problem with the character of Jesus.
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 14, 2023, 09:17:35 am
In the various interpretations and translations in the thousands of years since these books were written, do you think all the translators and teachers held to that?What others think is irrelevant to my beliefs.
Post by: Strongpoint on June 14, 2023, 09:26:14 am
What others think is irrelevant to my beliefs.
Then why do you even participate in this thread?
Post by: Schmaven on June 14, 2023, 04:28:22 pm
If you look at the character of Jesus as he is written in the Gospels, he was preaching the end is near, that people should stop caring about worldly things and prepare themselves for the new kingdom. It is my main problem with the character of Jesus.
It's 100% accurate though if you consider our own personal end, which is likely at most 100 years from now. Fairly soon in the grand scheme of time. Since we will quite soon depart this world, would it be wise to care deeply and primarily about worldly things? Or might our mental energy be better spent on developing our inner qualities instead?
What others think is irrelevant to my beliefs.Then why do you even participate in this thread?
To be fair, the overall feel I get of this thread (possibly the internet in general) is that no one cares about anyone else's beliefs other than to destroy them.
I am curious, how one makes a decision to start believing something?
Everyone has beliefs now that they didn't have as a child. How did they develop? Usually observation of the world around oneself, hypothesizing, testing those hypotheses, and refining them based on the results. Communication with others is also a big factor, as it gives us other perspectives and views to consider.
Russel Brand has an interesting personal story of how he began believing in things. I think it depends on having some imagination and flexibility of mind to consider new ideas, and how they might impact one's quality of life. Based on considering the pros and cons of a particular belief, one can do mental gymnastics to briefly hold that belief, and see how it feels. Then, if it does indeed improve life, it gets easier to hold that belief. Through applying it, and refining it, gradually it feels more natural, and the scaffolding of forced views begins to fall away, as a more complete and functional belief develops in its place. Initial new beliefs are almost always wrong in various ways, but serve as stepping stones to more accurate views that can only be arrived at through experience with applying that belief.
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 14, 2023, 08:14:47 pm
Because I want people to understand my worldview. I know anything I say most likely won't make any of the militant atheists here ease up either (and you know it too).What others think is irrelevant to my beliefs.
Then why do you even participate in this thread?
Post by: McTraveller on June 14, 2023, 08:44:21 pm
For example, there's a difference between saying "that's true/false and if you think otherwise you're a fool" and "based on this evidence or line of thought, this makes sense to me."
The former is divisive, the latter is illuminating.
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 14, 2023, 09:31:58 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on June 14, 2023, 10:27:40 pm
oh gods I sound like a TERF
abort! abort!
Let's all continue to tolerate each other :)
Post by: Strongpoint on June 15, 2023, 12:40:00 am
Quote
Everyone has beliefs now that they didn't have as a child. How did they develop? Usually observation of the world around oneself, hypothesizing, testing those hypotheses, and refining them based on the results. Communication with others is also a big factor, as it gives us other perspectives and views to consider.
I know, but it is not what MaxTheFox described. "When I decided I didn't want to be an atheist anymore (very personal reasons)" Max said. It is a very different thing. She made a decision to change her beliefs and did so. I fail to understand how it works.
If you would ask a theist me, a person that existed not so long ago, why I believe my answer would be - "I personally feel divine presence during prayer. I know God (later, in my transitioning phase, - an egregor) is there and it is your problem that you are spiritually blind."
And I didn't choose to stop believing. I just got more and more evidence that that feeling was nothing but a creation of my own mind and has no supernatural causes. Not only I didn't choose it, I resisted.
Post by: McTraveller on June 15, 2023, 07:56:42 am
Is this a unique... heh... belief?
Post by: TD1 on June 15, 2023, 08:02:37 am
The only reason for belief to exist is sentiment - hope, fear, loneliness.
Answering these sentiments, people (and probably some animals) call on something beyond and distant from themselves. It is meant to be non-empirical yet present.
But in reality, the face and character of the divine is never fixed. Never even slightly empirical. Always founded in sentiment.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 15, 2023, 09:26:52 am
Raises an interesting question: How you "feel" about something, shouldn't really influence what you believe, though, should it? There are many things I believe but I don't like. Faith is deeper than sentiment, isn't it?Sounds Calvinist I think. "Life isn't fair. Most people are predestined to go to Hell. The best we can do is accept that reality"
Is this a unique... heh... belief?
It's a nightmare, but I've always had an odd respect for it. I've often expressed my suspicion of religion that seems to "update" itself based on modern cultural morals. That's one thing if a religion was founded from the start with a principle of discovering and adapting to hidden truths... But most mainstream religions seem to promise certainty and an unchanging foundation, then change anyway to survive.
That's a tricky subject because I *want* religions to adapt to progressive values so people don't have to be bigots. That's a good thing. It just doesn't inspire confidence in the religion's timelessness. Yet even some variants of Christianity do seem to value adaptation and discovery, so I can get behind them. (Oh right I need to check out the Universalists nearby, I bet they're running events this month!!)
I'd also like to clarify something from my monologue: Christianity wasn't the reason I felt broken and wrong. At least, I didn't think so at the time- Nowadays I blame homophobia on patriarchy, which I blame on the dominance of Abrahamic religion, etc etc whatever. I was aware of homophobic preachers, especially in politics, but that wasn't the kind of church I was trying to join. Nobody in that group was judging me for being girly or badmouthing gays around me.
No, that internalized homophobia came from secular public school... blame where it's due.
And what I wanted from church, from a personal relationship with Jesus, was to have something to live for. I didn't like myself, and I couldn't live for a family that was falling apart, so "Okay I'll dedicate myself to a higher power". Maybe that would involve continuing to repress myself like I had been, and that was okay. Maybe it wouldn't require that! I was ready to find out.
When my prayer "was rejected", yeah, I kinda felt like maybe I was too trash. Or just too different. This worked for so many people, especially desperate ones. Even if it was just a social phenomenon, why wasn't it working for me?? I *thought* differently from other people and I was so tired of working around that, trying to act normal (masking). It certainly wasn't a point of pride. It was exhausting, and it was keeping me from this almost universal source of comfort and community.
...
I'm glad nobody suggested that being rejected was part of God's greater plan for me. I know it's possible, and I don't mind you thinking it, but it would have hurt to hear you say it. I still try to contextualize my life in that way sometimes, just to check. I don't see it yet. I feel like my lack of faith led me to some unhealthy behaviors, and I can't even say "at least I survived" because I don't feel like all of me did. But I am glad I'm alive, and finally being myself, now.
Post by: Strongpoint on June 15, 2023, 11:07:01 am
Raises an interesting question: How you "feel" about something, shouldn't really influence what you believe, though, should it? There are many things I believe but I don't like. Faith is deeper than sentiment, isn't it?
Is this a unique... heh... belief?
It shouldn't but it does. I don't like the that I am mortal. I don't like that people who I love are also mortal. This is why it was extremely hard for me to accept that there is not enough evidence to believe in some kind of soul or afterlife. It isn't even likely. At best, it is possible (and then it likely has nothing in common with man-made mythology)
Post by: Egan_BW on June 15, 2023, 06:55:45 pm
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 15, 2023, 10:20:00 pm
I don't get it. Death is one of the most comforting things there is. Would you really rather be the playtoy of something greater than you, a thinking force you can never really understand, which doesn't let you die?The concept of experiences ending forever is too horrifying for me. So yes I would, not letting me die is a favor. I value the continuation of experiences over some hypothetical freedom for myself to die.
Considering my faith is not absolute and I am not 100% sure I will definitely take any life-extension treatments I can afford when they become available. I want to delay finding out for as long as possible.
Post by: Strongpoint on June 15, 2023, 11:29:27 pm
I don't get it. Death is one of the most comforting things there is. Would you really rather be the playtoy of something greater than you, a thinking force you can never really understand, which doesn't let you die?
I understand that there are many atheists who are quite comfortable with mortality and I envy them. I am not one of those. I do want to continue existing. What is more important, I don't want to lose my loved ones forever...
But yeah, ceasing to exist is very much preferable to eternal slavery to the evil tyrant described in the Bible. Especially if I'll know that billions of people are suffering in hell (not that I, a blasphemer, have a chance to avoid hell :D)
Post by: Egan_BW on June 15, 2023, 11:33:38 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on June 16, 2023, 12:09:44 am
Yeah, but it's unlikely that human beliefs have anything to do with the real afterlife, if there is one. So it's not like anyone is getting out of hell.
IMO, the Afterlife is possible only if some higher intelligence (God, gods or aliens or whatever) is interested in that and does something like copying the contents of the brain to a "cloud storage". Not that there is a single piece of evidence pointing at this.
Post by: jipehog on June 16, 2023, 12:30:27 am
I understand that there are many atheists who are quite comfortable with mortality and I envy them.
People say many things that may or may not be true, but as the saying goes 'there are no atheists in foxholes'..
Humans are adaptable and we have many coping mechanism, of which religious beliefs are just one of.
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 16, 2023, 02:08:44 am
Yeah, but it's unlikely that human beliefs have anything to do with the real afterlife, if there is one. So it's not like anyone is getting out of hell.I lose nothing from sticking to one faith really. "What if you're wrong" is like... well no shit. Then I am wrong. I am taking the chances with what feels right to me.
Post by: Grim Portent on June 16, 2023, 09:58:00 am
I understand that there are many atheists who are quite comfortable with mortality and I envy them. I am not one of those. I do want to continue existing. What is more important, I don't want to lose my loved ones forever...
But yeah, ceasing to exist is very much preferable to eternal slavery to the evil tyrant described in the Bible. Especially if I'll know that billions of people are suffering in hell (not that I, a blasphemer, have a chance to avoid hell :D)
To me non-existence sounds rather peaceful. The complete cessation of all sensation and myself. There's a lot I'd like to experience in my life, but it's not like I'm going to regret what I missed out on when I'm dead, and the end of my internal monologue* sounds pretty good tbh, even if I won't be around to enjoy the peace and quiet. No anxiety, no depression, no anger, no sadness, no hunger or pain. Just nothing, not even a me to experience the nothing.
*I have one of those internal monologues that never stops. I find it hard to imagine anything else, but I am told that's not the case for everyone.
Post by: McTraveller on June 16, 2023, 10:05:00 am
The most oft overlooked evidence for afterlife & spirituality is - the fact that we have such concepts in the first place. These are not concepts which can arise from merely looking at nature, so where do they come from? The two options are there is indeed some kind of supernatural influence that prompted that idea or it really is the figment of imagination. Primitive humans weren't dumb - why would you think that the only way to form lightning or make fire or a volcano is some kind of supernatural being, when clearly (supposedly?) nobody even in that time period ever saw such a being. Unless maybe I don't know enough about primitive psychology and that is a thing. I mean at least in Abrahamic religions there are claims that there were "supernatural beings" (e.g., nephilim, giants, etc.) that wandered around and people saw - so this at least gives the idea of there was something that people saw that wasn't just "theoretical sky beings, take my word for it!".
I'd be interested in an experiment to see if you could somehow create a society in a truly isolated environment and see if and, if so, what kind of religion develops.
Post by: jipehog on June 16, 2023, 10:06:27 am
To me non-existence sounds rather peaceful.
There are worse thing than death, like fear of pain and dying.
Post by: Strongpoint on June 16, 2023, 12:19:32 pm
As I understand it, hell isn't a "place" so much as a "condition": existence without God's involvement, to be precise.
If an omnibenevolent God created a system in which existing without his involvement is an eternal torture, then I question his omnibenevolence. Especially if the best way to get that eternal torture is merely not believing something.
Quote
The most oft overlooked evidence for afterlife & spirituality is - the fact that we have such concepts in the first place. These are not concepts which can arise from merely looking at nature, so where do they come from?
There are some evidence the concept of soul comes out of observing and misunderstand breathing and air. And the fear of death is a very powerful uncomfortable instinct, why can't mind invent something to lessen the discomfort of such fear and\or pain of losing relatives? Spirituality began with burials and burials began because human's emotional attachments didn't let them see their loved ones rotting (it was also evolutionary favored, tribes that did bury their dead would suffer less related illnesses)
Quote
The two options are there is indeed some kind of supernatural influence that prompted that idea or it really is the figment of imagination. Primitive humans weren't dumb - why would you think that the only way to form lightning or make fire or a volcano is some kind of supernatural being, when clearly (supposedly?) nobody even in that time period ever saw such a being.It is logical to assume that if something happens it happens because of someone's actions. It is what we observe since early childhood. So I see nothing dumb here. I also see nothing dumb in thinking that animals and plants should have been made by something. When you have no idea of biological evolution, a mighty being making those extremely complex things IS a logical explanation.
As for "no one has seen those beings"... hallucinations existed. Including ones caused by drugs. Also people are liars, people who invented the first stories didn't necessarily believe them.
Also, stories mutate and get exaggerated. What started as a tale about a real mighty bear could,e something to share at the fire, could be exaggerated into a bright myth. Or extremely important explanations of observant ancient astronomers could be misunderstood by less intelligent members of the tribe and lead to the worship of the sun.
Also, there is a nasty ability of our mind to see patterns when there are none. I did X and there was much-needed rain and it happened a few times, therefore it is my X actions that caused it. It is how the first rituals were born.
And so on. There are many plausible explanations.
Post by: McTraveller on June 16, 2023, 01:41:58 pm
But I don't buy the "people only observe actions happening when caused by an (intelligent) entity causing them" theory, because there are many, many observable things that are "uncaused." I think it's irrational extrapolation to assume that theory.
Also if you have children - you know that children don't naturally assume this either. There's a developmental phase related to object permanence which establishes this cause and effect thing. Being a parent gives some interesting insights into the world.
Post by: Grim Portent on June 16, 2023, 02:13:39 pm
See various water spirits for example. Most are clear analogies for actual threats found in or around water, presumably to keep children away or prevent people from drinking stagnant water. Some, especially of the horse variety such as the Kelpie, presumably grew out of specific incidents of people dying in accidents. Are there really horses that drown people by ensnaring them in their skin and hair and then galloping into lakes? Of course not, but after a person drowns because their horse slipped or bolted and fell into a lake and they got tangled in the riding equipment it's not a far stretch that the incident gets blown up from there until a few generations later someone is saying the horse was an evil fairy spirit.
Same thing with dragons and treasure, they probably grew out of incidents of snakes hiding in holes in trees or riverbanks and humans stashing things in those places to hide them from raiders (or their families). Go back to get your stuff and disturb a snake in the bargain, even if it doesn't bite you over time the story gets more and more exaggerated until the snake is massive and has fangs dripping with venom, at which point it's exactly how dragons were depicted in some mythology.
Or selkies, which were probably an excuse for why women would sometimes leave their husbands or be murdered and never found. Or changelings, which were an explanation for birth defects and mental health problems in children. Kid's a congenital sociopath? Clearly he's a soulless changeling and the real kid was stolen by fairies.
There's also animism to take into account, the belief that everything has a spirit. Trees, rivers, big rocks. Sometimes this seems to be relevant to fables for warning kids not to be stupid. A story about the river god being easily angered and temperamental is just a way to tell kids to stay away from the water during flood seasons or heavy rain.
Some gods might be from exaggerations of tales about kings and doctors and soldiers. Humans have been able to communicate since long before we used tools, so it's entirely plausible that some of our cultures and beliefs are influenced by tales that have been passed down through a game of telephone for longer than we've been humans as we would recognise them.
Post by: Frumple on June 16, 2023, 02:22:26 pm
If an omnibenevolent God created a system in which existing without his involvement is an eternal torture, then I question his omnibenevolence. Especially if the best way to get that eternal torture is merely not believing something.The omnibenevolence is a lie invented by believers (or, probably more specifically, proselytizers) in direct contravention to stated (and, assuming it exists in any sense even remotely similar in capability to what's attributed to it, observed) behavior, yes. This is true especially for the various abrahamic/monotheistic gods, but more generally as well. Existent reality just does not cohere to a tri-omni god in particular, nor a benevolent one less specifically unless it's remarkably powerless or ignorant.
Staggeringly little about the state of reality or attributed behavior in various religious traditions makes a single goddamn lick of sense if the divine was actually omnibenevolent, and it stretches things real hard just to be benevolent at all. The only way theologians have been able to even a little square that circle is by pissing all over the meaning of the word benevolent(/good)... which can be fun to watch if you're in the right mindset, but in most cases is just varying levels of infuriating. Religious language is interesting right up until it tells you god was being benevolent, actually, when it had your child die screaming in a fire, bleh.
Things make more sense if you acknowledge the divine are exactly as spiteful, petty, and murderous as they're described. It's a miserable sort of sense if you think they actually exist, mind, because it means everything is a spate of suffering wound up and manipulated by a omnipotent egotistical hatebeast that could at any time just slaughter pretty much your entire species on a whim, and is probably taking time to figure out how to torture (sorry, "test") you for its amusement, but it's at least coherent.
If there's a wise statement I've seen come out of religious belief, it's that if you meet God on the road, you should cut the miserable thing down.
Post by: jipehog on June 16, 2023, 02:37:01 pm
The most oft overlooked evidence for afterlife & spirituality is - the fact that we have such concepts in the first place. These are not concepts which can arise from merely looking at nature, so where do they come from?
Functionalism? How did we came up with Mathematics, social concepts etc ?
Otherwise, many beliefs fulfill psychological needs, help us make sense of uncertain or chaotic events, and feel in control.
The two options are there is indeed some kind of supernatural influence that prompted that idea or it really is the figment of imagination. Primitive humans weren't dumb - why would you think that the only way to form lightning or make fire or a volcano is some kind of supernatural being, when clearly (supposedly?) nobody even in that time period ever saw such a being.
Inability to say I don't know, belief without concrete evidence, interpretation of hidden or mysterious forces is that the supernatural or a conspiracy theory?
We maybe smarter but we still often see what we want to see. We sill tell stories about right/wrong with forces of evil/good and notions of hell/heaven just using different terms
Post by: Strongpoint on June 16, 2023, 10:52:24 pm
Sure, ok, I'll give you the drug or other situation induced hallucination theory.
But I don't buy the "people only observe actions happening when caused by an (intelligent) entity causing them" theory, because there are many, many observable things that are "uncaused." I think it's irrational extrapolation to assume that theory.
Also if you have children - you know that children don't naturally assume this either. There's a developmental phase related to object permanence which establishes this cause and effect thing. Being a parent gives some interesting insights into the world.
And when that phase passes you get (at least from some children) a phase of myriads of "why?" and "how?". People are curious creatures and "I don't know" answer makes us uncomfortable. I suspect it is evolutionary because if your answer to "Is there a predator in the bushes?" is "I don't know" and you are satisfied with it then you won't live long.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 16, 2023, 10:59:19 pm
Ah yes: The evolutionary advantages of paranoid schizophrenia. I'll just hallucinate all the things all the time, then I'll always be on my guard!
False positives are bad too actually
Post by: lemon10 on June 16, 2023, 11:16:43 pm
But I don't buy the "people only observe actions happening when caused by an (intelligent) entity causing them" theory, because there are many, many observable things that are "uncaused." I think it's irrational extrapolation to assume that theory.Really? Can you name one thing that you know for sure is uncaused?
lmao what?Humans are pattern seeking machines, because the humans that successfully find patterns (such as animal migration patterns, where food/water usually is, or the fact that that dude in the cave down the river really hates you) live and those that don't die.
Ah yes: The evolutionary advantages of paranoid schizophrenia. I'll just hallucinate all the things all the time, then I'll always be on my guard!
False positives are bad too actually
Quote from: Wikipedia
Apophenia has also come to describe a human propensity to unreasonably seek definite patterns in random information, such as can occur in gambling.This of course gives false positives, but evolution has clearly decided that people being paranoid or seeing patterns that aren't there sometimes is very much worth it.
People are curious creatures and "I don't know" answer makes us uncomfortable.Agreed. A very firm answer is more often more convincing then someone just saying they have no clue even if there is no actual proof.
Post by: Strongpoint on June 16, 2023, 11:38:19 pm
lmao what?
Ah yes: The evolutionary advantages of paranoid schizophrenia. I'll just hallucinate all the things all the time, then I'll always be on my guard!
False positives are bad too actually
Evolution can favor "bad" over life-ending
Situation 1: You have 10 possible encounters with a predator, you ran 10 times out of 10. Predator was there only once. You did waste some energy on running away but you are alive and procreate later
Situation 2: You have 10 possible encounters with a predator, you ignored it 10 times out of 10. 1 time there was a predator. You are eaten. You don't procreate
Being paranoid is evolutionarily favored. Not to the point when you waste too much energy or hurt yourself but it is favored. We can see it in prey animals. Deers or rabbits won't check if a suspicious sound or shadow is indeed a predator, they'll flee.
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 16, 2023, 11:42:13 pm
idk this sounds terrifying to me. I am just scared of things ending.I understand that there are many atheists who are quite comfortable with mortality and I envy them. I am not one of those. I do want to continue existing. What is more important, I don't want to lose my loved ones forever...
But yeah, ceasing to exist is very much preferable to eternal slavery to the evil tyrant described in the Bible. Especially if I'll know that billions of people are suffering in hell (not that I, a blasphemer, have a chance to avoid hell :D)
To me non-existence sounds rather peaceful. The complete cessation of all sensation and myself. There's a lot I'd like to experience in my life, but it's not like I'm going to regret what I missed out on when I'm dead, and the end of my internal monologue* sounds pretty good tbh, even if I won't be around to enjoy the peace and quiet. No anxiety, no depression, no anger, no sadness, no hunger or pain. Just nothing, not even a me to experience the nothing.
*I have one of those internal monologues that never stops. I find it hard to imagine anything else, but I am told that's not the case for everyone.
Cope. Seethe. Mald. Dilate.If an omnibenevolent God created a system in which existing without his involvement is an eternal torture, then I question his omnibenevolence. Especially if the best way to get that eternal torture is merely not believing something.The omnibenevolence is a lie invented by believers (or, probably more specifically, proselytizers) in direct contravention to stated (and, assuming it exists in any sense even remotely similar in capability to what's attributed to it, observed) behavior, yes. This is true especially for the various abrahamic/monotheistic gods, but more generally as well. Existent reality just does not cohere to a tri-omni god in particular, nor a benevolent one less specifically unless it's remarkably powerless or ignorant.
Staggeringly little about the state of reality or attributed behavior in various religious traditions makes a single goddamn lick of sense if the divine was actually omnibenevolent, and it stretches things real hard just to be benevolent at all. The only way theologians have been able to even a little square that circle is by pissing all over the meaning of the word benevolent(/good)... which can be fun to watch if you're in the right mindset, but in most cases is just varying levels of infuriating. Religious language is interesting right up until it tells you god was being benevolent, actually, when it had your child die screaming in a fire, bleh.
Things make more sense if you acknowledge the divine are exactly as spiteful, petty, and murderous as they're described. It's a miserable sort of sense if you think they actually exist, mind, because it means everything is a spate of suffering wound up and manipulated by a omnipotent egotistical hatebeast that could at any time just slaughter pretty much your entire species on a whim, and is probably taking time to figure out how to torture (sorry, "test") you for its amusement, but it's at least coherent.
If there's a wise statement I've seen come out of religious belief, it's that if you meet God on the road, you should cut the miserable thing down.
On a serious note, @McTraveller I think it's a fool's errand to try and provide any kind of real evidence for spiritual beliefs. That way lies crackpottery of all kinds. Science and religion should be kept as separate as possible or you get things like YECs. Or bullshit new-age con artists.
Post by: jipehog on June 17, 2023, 12:24:25 am
But I don't buy the "people only observe actions happening when caused by an (intelligent) entity causing them" theory, because there are many, many observable things that are "uncaused." I think it's irrational extrapolation to assume that theory.Really? Can you name one thing that you know for sure is uncaused?
Since it is a matter of perception, illusions can trick us to observe something that is 'uncaused' (if I understand your meaning). Otherwise we also tend to confuse correlation with causation.
This of course gives false positives, but evolution has clearly decided that people being paranoid or seeing patterns that aren't there sometimes is very much worth it.
Yes such behaviors was advantageous, though I am not sure if it is still so in the modern age. Given the time scale on which evolution works, the pace of development we see today and our social support, I doubt evolution can be called upon for answers.
Post by: Strongpoint on June 17, 2023, 02:40:46 am
Quote
Science and religion should be kept as separate as possible
Science is merely a method to understand how things work. Separating it from something is willful ignorance.
Post by: lemon10 on June 17, 2023, 03:18:52 am
To explain what I meant a bit more my post related to the watchmaker argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy) and how its impossible to prove that god does not exist even for a modern human.But I don't buy the "people only observe actions happening when caused by an (intelligent) entity causing them" theory, because there are many, many observable things that are "uncaused." I think it's irrational extrapolation to assume that theory.Really? Can you name one thing that you know for sure is uncaused?
Since it is a matter of perception, illusions can trick us to observe something that is 'uncaused' (if I understand your meaning). Otherwise we also tend to confuse correlation with causation.
Since many people both believe and believed in the distant past that the cosmos came from the actions/death/children of some primordial diety, to them all things would be inherently caused by that primordial god.
So if you were to say something as simple as "that rock is uncaused" such a statement lacks proof (and directly contradicts the worldview of the vast majority of humans to ever live).
Yes such behaviors was advantageous, though I am not sure if it is still so in the modern age. Given the time scale on which evolution works, the pace of development we see today and our social support, I doubt evolution can be called upon for answers.Unlike some other evolved behaviors (such as wanting to eat super high-sugar foods) even in the modern age pattern-seeking is super advantageous, not just in one aspect of life, but in nearly all of them since its a fundamental aspect of learning.
And not just education learning, its part of learning/practicing social skills (eg. noticing that every time you come home late from the bar your wife is angry at you), learning on your own how to do jobs and what the right tool is, playing games, reading/watching movies, ect.
Its impossible to say if its overtuned or not for the modern age, but with the increased focus on education in the modern age I suspect it may be even more important now then it ever was.
Post by: jipehog on June 17, 2023, 05:55:04 am
Post by: dragdeler on June 17, 2023, 06:45:41 am
Nice challenge, a thing that is uncaused is ignorance I say. It exists for a lack of cause to dissolve it's existence. Another one is math axioms they can be true and provable, without anybody ever having spared a thought to them. Oh you want a "thing"? The zone outside of where our universe has expanded to, nothing has reached it to cause anything yet.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on June 17, 2023, 01:55:10 pm
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 17, 2023, 08:39:02 pm
Yes because legitimizing people's bias caused by religion is how you get good science. That's how it works!QuoteScience and religion should be kept as separate as possible
Science is merely a method to understand how things work. Separating it from something is willful ignorance.
Post by: lemon10 on June 17, 2023, 09:23:45 pm
Nice challenge, a thing that is uncaused is ignorance I say.There is a direct cause for ignorance actually. And at the same time that cause and your ignorance of said cause share the same root, and that's YO MOMMA for giving birth to you (although obviously for other people its their momma, not yours).
Another one is math axioms they can be true and provable
Quote from: La Wikipedia
An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'No, axioms cannot be proven.
And since axioms are "merely" assumptions they are created when people assume them to be true.
Now, those axioms do describe universal truths, but any competent philosopher should know that these truths were of course created by Chaos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony))at the beginning of time.
Basic logic might indeed be multiversal, but that's obviously unprovable either way.
Oh you want a "thing"? The zone outside of where our universe has expanded to, nothing has reached it to cause anything yet.Au contraire, the only reason you are able to define it as outside our universe is because the universe was created in the first place.
---
But all these things kinda prove my point, as even if you count them ancient people are not going to be big on formal math proofs, and are obviously not going to be observing the space outside the universe either.
Post by: EuchreJack on June 17, 2023, 09:36:09 pm
railgun badrailgun good
Post by: Eschar on June 18, 2023, 12:12:07 am
Post by: Strongpoint on June 18, 2023, 12:20:15 am
Yes because legitimizing people's bias caused by religion is how you get good science. That's how it works!QuoteScience and religion should be kept as separate as possible
Science is merely a method to understand how things work. Separating it from something is willful ignorance.
This is why a honest scientist should apply science to their religion, see that it isn't supported by evidence, and stop being religious. Instead, religious scientists do separate science from their religion.
Post by: jipehog on June 18, 2023, 12:35:43 am
Post by: Strongpoint on June 18, 2023, 01:12:17 am
Scientist should apply the scientific method to everything. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who let their agendas, political philosophy and faith in their right of way get ahead of the facts. And I believe that the overwhelming majority of scientist aren't observant religious.
More often political agendas, philosophies or faiths of others prevent scientists from doing their job the way they want.
There is no problem if some biased "geologist" will publish a paper claiming that Earth is 6K years old because he will be demolished by peer reviews*. The problem starts when such peer reviews become attacked by religious crowds.
*or by random YouTubers with proper middle school education
And yes, this problem goes beyond religions
Post by: jipehog on June 18, 2023, 03:02:59 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 18, 2023, 06:24:21 am
My interpretation of my religion doesn't really contradict science and the field I am going into (material science) doesn't really have a shot at disproving anything (if it even was possible to disprove it). LolYes because legitimizing people's bias caused by religion is how you get good science. That's how it works!QuoteScience and religion should be kept as separate as possible
Science is merely a method to understand how things work. Separating it from something is willful ignorance.
This is why a honest scientist should apply science to their religion, see that it isn't supported by evidence, and stop being religious. Instead, religious scientists do separate science from their religion.
A world where everyone only held "rational" beliefs would be a quite boring world, honestly. I'm happy to be fighting the fight to make sure that world doesn't come to pass.
Post by: hector13 on June 18, 2023, 06:46:12 am
Post by: Strongpoint on June 18, 2023, 06:57:37 am
A world where everyone only held "rational" beliefs would be a quite boring world, honestly. I'm happy to be fighting the fight to make sure that world doesn't come to pass.
Yes, imagine how boring the world would be if not for the people who believe that homosexual people are abominations in the eyes of God and should be killed on the spot.
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 18, 2023, 07:35:31 am
And now you see why I don't trust snobby atheists. Why should I take your arguments to heart, or think you're doing this in good faith (no pun intended) if you're willing to blatantly misrepresent me?
Post by: Strongpoint on June 18, 2023, 10:12:13 am
Quote
Yes, the fundies should be wiped out. But if someone tried to wipe out moderate religion with them, well I'd fight against that, gun in hand.Those are inseparable. You can't have an ideology and don't have people that go deep into it. Furthermore, the best way to judge an ideology is to look at paragons. If religions would be a good thing, fanatics of it would be wonderful people.
And now you see why I don't trust snobby atheists. Why should I take your arguments to heart, or think you're doing this in good faith (no pun intended) if you're willing to blatantly misrepresent me?
It is not a strawman, it is pointing out that irrational beliefs are a source of a lot of shit that doesn't justify - it would be boring otherwise. Also, I see nothing boring in marvelous, complex, infinite reality. There is no need to mix it with falsehoods.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 18, 2023, 11:13:09 am
I *worry* that this is the case, but is it?? I see a religious person and I think "What if they decide to hate me [like those other tenuously-related religious people]? Maybe I can learn their scripture and make an argument based on that [bigots are basically never actually scriptural, their bigotry is axiomatic and supersedes their scripture]".QuoteYes, the fundies should be wiped out. But if someone tried to wipe out moderate religion with them, well I'd fight against that, gun in hand.Those are inseparable. You can't have an ideology and don't have people that go deep into it. Furthermore, the best way to judge an ideology is to look at paragons. If religions would be a good thing, fanatics of it would be wonderful people.
That's a fear/trauma response, not a rational criticism of all faith or spiritual thinking.
I do worry that any sort of organized religion will inevitably lead to bigoted dogma, but that seems to happen with secular groups as well. Might just be a xenophobic impulse (balanced against a strong compassionate impulse, with the phobia gaining ground in times of strife).
I stopped trusting snobby atheists when a good portion went on to carry on religious-style bigotry but in an "enlightened", "rational", nationalist/race-realist/misogynist way.And now you see why I don't trust snobby atheists. Why should I take your arguments to heart, or think you're doing this in good faith (no pun intended) if you're willing to blatantly misrepresent me?
It is not a strawman, it is pointing out that irrational beliefs are a source of a lot of shit that doesn't justify - it would be boring otherwise. Also, I see nothing boring in marvelous, complex, infinite reality. There is no need to mix it with falsehoods.
I do align with secular humanists who don't tolerate that nonsense. They're quite tolerant of my nebulous and evolving spirituality as well, which seems like a good sign.
Edit:
Furthermore, the best way to judge an ideology is to look at paragons. If religions would be a good thing, fanatics of it would be wonderful people.Forgot to properly reply to this part (due to my trauma-response). This is ridiculous. Moderation, or temperance, is a good thing for every ideology. It's generally healthier for a person to be well-rounded. The vast majority of religious people seem to understand that just like most areligious people.
Post by: jipehog on June 18, 2023, 11:35:05 am
Yes, the fundies should be wiped out.I think that large portion of people you meet online with extreme views are often young people who are still figuring out stuff and insecure in their beliefs, but they usually grow out of it.
I do not like people only cast stone at others and think that their shit don't stink.
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 18, 2023, 12:05:19 pm
1. Rolan said what I wanted to say here but I think any ideology or belief system, taken too far, results in insanity. Even liberalism and socialism in their pure forms are, at best, inefficient. The real cause of bigotry is simply a fear of people who are not like you and it is a primal feeling. I admit religion can be a catalyst in it but generally bigots are good at finding excuses for their bigotry. And, well, I consider myself something of a paragon of my faith, after all I read the Bible unlike most Christians and I spend my time defending it on some half-dead internet forum. And yet I am far from a bigot.QuoteYes, the fundies should be wiped out. But if someone tried to wipe out moderate religion with them, well I'd fight against that, gun in hand.Those are inseparable. You can't have an ideology and don't have people that go deep into it. Furthermore, the best way to judge an ideology is to look at paragons. If religions would be a good thing, fanatics of it would be wonderful people.And now you see why I don't trust snobby atheists. Why should I take your arguments to heart, or think you're doing this in good faith (no pun intended) if you're willing to blatantly misrepresent me?
It is not a strawman, it is pointing out that irrational beliefs are a source of a lot of shit that doesn't justify - it would be boring otherwise. Also, I see nothing boring in marvelous, complex, infinite reality. There is no need to mix it with falsehoods.
2. Something about purely physical reality is too terrifying for me. And besides I was talking about what a culture in a hypothetical society of human-Vulcans would be like. :p (though tbh Vulcans are kind of hypocrites even in TOS)
Wiped out, meaning their bigoted interpretation being wiped out. I don't propose, I don't know, putting them against the wall. I'm not like that anymore.Yes, the fundies should be wiped out.I think that large portion of people you meet online with extreme views are often young people who are still figuring out stuff and insecure in their beliefs, but they usually grow out of it.
I do not like people only cast stone at others and think that their shit don't stink.
Post by: Frumple on June 18, 2023, 12:56:09 pm
I think that large portion of people you meet online with extreme views are often young people who are still figuring out stuff and insecure in their beliefs, but they usually grow out of it.I can guarantee you a great deal of the folks being referenced are neither young nor particularly online. Fundamentalist christianity in particular is bleeding youth demographics like a stuck pig, and continuing to radicalize rather than moderate as its average age grows older.
Some portion of the online nuts are young and will grow out of it, but I wouldn't be comfortable calling that portion "large".
So far as personal experience offline goes, it's been a lot less common for extreme beliefs when relatively young to moderate as the person ages. Generally it's the exact opposite, beliefs further radicalizing as accumulated wealth and social connections/political influence brought on by age insulates them from meaningful pushback or consequence.
Post by: Strongpoint on June 18, 2023, 02:15:10 pm
Quote
1. Rolan said what I wanted to say here but I think any ideology or belief system, taken too far, results in insanity. Even liberalism and socialism in their pure forms are, at best, inefficient.
Don't mix an extreme form of an ideology (subvariant of the said ideology) with devotion to it. An extreme version of whatever ism is bad not because some people extremely follow it, it is bad because it is itself extreme and millions of moderate followers of such version are also dangerous.
Post by: jipehog on June 18, 2023, 04:58:17 pm
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 18, 2023, 10:28:57 pm
Well I just disagree with your assessment then. I consider fundamentalism to be kind of... a separate thing that can be made unacceptable separately from moderate faith. I try and dissociate from them.Quote1. Rolan said what I wanted to say here but I think any ideology or belief system, taken too far, results in insanity. Even liberalism and socialism in their pure forms are, at best, inefficient.
Don't mix an extreme form of an ideology (subvariant of the said ideology) with devotion to it. An extreme version of whatever ism is bad not because some people extremely follow it, it is bad because it is itself extreme and millions of moderate followers of such version are also dangerous.
Post by: Strongpoint on June 19, 2023, 02:29:00 am
Well I just disagree with your assessment then. I consider fundamentalism to be kind of... a separate thing that can be made unacceptable separately from moderate faith. I try and dissociate from them.Quote1. Rolan said what I wanted to say here but I think any ideology or belief system, taken too far, results in insanity. Even liberalism and socialism in their pure forms are, at best, inefficient.
Don't mix an extreme form of an ideology (subvariant of the said ideology) with devotion to it. An extreme version of whatever ism is bad not because some people extremely follow it, it is bad because it is itself extreme and millions of moderate followers of such version are also dangerous.
And I think that Christianity is not separable from homophobia and not even because of some lines in Leviticus or Romans.
One of the core ideas of Christianity is sin, deviation from God's perfect plan. And his plan on how and when people should have sex is quite clear in the Christian doctrine:
Two halves, a Man and a Woman come together and unite in one thing to produce babies. There is simply no place for recreational sex, premarital sex, divorce, and a same-sex union. Luckily, Most Christians are just not devout enough to follow this doctrine but for very devout ones anything that deviates from this is a sin by definition, and sin is a bad thing and people who willingly sin are bad people.
Post by: MaxTheFox on June 19, 2023, 02:34:42 am
Post by: McTraveller on June 19, 2023, 08:38:34 am
Sin isn't "you're a bad person" sin is "you're missing the mark." Now, in common parlance sin is associated with "you're a bad person" but that's not the fault of doctrine, that's the fault of people (if you ask me: being lazy at best or malicious at worst with the meaning of the word) - again, because people miss the mark. The interesting thing is that traditionally you don't punish people for missing the mark - you train them to get better at hitting the mark.
Things like slavery, oppression, bigotry, deviant behavior (sexual or otherwise) are all missing the mark.
Some things are clearly bad in that they obviously harm other people, like brutality, meanness, withholding food, and the like.
Other things don't appear to be harmful but they are still missing the mark. Those things aren't about harm so much as they are a corruption of the intent: there is something better. I'd say most sexual sins are in this arena - sexual expression is arguably better if in the context of a mutually respectful, typically1 procreative relationship.
I fully agree though that many modern Western "Christians" completely forget the Bible opens with the statement that we live in a fallen world - even the world itself makes life "hard" with weeds and death and striving - even striving "between man and woman." And a big part of the original sin is acting like we are gods, deciding we know what's best; basically, pride. But everything is an imperfect reflection of its intent.dis
Many modern Western "Christians" also fall into the same trap as the Pharisees - incorrectly associating righteousness with behaving in a certain way and claiming to know what's best.
My take on sexual and identity issues is like Paul says: everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. And this is on an individual basis, not a global statement (e.g., "some people are fine eating this food, others aren't; treat each accordingly.") And on the flip side, what's beneficial for a particular individual, isn't always beneficial for society as a whole. Even beyond that, there's the fundamental question of - does any world view promote the glory of God, or the glory of Mankind? This is a test even for many things claiming to be "Christian" - because they really don't promote the glory of God.
1 By 'typically' here I mean 'as a member of the type or class of' - that is, procreation is through male types mating with female types, even if particular members of those types are physiologically incapable of procreation.
Post by: Superdorf on June 19, 2023, 09:00:26 am
Post by: Telgin on June 19, 2023, 09:14:12 am
My take on sexual and identity issues is like Paul says: everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.
Curious, but which passage says or implies this? I'd like to look over it in its full context.
Post by: McTraveller on June 19, 2023, 09:45:42 am
My background is... I'd say mostly just general Protestant. I also have what I'd call a healthy mix of Luther, Wesley, Calvin, and Arminianism. Definitely more Presbyterian & Methodist than Baptist or Pentecostal, though I do believe the Spirit still works today, even if in different manifestations than in days past. I was baptized Catholic (yay "culturally Catholic" Sicilian roots) and know a bit about Catholicism, but I am decidedly Protestant.
I've also been accused of being studious - I don't just take things at face value, and I've read a lot. I used to read way more than I do now, too - especially in those formative late high school / early college years. But now I tend to still recall a quote from GK Chesterton - "all I have seen, leads me to have faith for those things I have not seen" (paraphrase of course).
Some good books include "How to Read the Bible for all its Worth" - basically how to academically study scripture, not just be sentimental about it. I've suffered through really admiring people like Ravi Zacharias, and being dismayed by what was going on behind the surface. Others too - I had a respected teacher from a conference basically turn away from the church because of his sexuality and had to work through what that means. How do you have a person who really knows scriptures, and can inspire people to follow Christ, but suffer with such an internal struggle? How much of what we know is shaped by our experience, versus actual truth?
Mostly as I've aged, I've shifted from worrying about "being right" to instead worry about "being loving." For even if I get some minutiae wrong, you can't go wrong with being loving. After all, it's not up to me to decide or even assess who does and doesn't follow Jesus - that's up to the Spirit. But it is up to me to live in a loving and serving way. Even as flawed as I am, and even as I still struggle with loving people who I really don't agree with. And given the things I say about other drivers in traffic when I'm the only person in my car... well, I have a long way to go :P
Post by: Strongpoint on June 19, 2023, 10:33:57 am
Quote
everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial
I am used to a form like this: "Everything is permissible for me but not everything is beneficial for me. Everything is permissible for me but nothing should be my master". It was the favorite bible quote of my godfather.
Post by: jipehog on June 20, 2023, 02:19:32 am
I consider fundamentalism to be kind of... a separate thing that can be made unacceptable separately from moderate faith. I try and dissociate from them.
I think that in past centuries Religion are become less and less relevant, a reactive force to changes made by others, relying on scripture written by those who had no concept for things to come. In this sense Fundamentalism is a reactionary force, which tries to shoehorn literal interpretation of dated concepts, while moderate faith is just using conservative buffer/filter to social change happening right now.
Personally, I am more concerned about the Railgun aspect of the equation. I think that all people (irrespective of their belief religious or otherwise) have great capacity to believe what they want to believe, rejecting reality and substituting it with their own. More over in hyper-partisans political climate in age of media sensationalism some people start to confuse the political games with reality, and all of that get in the way of science.
Post by: martinuzz on June 20, 2023, 05:54:22 am
Saudi Arabia removed a verse from the Qu'ran, that described 'christians and jews' as the enemies of muslims.
Post by: Strongpoint on June 20, 2023, 08:58:42 am
Apparently holy scriptures aren't unchangeable.
Saudi Arabia removed a verse from the Qu'ran, that described 'christians and jews' as the enemies of muslims.
Citation needed.
I know that Saudi Arabia is doing a major overhaul of their school textbooks, removing much anti-Israel and anti-Jewish (I refuse to call Arabs antisemitic) stuff. I assume they also may have removed some Quran citations from those textbooks but it is not the same as modifying Quran
Post by: martinuzz on June 20, 2023, 12:04:54 pm
It's in the article, mentioned together with the changing of schoolbooks.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
EDIT: Hmm yeah it could be that they mean that the verse was removed from the school books, but then they are writing it in a very obfuscated way.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on June 22, 2023, 05:33:24 pm
But an in-myth explanation to their emotional incontinence could be that a majority of them are literal incest babies. It is like that whole Habsburg thing.
I present to you; The Olympian Temper Syndrome.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 05, 2023, 09:50:35 pm
I kinda get that greek gods are fickle, spontaneous and temperamental because they are personifications of larger-than-life stuffI always find it funny in hindsight where the hubris tales of Greek mythology were supposed to be lessons in humility for humans who reached for more than they could handle... But some of them are just the gods catching Ls non-stop and the humans can't be blamed for the gods being worse at the things they're supposed to be good at. Like the story of Arachne competing with Athena in a weaving contest; with nothing better to do but torment a poor lowborn Lydian girl who boasted her weaving skill was superior to all - even the gods, Athena challenges Arachne to a weaving contest in the disguise of a mortal.
But an in-myth explanation to their emotional incontinence could be that a majority of them are literal incest babies. It is like that whole Habsburg thing.
I present to you; The Olympian Temper Syndrome.
Athena weaves a tapestry showing the gods punishing the mortals for their hubris. Arachne weaves a tapestry of all the times gods appeared before mortals in disguise, decieving them and ruining their lives just to get what they want. Athena, goddess of wisdom, in her disguise she is using to deceive Arachne to get what she wants, then reveals her disguise (lol) and unable to find any fault or criticism of Arachne's perfect tapestry, grabs her weaving shuttle, smashing Arachne on the head four times. Unable to cope with the pain, Arachne kills herself by hanging - and out of "compassion" wise Pallas Athene uses witchcraft to transform Arachne into a spider
Quote from: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/21765/pg21765-images.html#bookVI_fableI
Pallas could not blame that work, nor could Envy censure it. The yellow-haired Virgin grieved at her success, and tore the web embroidered with the criminal acts of the Gods of heaven. And as she was holding her shuttle made of boxwood from Mount Cytorus, three or four times did she strike the forehead of Arachne, the daughter of Idmon. The unhappy creature could not endure it; and being of a high spirit, she tied up her throat in a halter. Pallas, taking compassion, bore her up as she hung; and thus she said: “Live on indeed, wicked one, but still hang; and let the same decree of punishment be pronounced against thy race, and against thy latest posterity, that thou mayst not be free from care in time to come.” After that, as she departed, she sprinkled her with the juices of an Hecatean herb; and immediately her hair, touched by the noxious drug, fell off, and together with it her nose and ears. The head of herself, now small as well throughout her whole body, becomes very small. Her slender fingers cleave to her sides as legs; her belly takes possession of the rest of her; but out of this she gives forth a thread; and as a spider, she works at her web as formerly.
Literally petulant overpowered children losing the argument every time and in their implike seething deciding "WELL I DON'T LOSE BECAUSE I KILL YOU I WIN"
Post by: Rolan7 on July 05, 2023, 10:11:55 pm
I don't know what the original point of the story was, but I consider this a testament to humankind's resilience.
(on top of Arachne being a master artisan greater than even the gods)
Post by: Magmacube_tr on July 06, 2023, 04:33:54 am
Post by: Grim Portent on July 06, 2023, 12:50:50 pm
I'm sorry- Athena, goddess of war, divine being, hit Arachne FOUR TIMES??
I don't know what the original point of the story was, but I consider this a testament to humankind's resilience.
(on top of Arachne being a master artisan greater than even the gods)
It's generally considered to advise against the hubris inherent in challenging the gods. Even if you win, the gods are still powerful in ways you are not, so don't challenge them out of pride.
IIRC the story comes from Ovid, a Roman poet, though it probably predates him and it's just his interpretation of an existing myth.
Post by: TD1 on July 06, 2023, 03:39:14 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on August 10, 2023, 10:48:00 pm
Jesus was born a woman, and self-identified as a man.
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 10, 2023, 11:22:28 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on August 10, 2023, 11:42:11 pm
Jesus never misgendered anyone. The original bible had no pronouns.
Post by: Strongpoint on August 10, 2023, 11:54:29 pm
As I'm reading about "Religious Freedom" being the stick with which to beat the LGBTQ community, I wonder if the following statement would be protected under Free Speech and Religious Freedoms:
Jesus was born a woman, and self-identified as a man.
Better try "Mohammed was born a woman and self-identified as a man". And draw a nice picture of sexy Mohammed with tits.
Post by: EuchreJack on August 10, 2023, 11:57:48 pm
Well, I'm sure that would be protected in American...As I'm reading about "Religious Freedom" being the stick with which to beat the LGBTQ community, I wonder if the following statement would be protected under Free Speech and Religious Freedoms:
Jesus was born a woman, and self-identified as a man.
Better try "Mohammed was born a woman and self-identified as a man". And draw a nice picture of sexy Mohammed with tits.
Post by: McTraveller on August 11, 2023, 07:03:22 am
The original bible had no pronouns.
True but irrelevant; that's an artifact of the language, not the culture.
Jesus was born a woman, and self-identified as a man.
Pretty difficult to do Jewish-style penile circumcision in that case. And if you say that was ret-conned, then you basically enter the world of not being able to trust anything in the book, which would make it irrelevant if Jesus did or didn't comment on sexuality or gender, because the entire narrative would be untrustworthy.
Spoiler: rambling about semantics (click to show/hide)
Post by: TD1 on August 11, 2023, 07:12:34 am
As I'm reading about "Religious Freedom" being the stick with which to beat the LGBTQ community, I wonder if the following statement would be protected under Free Speech and Religious Freedoms:
Jesus was born a woman, and self-identified as a man.
So I don't know what the context behind this is, but it weirldly reflects some idle thoughts I was having like three seconds ago.
I was thinking about my intellectual disagreement with some elements of T philosophy, and how that would be met by many with revulsion and violence - the full mechanics of the great beast over-generalised by the febrile as 'cancel culture'.
This segued into my similarly intellectual disagreement with religion, which (excluding sexy Muhammed) I feel free and easy to express.
Combining the two, I decided to (as a thought experiment!) consider 'gender' as synonymous with 'soul' - an amorphous concept significant to many but, outside its value as symbol and object of faith, ultimately meaningless. It was useful to consider both as deserving the same protections, whatever intellectual issues may arise on the personal level.
The above is less a structured point, more an expression of the last minute's idle thought.
Post by: Strongpoint on August 11, 2023, 08:49:26 am
Quote
Spoiler: rambling about semantics (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: some not-religion related stuff (click to show/hide)
Post by: McTraveller on August 11, 2023, 08:55:32 am
Spoiler: some not-religion related stuff (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: A very brief response (click to show/hide)
Post by: Frumple on August 11, 2023, 09:18:45 am
Pretty difficult to do Jewish-style penile circumcision in that case.Intersex folks exist, so while difficult, it wouldn't be impossible.
Clearly the child of god could thread that particular needle, skyfucker built that into people anyway, so why not the messiah, too?
Post by: McTraveller on August 11, 2023, 09:31:08 am
Pretty difficult to do Jewish-style penile circumcision in that case.Intersex folks exist, so while difficult, it wouldn't be impossible.
Clearly the child of god could thread that particular needle, skyfucker built that into people anyway, so why not the messiah, too?
Well then that would be "born intersex, identified as a man" wouldn't it? Not "born a woman"? ;D
Post by: Frumple on August 11, 2023, 09:32:02 am
Post by: Strongpoint on August 11, 2023, 12:14:25 pm
Maybe I should start this one... those are profitable after all.
Post by: martinuzz on August 11, 2023, 12:20:37 pm
As I'm reading about "Religious Freedom" being the stick with which to beat the LGBTQ community, I wonder if the following statement would be protected under Free Speech and Religious Freedoms:
Jesus was born a woman, and self-identified as a man.
I'd find it much more likely that Jesus was born a man, and was homosexual.
I mean, c'mon. A jewish man, in his thirties, no wife, in that time and age? Not to mention spending most of his time with 13 other men?
Post by: Frumple on August 11, 2023, 12:25:40 pm
From what I'm aware, there's more than a few movements out there that conceptualize the christian god as non-binary/non-masculine/something-other-than-the-traditional-male-skyjackass, but it's much less common for anything particularly serious to give ol' streaker J the treatment. So, I mean. If you really want to give it a shot, there's probably market share available. Something something unexploited niche something.
Post by: hector13 on August 11, 2023, 12:27:36 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on August 11, 2023, 12:50:28 pm
As I'm reading about "Religious Freedom" being the stick with which to beat the LGBTQ community, I wonder if the following statement would be protected under Free Speech and Religious Freedoms:
Jesus was born a woman, and self-identified as a man.
I'd find it much more likely that Jesus was born a man, and was homosexual.
I mean, c'mon. A jewish man, in his thirties, no wife, in that time and age? Not to mention spending most of his time with 13 other men?
He also said that it is a sin to look at a woman with lust. Note that he never said that about looking at men.
Post by: McTraveller on August 11, 2023, 02:31:48 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on August 11, 2023, 03:02:16 pm
You should seek the company of other god-like creations. Being hetero is clearly sinful.
Post by: TD1 on August 11, 2023, 03:19:38 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on August 11, 2023, 03:26:13 pm
Nahh, being herero breeds new god-organs.God's seed can be sent to the destination artificially without doing that nasty thing
Post by: TD1 on August 11, 2023, 03:36:53 pm
Post by: McTraveller on August 11, 2023, 04:09:57 pm
This disturbs me. I feel like I'm in cognitive decline...
Post by: EuchreJack on August 11, 2023, 04:18:27 pm
Also, if God is male (Adam was created in his image and when God decided to manifest himself he did that in a male form) isn't it kinda wrong, when you, being a supreme being MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, join your flesh with someone who is not as god-like and misses some divine bodyparts?This is inaccurate. Adam wasn't a "man" until after his "rib" was removed to create Eve. Thus "male" is NOT the Divine Image. Pretty sure that means God is a Hermaphrodite.
You should seek the company of other god-like creations. Being hetero is clearly sinful.
Post by: martinuzz on August 11, 2023, 04:21:07 pm
Post by: hector13 on August 11, 2023, 04:40:00 pm
I can't tell how much of this is honest ignorance versus intentional satire on the way people interpret scriptures.
This disturbs me. I feel like I'm in cognitive decline...
What makes you so sure your interpretation is correct?
Post by: McTraveller on August 11, 2023, 04:53:54 pm
But lots of vocal ill-informed people, who don't know the difference between the literary styles of the Bible (allegory, history, poetry, letters, parables, apocalyptic, etc.), or basic academic rules of how to interpret ancient literature, make all kinds of...questionable statements. Many of which show up on internet forums as Statements of Unfounded Certainty.
But in this thread, which has a notable Aspect of Humor... well I can't tell...
Post by: hector13 on August 11, 2023, 05:13:30 pm
Most people don’t have academic levels of analytical ability, either, including the vast majority of people who are actually preaching from the book, so the “ill-informed” are also the ones teaching from it.
What does it matter anyway? The way you (mis)interpret it isn’t going to be affected by the way someone else (mis)interprets it. That’s why there are so many different brands of Christianity.
There’s no point in being offended by it either. If you’re right, you end up in paradise and they don’t. The ultimate fuck you, surely?
Post by: McTraveller on August 11, 2023, 05:41:06 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on August 12, 2023, 12:15:21 am
I can't tell how much of this is honest ignorance versus intentional satire on the way people interpret scriptures.
This disturbs me. I feel like I'm in cognitive decline...
It is plain simple mockery. I could go further and start quote-mining the Bible as all Christians do to some extent but it is too much work.
Implying that Jesus's words about looking at women with lust mean that a proper Christian should be a homosexual is far less absurd and context-ignoring than, for example, the mainstream nonsense that the creator of the universe magically fucked a random monkey (aka his mother in a weird act of recursive incest) to give birth to himself basing it on some vague Jesus's claims present only in Jhon.
BTW, Why do three other gospels omit such a MINOR detail of Jesus claiming to be the god of Abraham?
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 12, 2023, 12:52:46 am
Nothing anyone ever says here-- or anywhere for what matter-- will seriously affect my beliefs so to me it's a good laugh.
Post by: TD1 on August 13, 2023, 05:31:54 am
The same man, after Christ, even having witnessed all the portents and signs of the new testament, would clutch his scrolls, glare, and deny himself entry to heaven.
Post by: Strongpoint on August 13, 2023, 08:13:45 am
In a world before Christ, such a man as you would make a wonderful Jew.
The same man, after Christ, even having witnessed all the portents and signs of the new testament, would clutch his scrolls, glare, and deny himself entry to heaven.
I am confused. Who are you addressing?
Post by: martinuzz on August 13, 2023, 09:08:22 am
Christianity only exists because the believers allowed their beliefs to be affected by what someone (Jesus) said.
Post by: Frumple on August 13, 2023, 09:33:12 am
Any case, christianity as it exists today only exists because of a lot of things that have very, very little to do with the scripture or its believers, heh. Lot of it doesn't even have anything to do with the religion itself, per se, save insofar as it was used as a sometimes genocidal bludgeon against various governments' designated punching bags.
That's religion for yeh, tho'. You'd think there'd be at least one major one that didn't have that somewhere in their history, but... not as far as I'm aware. Frikkin' jainism, whose primary teaching is nonviolence and the reduction of harm, even had a period where they were the major religion in an expansionist state :-\
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 14, 2023, 08:20:18 am
In a world before Christ, such a man as you would make a wonderful Jew.Clearly a forum is equivalent to... whatever was the main form of discussion in that time. "Anywhere" implied "in a public online space". A heart-to-heart conversation, IRL or online, could probably deconvert me if someone has a really good reason for me to deconvert (in fact a Discord DM exchange is what converted me in the first place). But nobody in the what, year of me watching this thread, provided one so I am skeptical. (Also I am not a man.)
The same man, after Christ, even having witnessed all the portents and signs of the new testament, would clutch his scrolls, glare, and deny himself entry to heaven.
Well, what other people said he said, as agreed upon by various organizational consensuses over the centuries, anyway.Honestly yeah basically. That's why I go full sola scriptura, I want as few people as possible telling me what to believe and I basically made up my own mind.
Any case, christianity as it exists today only exists because of a lot of things that have very, very little to do with the scripture or its believers, heh. Lot of it doesn't even have anything to do with the religion itself, per se, save insofar as it was used as a sometimes genocidal bludgeon against various governments' designated punching bags.
That's religion for yeh, tho'. You'd think there'd be at least one major one that didn't have that somewhere in their history, but... not as far as I'm aware. Frikkin' jainism, whose primary teaching is nonviolence and the reduction of harm, even had a period where they were the major religion in an expansionist state :-\
Post by: Strongpoint on August 14, 2023, 08:42:44 am
Also, that being can even create as many copies of us as it wishes.
Post by: martinuzz on August 14, 2023, 08:47:34 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 14, 2023, 08:54:19 am
I had a thought recently. If we assume that an omnipotent being exists... Is it not outright pointless to create anything? This all-mighty wizard can wish into existence anything, making an exact copy of whatever we make. And that means that there is zero value in our achievements, legacy, uniqueness
Also, that being can even create as many copies of us as it wishes.
Quote from: Sister Miriam Godwinson, "But for the Grace of God" (from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri)
Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?Quoting one of my favorite games aside, our value would be, in the grand scheme of things, completely meaningless even assuming a purely materialistic universe. Realistically as a species we are not leaving this galaxy, even assuming very optimistic interstellar colonization. And the number of galaxies in the Universe is beyond our comprehension.
The solution I take, and that any rational person, atheist or theist, should take: why does it matter if our legacy is "important" to a vast and uncaring universe? Life's meaning is life itself. We can make our tiny corner of it better, so why stuff your head with this "oh boo hoo we don't matter" rubbish?
As for why we would be created... well I guess for the same reasons that when one is playing a "start from nothing" sandbox game like Powder Toy (https://powdertoy.co.uk/), or playing around with cellular automata in Golly (https://golly.sourceforge.io/), or idk, Minecraft creative mode in superflat, one generally tends to create things rather than sit around looking at an empty screen?
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 14, 2023, 08:57:59 am
I'd find it much more likely that Jesus was born a man, and was homosexual.I don't like this interpretation, just because it feeds further into this venomous idea that homosexuality is a necessary precursor of male homosocial bonding, and that a man may not love a man except in being physically attracted to them. It produces a much colder male world, where a woman may be as close physically with a woman and still both be friends, and no one makes assumptions on their preferences of sexuality. Even a man and woman may be close physically, and not always have any assumptions of being partners. But Sam Gamgee can't carry Frodo in the 21st century without everyone saying friendship without wanting the Baggins in Bag End is impossible and... It's a darker, lonelier world.
I mean, c'mon. A jewish man, in his thirties, no wife, in that time and age? Not to mention spending most of his time with 13 other men?
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 14, 2023, 08:59:37 am
Post by: TD1 on August 14, 2023, 08:59:46 am
From Patroclus being Achilles' roommate to Sam bring Frodo's gay lover.
The sin is the same; the flavour is different.
Edit: Also, sola-scriptura, it's incredibly unlikely that the deity of a faith which holds homosexuality as a sin would himself be homosexual. Though I recognise the point was three-quarters banter.
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 14, 2023, 09:06:32 am
Hey LW, you like SMAC, did you know that I have a whole folder of text files with SMAC quotes sorted by character and by theme?I freaking love SMAC. I practically know all the quotes off by heart, there's just so much love... Blew my mind when I was reading the game manual and they were giving a recommended reading list and telling what the atmospheric composition of Planet was
We have gone full-circle.I think it helps that Greek language has many variations for the word love, each clearly specifying what kind of love they are talking about. English has more ambiguity with every form of love sitting under love. But the love you have for your partner, your friend, your parents, your cat, the sunset, your transcendental love of Dwarf Fortress, all are different forms of love. Unless you get weirdly freudian
From Patroclus being Achilles' roommate to Sam bring Frodo's gay lover.
The sin is the same; the flavour is different.
Post by: TD1 on August 14, 2023, 09:18:10 am
Which falls outside the remit of this thread, but ah well.
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 14, 2023, 09:29:55 am
It always fascinates me how we let language channel the direction of our thoughts, even our societies. To some extent it's a chicken-and-egg scenario, but I think in practice it's most often language controlling culture, society, people.I think there are also things that transcend language. One of my earliest memories ever is of standing on an overpass bridge age 2, and my mother rushing to grab me, commenting that I must've thought the far away cars were the same size as toy cars due to forced perspective. I remember thinking - without words to express these feelings, indignance that they thought I was so stupid. Many of my early memories are like this, full of thoughts without words to define them. There was a very cool interview with a girl who basically went feral when she ended up stuck in the woods for years, and she likewise expressed similar "thoughtforms." Like looking at the moon and thinking "my parents could beat the moon in a fight" without the words to define that. Like people who can "see" sounds or associate smells and tastes with certain memories. People who can imagine an entire scene or have a constant internal monologue whilst others do not. The way people think, and each person thinks so differently from the next, is honestly beautiful and a credit to life itself.
Which falls outside the remit of this thread, but ah well.
I'm reminded of the USSR trying to remove words like holiday from the dictionary. But you can't remove the intrinsic desire to feel "fuck this I want to leave" ;]
Post by: TD1 on August 14, 2023, 09:42:44 am
Likewise with the visualising a movie/(more accurately) an audio-book thing. I have a fairly good imagination, but again it works outside thought in that I merely experience, however vividly, whatever world was crafted and then internally ascribe words to understand that experience.
It's one of those questions which has quietly bubbled inside me since childhood.
Quote
But you can't remove the intrinsic desire to feel "fuck this I want to leave" ;]
No, and they weren't trying to. What such action does is confuse the execution of an intrinsic desire.
Language aids imagination. In this way 'feck these bastards' can be channeled into a different... cultural symbol? Here my language ironically fails me, perhaps in itself indicating insidious thoughtforms lurking beneath the conscious surface??? ... anyway, a different symbol. 'Feck the man' can become 'feck him by doing well at work and getting a promotion ((capitalism I'm looking at you)), or it can mean 'feck him by going on holiday.' The difference is emphasis on language, culture, imagination. The three are enmeshed intrinsically.
The above mostly constitutes a stream-of-consciousness reply, in case you hadn't noticed. It was nice not to have to write something structured anally ahaha.
Post by: Strongpoint on August 14, 2023, 11:00:50 am
I think it helps that Greek language has many variations for the word love, each clearly specifying what kind of love they are talking about. English has more ambiguity with every form of love sitting under love. But the love you have for your partner, your friend, your parents, your cat, the sunset, your transcendental love of Dwarf Fortress, all are different forms of love. Unless you get weirdly freudian
Yeah, in Ukrainian we have a separate word for the sexual attraction type of love and it makes things more convenient compared to English. Or Russian.
Post by: Rolan7 on August 14, 2023, 11:58:36 am
Makes sense. I personally doubt the scripture (not that I can read it directly) but not nearly as much as I doubt all the politics that went into the selection and translation of, say, the King James version. Or even the first Council of Nicaea.Well, what other people said he said, as agreed upon by various organizational consensuses over the centuries, anyway.Honestly yeah basically. That's why I go full sola scriptura, I want as few people as possible telling me what to believe and I basically made up my own mind.
Any case, christianity as it exists today only exists because of a lot of things that have very, very little to do with the scripture or its believers, heh. Lot of it doesn't even have anything to do with the religion itself, per se, save insofar as it was used as a sometimes genocidal bludgeon against various governments' designated punching bags.
That's religion for yeh, tho'. You'd think there'd be at least one major one that didn't have that somewhere in their history, but... not as far as I'm aware. Frikkin' jainism, whose primary teaching is nonviolence and the reduction of harm, even had a period where they were the major religion in an expansionist state :-\
I really respect wanting to minimize that manipulation and get to the deeper, more original truth of it. I think my own spirituality works in a similar direction.
(I do like playing Biblical Literalism "games" to expose the hypocrisy of supposedly Biblical bigots. It doesn't convince the bigots, but I hope there's value in pointing out when they literally make shit up and claim it's Biblical. It's also cathartic for some reason.)
Same. Jesus's whole thing is loving everyone (platonically?). I think it'd be weird for God Manifested to be in romantic love with anyone, even several people. There's literally a power gap and age gap for one thing, and I don't just mean that as a joke.I'd find it much more likely that Jesus was born a man, and was homosexual.I don't like this interpretation, just because it feeds further into this venomous idea that homosexuality is a necessary precursor of male homosocial bonding, and that a man may not love a man except in being physically attracted to them. It produces a much colder male world, where a woman may be as close physically with a woman and still both be friends, and no one makes assumptions on their preferences of sexuality. Even a man and woman may be close physically, and not always have any assumptions of being partners. But Sam Gamgee can't carry Frodo in the 21st century without everyone saying friendship without wanting the Baggins in Bag End is impossible and... It's a darker, lonelier world.
I mean, c'mon. A jewish man, in his thirties, no wife, in that time and age? Not to mention spending most of his time with 13 other men?
For him to experience the whole range of human experience I would understand if he's romantically attracted to *everyone*, but I don't think there's much basis for that. And it'd be weird if he acted on it. His love is depicted a that of a teacher and parent, which is appropriate.
On the other hand he did wash people's feet. I'm not implying that's sexual, but it's rather intimate. I think a weakness in Jesus's story is that he only appeared in a very tiny area of the world, and was closely involved with people there, but nowhere else until after his ascension. Mormon Jesus is a hilarious band-aid on this serious issue.
Ooh really? I have to get my hands on that manual sometime. I'm obviously a fan too (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=177486.0), though I rely mostly on in-game descriptions and the Paean: https://paeantosmac.wordpress.com/Hey LW, you like SMAC, did you know that I have a whole folder of text files with SMAC quotes sorted by character and by theme?I freaking love SMAC. I practically know all the quotes off by heart, there's just so much love... Blew my mind when I was reading the game manual and they were giving a recommended reading list and telling what the atmospheric composition of Planet was
Why would I want anyone to be "screwed" in this life or the next? That would bring me no joy. (Although I admit, I feel selfish pleasure when I see a traffic offender get pulled over. So I'm not really as good as I seem on TV.)I don't get it either, but a lot of Christians seem to revel in it or at least accept it as "justice". Particularly the rich ones who explicitly have a miniscule chance of reaching heaven themselves. Modern Christianity is very strange sometimes.
I guess that's what happens when a Roman Emperor establishes a Christian theocracy which then violently suppresses all the "heretics" living in simple communion as Jesus preached.
And even when its empire crumbles, as all do, the most successful "reformations" retain either the greed or the hatred or both.
There were exceptions though, and I think more Christians every day are returning to the original gospel of egality and fraternity.
As I'm reading about "Religious Freedom" being the stick with which to beat the LGBTQ community, I wonder if the following statement would be protected under Free Speech and Religious Freedoms:I still unironically believe this, actually, as the most reasonable interpretation of the scriptures.
Jesus was born a woman, and self-identified as a man.
Though I'd adjust the phrasing: Jesus has existed for all of time as a man, and incarnated as a clone of Mary.
So yes, basically a trans man.
It just makes sense to me.
I think we can posit that Jesus received *some* genetic material from Mary. She's famously his mother. Also, there's no mention of Jesus looking unusual for someone of Judah, so his body is presumably ethnically similar to his family rather than some average of all humanity or special divine ethnicity from the dawn of time.
If he's partially of Mary's genetics, is there another half that God Himself created just for this? I don't think so. For one thing it's just weird for God to create a gamete specifically for this purpose. If He did, wouldn't it be something special that made Jesus stand out? I guess He could have chosen a gamete from Joseph, but that would make Joseph a much more notable figure than he is.
Also, I don't think God had sex with Mary in any sense. Even the most clinical.
So yeah, I think Jesus is genetically a clone of Mary.
A lot of Catholic artwork seems to vaguely agree... but that's metaphor and kinda squicky and offensive, so I'd rather not get into it. Also it's the Catholic Church, booo.
Post by: Superdorf on August 14, 2023, 12:43:33 pm
I had a thought recently. If we assume that an omnipotent being exists... Is it not outright pointless to create anything? This all-mighty wizard can wish into existence anything, making an exact copy of whatever we make. And that means that there is zero value in our achievements, legacy, uniqueness
Also, that being can even create as many copies of us as it wishes.Quote from: Sister Miriam Godwinson, "But for the Grace of God" (from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri)Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?Quoting one of my favorite games aside, our value would be, in the grand scheme of things, completely meaningless even assuming a purely materialistic universe. Realistically as a species we are not leaving this galaxy, even assuming very optimistic interstellar colonization. And the number of galaxies in the Universe is beyond our comprehension.
The solution I take, and that any rational person, atheist or theist, should take: why does it matter if our legacy is "important" to a vast and uncaring universe? Life's meaning is life itself. We can make our tiny corner of it better, so why stuff your head with this "oh boo hoo we don't matter" rubbish?
As for why we would be created... well I guess for the same reasons that when one is playing a "start from nothing" sandbox game like Powder Toy (https://powdertoy.co.uk/), or playing around with cellular automata in Golly (https://golly.sourceforge.io/), or idk, Minecraft creative mode in superflat, one generally tends to create things rather than sit around looking at an empty screen?
God is love.
Love spills over, demands an object of affection. How could such a God not create?
...
I could see Jesus being aro/ace, or not. All we're told in the Gospels is that He could be tempted, but not overthrown.
Post by: TD1 on August 14, 2023, 12:53:50 pm
As I'm reading about "Religious Freedom" being the stick with which to beat the LGBTQ community, I wonder if the following statement would be protected under Free Speech and Religious Freedoms:I still unironically believe this, actually, as the most reasonable interpretation of the scriptures.
Jesus was born a woman, and self-identified as a man.
Though I'd adjust the phrasing: Jesus has existed for all of time as a man, and incarnated as a clone of Mary.
So yes, basically a trans man.
That's a reasonable treatment of Jesus in the same way as Mormonism's reimagining is.
A mixture of faith with historical statement. On faith, say what thou wilt. On the second... the social and cultural context refutes nearly any possibility of that being the case, especially without any commentary by contemporaries.
But we are of course talking here about Mary-God-Clone-Baby, soooo I'm guessing we're well into the bounds of 'faith' and away from 'fact.'
Though on the point of faith - - -
'Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’ The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'
It seems that God's power 'overshadowed' her, the Holy Spirit did...something within her womb. That wasn't necessarily the formation of a gamete/sperm/whatever, but it seems apparent that some admixture occurred within the body of Mary between divine and mortal. And, as Jesus is a man in every single relevant source, not a 'clone' of Mary - - - it seems likely that some of that was on a genetic level. Needa get that Y chromosome from somewhere, eh?
Your argument that
Quote
'If He did, wouldn't it be something special that made Jesus stand out?'doesn't really hold water because God can do whatever the feck he likes. Also you seem to be forgetting the magic powers Jesus had, which probably count as 'something special.' :P
So.... yea, it's not the most reasonable reading of Jesus' life (by scripture or historical reality), but if it's an article of faith for ye then run with it mate.
Post by: martinuzz on August 14, 2023, 01:01:56 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 14, 2023, 01:07:14 pm
But the Law is Absolute.
In reconciling these statements, we must hold two facts as self apparent.
One: EU Law is For the People and Absolute
and therefore
Two: Jesus is not a clone.
Post by: Egan_BW on August 14, 2023, 01:17:03 pm
Needa get that Y chromosome from somewhere, eh?
Where did it come from? God just doing some coding from scratch for, some reason? I suppose that's possible with omnipotent power, but it's unnecessarily complicated when the messiah can simply be female instead. How does an omnipotent being decide on how complex its solutions should be, when it's capable of anything from the least complex possible solution to an infinitely complex solution and every point along that axis requires the same amount of effort, being 0?
Post by: TD1 on August 14, 2023, 01:21:41 pm
By today's values? Certainly. By the reasoning underlying the Bible and contemporary society? No.
The Messiah is a prophesied Son of David, scion of a great patriarchal line descended even unto Adam.
Adam who, we know, was made in God's image - a male image. Woman came second and with alterations.
The son of God would most naturally be male by the internal logic of the Bible.
Post by: martinuzz on August 14, 2023, 01:28:35 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsVAYFSEBrA
Post by: Egan_BW on August 14, 2023, 01:30:50 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on August 14, 2023, 01:31:41 pm
Your argument thatLiterally no part of my argument relied on faith. I explained how I reached my conclusion from the facts as presented in the stories. Perhaps you have faith that Jesus is cis?Quote'If He did, wouldn't it be something special that made Jesus stand out?'doesn't really hold water because God can do whatever the feck he likes. Also you seem to be forgetting the magic powers Jesus had, which probably count as 'something special.' :P
So.... yea, it's not the most reasonable reading of Jesus' life (by scripture or historical reality), but if it's an article of faith for ye then run with it mate.
Mormonism invented entire new stories which contradict and greatly expand on Jesus's story, and rely entirely on faith. Much like this:
'Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’ The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'A more natural reading of your quote would be that Jesus is fully holy and is the Son of God, but has no genetic relation to Mary. But instead you've decided that sex happened and that Jesus is genetically a demigod. You had to assert an awful lot to make that happen, while dismissing the fact that Jesus didn't look divine or unusual in any way. "God can do whatever the feck he likes" is a weak argument that could justify any headcanon you want to believe.
It seems that God's power 'overshadowed' her, the Holy Spirit did...something within her womb. That wasn't necessarily the formation of a gamete/sperm/whatever, but it seems apparent that some admixture occurred within the body of Mary between divine and mortal. And, as Jesus is a man in every single relevant source, not a 'clone' of Mary - - - it seems likely that some of that was on a genetic level. Needa get that Y chromosome from somewhere, eh?
If I wanted Jesus to be a trans man, I could simply say "God can do whatever the feck he likes". But nobody would take me seriously.
If I wanted Jesus to be cis, for some reason, I could say the same thing.
'The messiah can simply be female instead.'This isn't an argument, but I take issue with one assertion. All mankind is in God's image, not only males or men:
By today's values? Certainly. By the reasoning underlying the Bible and contemporary society? No.
The Messiah is a prophesied Son of David, scion of a great patriarchal line descended even unto Adam.
Adam who, we know, was made in God's image - a male image. Woman came second and with alterations.
The son of God would most naturally be male by the internal logic of the Bible.
Quote from: Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.The Messiah is prophesied to be a Son, sure. I won't check the Hebrew, you're probably right. My explanation of Jesus is that he is the mannest man to ever man, having been a man from the beginning of time until the end.
Your conclusion just doesn't follow without some unstated assumptions on your part.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on August 14, 2023, 04:00:11 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on August 14, 2023, 04:15:30 pm
Post by: Frumple on August 14, 2023, 04:28:23 pm
Okay guys, can we just stop and all agree that Yahweh sucks ass and smells like prostate cancer?Hey now, thorough application of omnipresence means yahweh sucks every ass that gets sucked (at a minimum! Some conceptualizations means yahweh sucks even asses that don't actually get sucked in reality) and smells like every cancer, not just prostate cancer. Get it right :V
Post by: Magmacube_tr on August 14, 2023, 05:54:19 pm
Hey now, thorough application of omnipresence means yahweh...
And you actually trust Yahweh's word on anything? He is not omnipresent. He is not omni-anything. He is just a pathetic wind and storm god who scored big through extensive cult mind control tactics.
I could feasibly take him.
Post by: hector13 on August 14, 2023, 06:02:21 pm
Hey now, thorough application of omnipresence means yahweh...
And you actually trust Yahweh's word on anything? He is not omnipresent. He is not omni-anything. He is just a pathetic wind and storm god who scored big through extensive cult mind control tactics.
I could feasibly take him.
You’re making the assumption that it actually exists, rather than a human construct to try to explain away the unknown.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on August 14, 2023, 06:46:33 pm
You’re making the assumption that it actually exists, rather than a human construct to try to explain away the unknown.
Of course he doesn't exists. I was going off of your previous tangent.
My point stands though.
Post by: Frumple on August 14, 2023, 06:50:15 pm
You’re making the assumption that it actually exists, rather than a human construct to try to explain away the unknown.This is more relevant than you might know; most propositions of omnipresence are largely exgetical (or... something like that, might be mixing up the term), heh. Iirc there's few to no bits of scripture that explicitly claim it, it all falls out from extrapolation of other bits of theology.
There's remarkably famous/influential theological proofs for it, though. It's an amazing thing to see extremely pious medieval christian theologians argue themselves around to what amounts to hardcore materialism, heh.
Post by: McTraveller on August 14, 2023, 07:11:55 pm
I think there are more explicit verses, like "there is no place you can go to hide from God" or "there is no place outside the influence of God" or similar.
A related tangent: all these people who claim to be atheists but think we live in a simulation. If we are in a simulation, then any being or construct which is observing and possibly interacting with said simulation is essentially a god. So I would argue that "simulationists" are de facto theists. A construct running a simulation would have all the characteristics of god: knowledge of everything that happens or will happen (from the standpoint of the simulated; if you can read the simulation logs, you are omniscient; if you save state of the simulation at any point, you can stop and re-start, effectively doing time travel, you can observe everywhere at once, etc.), ability to spawn or de-spawn entities in the simulation, passing through walls, granting supernatural powers, not necessarily bound by the rules of the simulation itself, etc. There's no practical distinction between "the spiritual world" and "the host environment of the simulation."
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 14, 2023, 08:28:54 pm
Am I describing creationism or the simulation hypothesis?
Spoiler: A tangent about my worldbuild (click to show/hide)
Post by: martinuzz on August 14, 2023, 08:41:39 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on August 14, 2023, 09:02:57 pm
Righteousness, perhaps? Or something like that? Gods are pretty much always "more" then a person in a lot of key ways. I'd think, maybe even more then just their power over the manipulation of reality. Whereas in simulation theory the person running the simulation is just another person, perhaps vastly different, and maybe we're lesser compared to them in some key areas, but we and they are still fundamentally people, in the way that gods aren't and are above? Not sure.
I don't think I've ever heard of any theory of divinity that includes upper realities where the gods are just normal people, or even themselves simply simulations. Maybe lovecraft mythos, I suppose.
Edit: After giving it some more thought, I think that it might come down to simulation theory being a logical (arguably) extrapolation of our current reality, capabilities, and motivations. We might be a simulation because we can see a future in which we run simulations capable of our current inputs. Supernatural beliefs don't have that logical chain of extrapolation, people have a lot of reasons for believing in various supernatural things but on a wide scale they aren't logical beliefs. I think that's an important distinction. Of course, you can say that from a functional perspective they aren't really very different, but I think that logical chain for building your beliefs is important. Important enough to make a distinction between the two, even if the end result of that belief is the same.
Post by: McTraveller on August 14, 2023, 09:15:08 pm
I mean it's basically the Sims, if you could actually enter the Sims as a real avatar.
Post by: Criptfeind on August 14, 2023, 09:17:34 pm
Edit: Perhaps I should ask, what's your definition of a god? It can't just be "someone who can do more then me". A guy with money isn't a god to someone that's poor, a guy with a gun isn't a god to someone without. A guy with legs isn't a god to a handicapped person.
Post by: Frumple on August 14, 2023, 11:26:50 pm
I don't think I've ever heard of any theory of divinity that includes upper realities where the gods are just normal people, or even themselves simply simulations. Maybe lovecraft mythos, I suppose.If you're looking into fiction, that kind of metaphysics is pretty common among xianxia/martial arts fantasy. Becoming a godlike figure that steps into the next realm, which itself has beings doing the exact same thing, but on literally another level, is more or less standard world building. Gods made flesh in one realm basically end up peasants in the next, often enough.
Considering where their influences come from, that probably means there's intimations of that in some portion of eastern theology. I could see it coming out of parts of hinduism pretty easily, gods and men both being fragments of the brahman, et al.
Post by: Strongpoint on August 14, 2023, 11:29:12 pm
Quote
It's fairly simple, to be honest. Basically all the verses that say "God doesn't experience time the way mortals do", coupled with what we now know about space-time, meaning that space and time are different aspects of the same thing, and the fact that YHWH is eternal and immortal (not bound by time), mean that omnipresence is a foregone conclusion; there is no place where God can't be in a human-finite time, which is equivalent to omnipresence.
OR, the people of the Bronze age who invented the story meant that the god lives for a looooooong time and millennia are like days for him...
If the Bible itself would describe the concept of spacetime it would be impressive. But it didn't. It has zero cosmology outside the understanding of people of that time.
Post by: lemon10 on August 15, 2023, 02:13:37 am
A related tangent: all these people who claim to be atheists but think we live in a simulation. If we are in a simulation, then any being or construct which is observing and possibly interacting with said simulation is essentially a god. So I would argue that "simulationists" are de facto theists. A construct running a simulation would have all the characteristics of god: knowledge of everything that happens or will happen (from the standpoint of the simulated; if you can read the simulation logs, you are omniscient; if you save state of the simulation at any point, you can stop and re-start, effectively doing time travel, you can observe everywhere at once, etc.), ability to spawn or de-spawn entities in the simulation, passing through walls, granting supernatural powers, not necessarily bound by the rules of the simulation itself, etc. There's no practical distinction between "the spiritual world" and "the host environment of the simulation."
Quote from: Le wikipedia
Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of at least one deity.As with any good theology debate if you are correct depends entirely on how you define your terms.
A deity or god is a supernatural being who is considered divine or sacred.
Under the default definitions wikipedia uses merely constructing the universe isn't enough, you have to be considered "divine or sacred", which makes sense; there are plenty of demons out there in mythology with vast powers who aren't considered gods because they are evil.
A programmer "god" named Joe would not be neither divine nor sacred, and unless the simulationist thought they were they would by definition not be a theist.
Of course its a matter of perspective since if they do think the programmer is divine then they become a theist, I have little doubt there are already simulationist religions where people worship the hypothetical Joe and give thanks daily for him creating the universe and ask for him to intercede and grant their prayers.
Post by: Strongpoint on August 15, 2023, 05:50:05 am
*but then any sufficiently advanced aliens can be called gods
Post by: TD1 on August 15, 2023, 07:06:12 am
Literally no part of my argument relied on faith. I explained how I reached my conclusion from the facts as presented in the stories. Perhaps you have faith that Jesus is cis?Eh? Nope. I do have a strong conviction that Jesus=trans isn't the most likely scenario, but that doesn't really count as faith per se. More an application of Occam's razor - neither Jesus, contemporaries, nor various synods and councils held for centuries following Jesus' life even remotely or in the most tangential sense touched upon your conclusion. If it's not an article of faith, then you are making leaps of logic based on vague pre-scientific and pre-gender revolution texts to suit some broader, modern, and personal teleology. Which, considering my subject (history) I admit to finding unsettling.
Quote
"God can do whatever the feck he likes" is a weak argument that could justify any headcanon you want to believe.
Indeed it is. And in saying it I made no claim on what 'feck' in particular He had in mind; I merely used it to counter your assumption that God must follow natural law. The man made burning bushes speak and turned people into salt; he can manage pretty much whatever, and is not constrained by typical rules of engagement.
This did have ramifications for
Quote
the fact that Jesus didn't look divine or unusual in any way,though. Because - yea. He didn't have to. Even within the rules of natural law. To use a hamfisted example, imagine an interracial couple had children. Would you be surprised if the offspring could pass as a phenotypical member of one race?
Plus, to reiterate my previous point, the fella had magic powers. The mechanism of those powers isn't really explained, but one thing's for certain - he didn't get them from his mother.
In a side point, this is a typical narrative for demigods. Zeus has sex with Danae. Begets Perseus. Perseus doesn't have glowing yellow eyes or twenty toes, but he's not a mere clone of his mother. But this point is weak if you consider Biblical accounts as separable from broader cultural traditions/assumptions.
Quote
A more natural reading of your quote would be that Jesus is fully holy and is the Son of God, but has no genetic relation to Mary. But instead you've decided that sex happened and that Jesus is genetically a demigod. You had to assert an awful lot to make that happen, while dismissing the fact that Jesus didn't look divine or unusual in any way. "God can do whatever the feck he likes" is a weak argument that could justify any headcanon you want to believe.
Nah, not really. The most natural takeaway from my quote is that it is so vague as to be almost meaningless. What we can derive without bias is this:
Mary was a virgin at time of speaking to the angel.
The Holy Spirit would interact with her in some way.
Either during this, or as a result of it, God's power would overshadow her.
The interaction between Mary, Holy Spirit, and (possibly/probably) God's power would create a holy child.
My point in quoting it was to make a surface-level assertion - that Mary and God/Holy Spirit interacted, and Jesus resulted.
Your other assertions on my stance are hopefully unintentional strawmen. I didn't say this interaction constituted sex, nor really that Jesus had specific/special 'divine' genes.
The meat of my argument was this:
Quote
And, as Jesus is a man in every single relevant source, not a 'clone' of Mary - - - it seems likely that some of that was on a genetic level. Needa get that Y chromosome from somewhere, eh?
Meaning that, whatever genes Jesus had, the interaction of divine with mortal had produced a Y chromosome.
I'll not speculate on how that happened. It seems vulgar to envisage God doing the physical deed, but the fact remains - Jesus was not some sort of clone. There is no reason to assert he was except personal bias (or some expression of faith). All concrete evidence suggests he possessed a Y chromosome.
Note that I'm not saying your position is impossible. God is omnipotent, after all. But it's not likely, which was the crux of your argument.
Obviously, the easiest answer is simply to remove God from the equation and with Him Mary's 'Virgin' title. But that's a separate argument.
Quote
This isn't an argument, but I take issue with one assertion. All mankind is in God's image, not only males or men:
Point duly taken! I've been suffering under a misunderstanding of the 'God's image' line. My thanks.
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 15, 2023, 07:55:09 am
Anyways, I interpret "in God's image" as having free will because I think souls are what give free will. It has little to do with the body per se. That's how I think of it. (Also means I won't be considering sapient aliens inferior, if they exist.)
Post by: Criptfeind on August 15, 2023, 08:02:34 am
Post by: TD1 on August 15, 2023, 08:36:32 am
Post by: martinuzz on August 15, 2023, 08:42:09 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 15, 2023, 09:50:46 am
I'm not sure if I agree with that definition, if I want to be worshiped and convince people to do so, does that make me a god? What if I have super powers? I still don't think I'm a god there, I think that'd just make me an asshole.If you're on the usual power attributed to even e.g Greek gods... well why not? You'd be a god for all intents and purposes, if most likely a bad one.
Post by: TD1 on August 15, 2023, 10:29:59 am
Post by: hector13 on August 15, 2023, 12:10:56 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 15, 2023, 12:19:42 pm
That applies to televangelists.
Fair point, though I'd note that the worship is at least ostensibly not directed at the televangelist.
Post by: Strongpoint on August 15, 2023, 12:30:20 pm
I'm not sure if I agree with that definition, if I want to be worshiped and convince people to do so, does that make me a god? What if I have super powers? I still don't think I'm a god there, I think that'd just make me an asshole.If you're on the usual power attributed to even e.g Greek gods... well why not? You'd be a god for all intents and purposes, if most likely a bad one.
Am I a god for a potted plant, then?
Sure, I decide its environment, its nutrition, and many other things. But there is nothing divine or supernatural in my control. Neither it is unlimited.
Post by: Egan_BW on August 15, 2023, 03:53:08 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on August 15, 2023, 03:58:01 pm
There's nothing supernatural in anything, because if it existed then it would be natural.
I don't find this a impediment to coming up with a definition of god that includes that it must be supernatural.
Post by: Schmaven on August 15, 2023, 04:06:37 pm
There's nothing supernatural in anything, because if it existed then it would be natural.
Another definition for supernatural that leaves room for the supernatural to exist might be: Something that defies the rules by which everything else exists. If science has no explanation for it, then it is supernatural (unless some future, yet to be theorized science can explain it, then it just appears supernatural and fools us for now).
Post by: Egan_BW on August 15, 2023, 04:14:10 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 15, 2023, 05:20:20 pm
Coming from without or before our universe. By that logic God would be supernatural, but Superman would not.
Post by: Frumple on August 15, 2023, 06:36:00 pm
Without is something of a bad joke to comic book characters, though. Extrauniversal is something of a "big whoop" to those critters.
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 15, 2023, 07:12:08 pm
If the plant was sapient and you wanted to be worshiped by it, yes by my definition.I'm not sure if I agree with that definition, if I want to be worshiped and convince people to do so, does that make me a god? What if I have super powers? I still don't think I'm a god there, I think that'd just make me an asshole.If you're on the usual power attributed to even e.g Greek gods... well why not? You'd be a god for all intents and purposes, if most likely a bad one.
Am I a god for a potted plant, then?
Sure, I decide its environment, its nutrition, and many other things. But there is nothing divine or supernatural in my control. Neither it is unlimited.
The Greeks, iirc, did not really have the same split of natural/supernatural as we do. Neither were their gods unlimited in power. And yet we call them gods.
This definition causes odd results but it's the only logical one to me honestly.
Post by: EuchreJack on August 15, 2023, 09:47:22 pm
Both my plant and myself are linear. We sprout, we grow, we die.
Plus, my plant might overlive me, as maybe a crack in the ceiling brings it enough water to survive as I rot on the floor next to it.
Or less morbidly, a neighbor adopts it when I go to the hospital to die like a mature person.
God exists outside all that.
My biggest gripe is that stupid limited humans (that is ALL of us, by the way) try to bring God down to our level. We place weird artificial restraints upon God because we want to feel we've got some control & understanding. But we do not.
The Joy of Christianity is that we have a Benevolent God. For it could be equally true that we have an Indifferent God, that couldn't care less if we're happy.
Thankfully, since God is so much bigger than us, we can also say whatever we want (such that Jesus has boobies) and God does not care. I like to think that this actually pleases God slightly, since it is a fight against the Pharisees that have taken over Christianity, just as they took over Judaism.
Possibly related video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqavq5pUC04)
Post by: hector13 on August 15, 2023, 09:53:30 pm
Edit: If you take the current state of the world as an example of benevolence, I would very much never want to see what indifference would be like, wowzers.
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 15, 2023, 10:13:51 pm
Nah.He said "a" god. Not "the" God. Read the previous conversation. I agree with you on this but the conversation moved on from Christianity.
Both my plant and myself are linear. We sprout, we grow, we die.
Plus, my plant might overlive me, as maybe a crack in the ceiling brings it enough water to survive as I rot on the floor next to it.
Or less morbidly, a neighbor adopts it when I go to the hospital to die like a mature person.
God exists outside all that.
My biggest gripe is that stupid limited humans (that is ALL of us, by the way) try to bring God down to our level. We place weird artificial restraints upon God because we want to feel we've got some control & understanding. But we do not.
The Joy of Christianity is that we have a Benevolent God. For it could be equally true that we have an Indifferent God, that couldn't care less if we're happy.
Thankfully, since God is so much bigger than us, we can also say whatever we want (such that Jesus has boobies) and God does not care. I like to think that this actually pleases God slightly, since it is a fight against the Pharisees that have taken over Christianity, just as they took over Judaism.
Possibly related video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqavq5pUC04)
Post by: EuchreJack on August 15, 2023, 10:18:31 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on August 15, 2023, 11:59:16 pm
If the plant was sapient and you wanted to be worshiped by it, yes by my definition.I'm not sure if I agree with that definition, if I want to be worshiped and convince people to do so, does that make me a god? What if I have super powers? I still don't think I'm a god there, I think that'd just make me an asshole.If you're on the usual power attributed to even e.g Greek gods... well why not? You'd be a god for all intents and purposes, if most likely a bad one.
Am I a god for a potted plant, then?
Sure, I decide its environment, its nutrition, and many other things. But there is nothing divine or supernatural in my control. Neither it is unlimited.
The Greeks, iirc, did not really have the same split of natural/supernatural as we do. Neither were their gods unlimited in power. And yet we call them gods.
This definition causes odd results but it's the only logical one to me honestly.
If your prerequisite of being a god is being worshipped by sapient beings, then a god that would create a universe without sapient life would be not a god at all
Also, sapience is relative. The difference between my and plant's complexity is way smaller than the difference between a hypothetical creator of the universe and me. I can't see us being sapient by the standards of such a complex entity.
This is why I found the idea of personal relations with THE GOD completely ridiculous even when I was a theist. Try having personal relations with a procaryote.
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 16, 2023, 02:39:50 am
2. Well I think sapience is binary and universal. Either you have it or you don't. A plant and a bacterium are both completely non-sapient even if one is several orders of magnitude more complex so why not this? The alternative leads to more absurdities.
Post by: Strongpoint on August 16, 2023, 03:30:26 am
Well I think sapience is binary and universal. Either you have it or you don't. A plant and a bacterium are both completely non-sapient even if one is several orders of magnitude more complex so why not this? The alternative leads to more absurdities.
I want your definition of sapience then. Binary things are usually easy to define, right?
Can you point me to the moment when humans become sapient? We all start as a single cell which is not much different from a bacterium
Post by: Frumple on August 16, 2023, 04:01:15 am
You do have an indifferent god though. A benevolent parent doesn’t let their children suffer when it’s clear they’re incapable of looking after themselves, or indeed learning to do so.Heh, it's basically a theology 101 example of religious language, where words like benevolence mean absolutely nothing like the general usage of the term.
Edit: If you take the current state of the world as an example of benevolence, I would very much never want to see what indifference would be like, wowzers.
There's been a fair amount of pretty interesting discussion on the subject over the years, as well as in regards to how intentional it is. Most of the major religions have gotten a lot of mileage out of the linguistic bait and switch involved, and iirc there's indication at least some of that was deliberate. Few things are better for a priest than a good god with no guarantees or actual limitations in behavior, ha.
Post by: TD1 on August 16, 2023, 04:21:47 am
Sending the angel of death against Egyptian children, for instance.
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 16, 2023, 04:40:41 am
The best way I can define it is, "being of a species that can learn arbitrary tasks". For AI a "species" would be a particular model. Crows, cetaceans, and great apes are arguably sapient (it's easier to disprove sapience than to prove it!) by that definition but that's within tolerances. But e.g a dog, or a snail, or a plant, or a microbe can't learn arbitrary tasks, so they're not sapient. Neither is ChatGPT-- it can't learn without spending lots of resources on retraining, first off, and second it can only generate text, not e.g drive or generate images. And it applies per species of course. I'd consider a newborn baby sapient-- and I'd consider a heavily developmentally stunted person sapient. But a pre-viability embryo is not a "being" as it cannot survive outside the mother's body so I cannot consider it anything more than a bundle of cells like a kidney.Well I think sapience is binary and universal. Either you have it or you don't. A plant and a bacterium are both completely non-sapient even if one is several orders of magnitude more complex so why not this? The alternative leads to more absurdities.
I want your definition of sapience then. Binary things are usually easy to define, right?
Can you point me to the moment when humans become sapient? We all start as a single cell which is not much different from a bacterium
I guess, to answer your question directly, "third trimester".
Of course there are probably some exceptions but this covers most cases. I fall back to common sense too.
Post by: Strongpoint on August 16, 2023, 08:16:52 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 16, 2023, 08:36:40 am
Are you sure that we, humans, can learn any arbitrary task given by an alien or divine intelligence? If yes, why?If given the necessary tools, yes. Just like a crow can learn how to crack nuts with a hammer (in fact they do it with rocks in nature, or drop them under moving cars in cities).
As for why, well the alternative would require some kind of other dimensions we can't access, or similar. But those are not proven to exist and as we understand it quantum physics does not allow for more than 3 spatial dimensions and still work the same.
I don't see any reason not to believe my assumption of "there are no physical tasks we can't do with appropriate tools", if we ever encounter some kind of superintelligent aliens I may change my opinion but for now I don't see a reason to. Occam's Razor and all.
Post by: Strongpoint on August 16, 2023, 12:13:51 pm
We can't teach a crow how to smelt metal from ore and make a spear, which is a physical task. It lacks the capacity to understand what this physical task means and giving it our tools won't help. Even teaching generations of crows will do nothing (as long as hardware, their brain stays the same)Are you sure that we, humans, can learn any arbitrary task given by an alien or divine intelligence? If yes, why?If given the necessary tools, yes. Just like a crow can learn how to crack nuts with a hammer (in fact they do it with rocks in nature, or drop them under moving cars in cities).
As for why, well the alternative would require some kind of other dimensions we can't access, or similar. But those are not proven to exist and as we understand it quantum physics does not allow for more than 3 spatial dimensions and still work the same.
I don't see any reason not to believe my assumption of "there are no physical tasks we can't do with appropriate tools", if we ever encounter some kind of superintelligent aliens I may change my opinion but for now I don't see a reason to. Occam's Razor and all.
Isn't it logical that a being that has as sophisticated intelligence compared to ours as ours to crow's can give us tasks we can't possibly comprehend even if we physically may do them?
Post by: Egan_BW on August 16, 2023, 12:34:43 pm
Except maybe through intimidation. But it's clearly morally superior to flip off the asshole with a gun to your head rather than try to justify why he's right.
Post by: Egan_BW on August 16, 2023, 12:36:25 pm
We can't teach a crow how to smelt metal from ore and make a spear, which is a physical task. It lacks the capacity to understand what this physical task means and giving it our tools won't help. Even teaching generations of crows will do nothing (as long as hardware, their brain stays the same)Please perform an experiment to prove this I want to see a crow-made spear.
Post by: dragdeler on August 16, 2023, 12:37:50 pm
When it would have sufficed to think of something that is too fast to be processed or has too many parallel processes to be processed by one or multiple human(s), to throw a wrench into the hyptothetical.
Post by: McTraveller on August 16, 2023, 12:45:15 pm
We can't teach a crow how to smelt metal from ore and make a spear, which is a physical task. It lacks the capacity to understand what this physical task means and giving it our tools won't help. Even teaching generations of crows will do nothing (as long as hardware, their brain stays the same)
Isn't it logical that a being that has as sophisticated intelligence compared to ours as ours to crow's can give us tasks we can't possibly comprehend even if we physically may do them?
Maybe - the problem is you'd have to find a new mechanism of thinking that is basically outside the realm of logic. Humans can do all the things we do because we understand predicate logic, have generational memory, and can "compute". We have tools to evaluate all ideas against these frameworks - so I think it actually is an incorrect thinking to say that "just because we are so far ahead of prokaryotes, something could be that far above us." We basically are machines built to assign labels to things and manage the interrelationships between labels.
To get to a state where we couldn't be capable of understanding something means it's not possible to assign labels to the thing, or its a thing that will never fit a pattern. I don't even know if there's a philosophical framework that can talk about "unlabelable" phenomena, or unrepeatable phenomena.
Note this is different from being impractical to understand something - perhaps there are so many interactions or state variables or whatever that humanity couldn't quite get all the details - but we know how to try and figure it out.
That to me is the key difference - what more is there than knowing how to figure something out? That is what a crow, say, lacks: they can use tools and stuff, but they can't figure something out that they don't know.
(Incidentally, same with ChatGPT and the like - they cannot "figure anything out" they can only return a probabilistically likely answer.)
Post by: Maximum Spin on August 16, 2023, 03:56:09 pm
Maybe - the problem is you'd have to find a new mechanism of thinking that is basically outside the realm of logic.That's entirely possible, though. Humans invented predicate logic, the Turing abstraction, etc. as a generalization of our observations of the laws of physics. It's possible that this system is only a subset of some larger system humans can't comprehend - by definition, we would not be able to tell.
Post by: lemon10 on August 16, 2023, 04:08:33 pm
We can't teach a crow how to smelt metal from ore and make a spear, which is a physical task. It lacks the capacity to understand what this physical task means and giving it our tools won't help. Even teaching generations of crows will do nothing (as long as hardware, their brain stays the same)
Isn't it logical that a being that has as sophisticated intelligence compared to ours as ours to crow's can give us tasks we can't possibly comprehend even if we physically may do them?
Quote
The birds, known as New Caledonian crows, are famous for making tools, fashioning twigs into spears and hooks that they use to eat grubs. A member of the corvid family, they’re related to ravens, American crows, and magpies, and live in a group of islands east of Australia.Checkmate aetheist, crows can actually make spears.
And if you give it the right tools of course it can make a metal spear. Said tools would be something like "press this button and the modern forge spits out a metal spear", but still. Honestly the main limit a lot of animals face is the lack of opposable thumbs.
Do you think you can make a metal spear if you were turned into a crow but maintained your same body? Of course you couldn't; crow civilization is thus limited by the body they find themselves in.
---
Probably the best example of things humans can't properly conceptualize is stuff involving extra spatial dimensions.
If you were transferred into a universe with five spatial dimensions (with a appropriate body) you would very much not be able to navigate or comprehend basically anything.
So based on that humans wouldn't be sentient either.
Post by: Strongpoint on August 16, 2023, 04:09:05 pm
Parts of the Bible read like God should be accused of war crimes.
Sending the angel of death against Egyptian children, for instance.
It is way funnier than that
1) God says "Hey Pharaoh, let Jews go or ELSE"
2) God mind-controls Pharaoh into not letting Jews go (BTW, hello, free will)
3) Just God starts severely punishing people for the actions of their mind-controlled ruler
Omnibelevolence at its finest
Post by: Telgin on August 16, 2023, 04:11:39 pm
I have no idea if it's true but I always found that passage troubling when I was a Christian.
And if that is true, it doesn't speak well for anyone who thinks the Bible is inerrant.
Post by: Egan_BW on August 16, 2023, 04:33:44 pm
Do you think you can make a metal spear if you were turned into a crow but maintained your same body?
I can't do that in my current body. But if I knew how, I could probably do it as a crow. Body plan might not be fully ideal for tool use, but it's very possible.
Post by: Frumple on August 16, 2023, 04:53:23 pm
I read once that that part of the Bible was altered to replace references to Ra or some other Egyptian god with the Hebrew God as a way of trying to emphasize he was the only god that existed, and that passage suffered a lot as a result.It's definitely a statement easy to find being made, and iirc there's a few other places in the bible that's supposed to have gotten the same or similar treatment (if I'm not misremembering there was something like a reference to Ba'al replaced with reference to demons or false gods or somethin' like that, in relation to a contest of magic or... something.* It's been a while since I cared enough to look at it, heh).
I have no idea if it's true but I always found that passage troubling when I was a Christian.
And if that is true, it doesn't speak well for anyone who thinks the Bible is inerrant.
From what I recall the original passages referenced other gods but made sure to portray them as weaker ones, which still fits fine with major precepts of scripture but, obviously enough, doesn't exactly play well with the whole "monotheism" thing, heh.
*Which... might be thinking of 1 Kings 18, but I'unno. That passage is pretty fucked up for other reasons (extremely murderous religious violence, in which followers of YWHW murder several hundred rival priests after pulling off a party favor with "water" that caught fire when exposed to burnt offerings), but it looks like even the kjv retained reference to baal as a god/gods, just an absent one.
Post by: Schmaven on August 16, 2023, 06:19:19 pm
Post by: McTraveller on August 16, 2023, 07:01:35 pm
Satan (Lucifer) being an angel and all.
I still maintain that our system of mathematics is sufficient to describe all relevant phenomena - it is computationally complete (not the technical term, but close enough...) - that means it's provable to be able to describe anything describable*. Just because you don't understand the qualia of existing as a 5-dimensional being, doesn't mean we can't describe it - and we can and do! Turing completeness isn't based on observed physics! It's "pure" math.
If you say "oh but what if there is some new type of computation that we can't even experience, so can't understand it!" then I say, for all intents and purposes that it doesn't exist - because if it doesn't interact with our universe (including the space of concepts which exist purely as descriptions), then it effectively doesn't exist. I mean we have predicate logic which is basically based on noncontradiction. We have fuzzy logic which is a non-discrete extension. So basically I grant that maybe we can't describe truly** self-contradictory systems.
*Only thing mathematics can't do is prove if some things are true or false - go go Goedel! - which is kind of entertaining.
**We can describe and observe systems which appear to be inconsistent, but generally that's later proven to be due to an inadequate model. Even quantum mechanics examples - that isn't "it exists and doesn't exist at the same time" its "it exists and is in this state and this state at the same time" - there is no provision in QM for "doesn't exist".
Post by: Criptfeind on August 16, 2023, 07:10:55 pm
Post by: Maximum Spin on August 16, 2023, 08:06:43 pm
I still maintain that our system of mathematics is sufficient to describe all relevant phenomena - it is computationally complete (not the technical term, but close enough...) - that means it's provable to be able to describe anything describable*. Just because you don't understand the qualia of existing as a 5-dimensional being, doesn't mean we can't describe it - and we can and do! Turing completeness isn't based on observed physics! It's "pure" math.Pure math is, indeed, based on observed physics. Pure math is a set of axioms chosen by humans (and the consequences of those axioms) based on human experience in a world where you can see one cow, and then another cow somewhere else, and herd them together to count two cows. In other words, there's nothing genuinely pure about it. There is absolutely no philosophical guarantee that math accurately represents the universe - only that it reflects human perception. If our perceptions are gravely skewed, then our axioms based on those perceptions are faulty, and math is wrong.
Post by: McTraveller on August 16, 2023, 08:32:19 pm
People have literal religious experiences solving math problems because they transcend the physical.
What I mean by “pure” math is like: There is no physics “behind” counting - this gets back to labeling and pattern matching and pattern extension. Counting exists without physics. Sure we started by counting things, but then we had the miracle of realizing you could just count - there is something deeper that counting things.
This is not sleight-of word; Math has been called “the language of God” for good reason… it is eternal, it is not subjective, it exists the same way no matter what names you give the symbols…
Come join the religion of Math and you will know Truth and find Enlightenment!
;)
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 16, 2023, 08:42:19 pm
We are in the religion thread, I don't think something not existing should necessarily preclude us considering and even believing in it, no?Yeah but my beliefs don't include "there's some odd kind of computation that is above TC" so I don't believe in it.
I'd consider this, if I saw any sort of evidence for such a kind of math.I still maintain that our system of mathematics is sufficient to describe all relevant phenomena - it is computationally complete (not the technical term, but close enough...) - that means it's provable to be able to describe anything describable*. Just because you don't understand the qualia of existing as a 5-dimensional being, doesn't mean we can't describe it - and we can and do! Turing completeness isn't based on observed physics! It's "pure" math.Pure math is, indeed, based on observed physics. Pure math is a set of axioms chosen by humans (and the consequences of those axioms) based on human experience in a world where you can see one cow, and then another cow somewhere else, and herd them together to count two cows. In other words, there's nothing genuinely pure about it. There is absolutely no philosophical guarantee that math accurately represents the universe - only that it reflects human perception. If our perceptions are gravely skewed, then our axioms based on those perceptions are faulty, and math is wrong.
Post by: Frumple on August 16, 2023, 09:00:48 pm
What I mean by “pure” math is like: There is no physics “behind” counting - this gets back to labeling and pattern matching and pattern extension. Counting exists without physics. Sure we started by counting things, but then we had the miracle of realizing you could just count - there is something deeper that counting things.I mean, this isn't actually true; the "physics" behind counting is neurology, the functioning and structure of the human brain that's processing the concepts involved with counting (from the actual mechanical process to the aesthetic aspect in deciding it's worth doing) and (for it to be particularly relevant to anyone) communicating the process to others.
It's one of those side issues in regards to epistemology and mathematical theory in general, iirc, that largely inescapable doubt that the basic structure of our brains and how they function is somehow corrupting how we posit, interpret, and expand on mathematical axioms and what falls out from them.
... reasonable response to that is generally about what it is in regards to existentialism (i.e. shrug and find something better to do with your time than worry about it, work with the cards you're dealt, etc., etc.), but that doesn't make the problem go away, it just means you're ignoring it and hoping for the best :V
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 16, 2023, 09:11:14 pm
I think this kind of thing is a cop out. It's like in discussions about e.g future space travel, people bring up things like "what if we discover FTL" and so on. Generally such arguments should only be argued within physics and reality as we know it, otherwise it is playground logic where you can make up anything.What I mean by “pure” math is like: There is no physics “behind” counting - this gets back to labeling and pattern matching and pattern extension. Counting exists without physics. Sure we started by counting things, but then we had the miracle of realizing you could just count - there is something deeper that counting things.I mean, this isn't actually true; the "physics" behind counting is neurology, the functioning and structure of the human brain that's processing the concepts involved with counting (from the actual mechanical process to the aesthetic aspect in deciding it's worth doing) and (for it to be particularly relevant to anyone) communicating the process to others.
It's one of those side issues in regards to epistemology and mathematical theory in general, iirc, that largely inescapable doubt that the basic structure of our brains and how they function is somehow corrupting how we posit, interpret, and expand on mathematical axioms and what falls out from them.
... reasonable response to that is generally about what it is in regards to existentialism (i.e. shrug and find something better to do with your time than worry about it, work with the cards you're dealt, etc., etc.), but that doesn't make the problem go away, it just means you're ignoring it and hoping for the best :V
Post by: Egan_BW on August 16, 2023, 09:22:39 pm
Post by: lemon10 on August 16, 2023, 09:32:58 pm
Yes, if someone told you how to do it you could do it, but that isn't even problem solving, that's just remembering a set of instructions and doing what they say. A computer can do that.Do you think you can make a metal spear if you were turned into a crow but maintained your same body?
I can't do that in my current body. But if I knew how, I could probably do it as a crow. Body plan might not be fully ideal for tool use, but it's very possible.
---
And pretty much all big animals *are* capable of arbitrary problem solving. Not all to the same degree of course, but problem solving is not on-off switch.
Pretty much all the major abilities we have many other animals have as well if often quite weaker.
Language? Check. Maybe not verbal, but they communicate and teach each other new ways to do things.
Ability to share knowledge? Check. Even can do this. Crows share knowledge of people that are nice/mean to them for instance.
Ability to try solving problems in different ways? Check.
---
The big thing that separates us from the other highly intelligent animals is simply our civilizational knowledge, ability to communicate and bodies that made advanced tools possible. None of which seems like a reasonable way to define sapience.
Post by: Egan_BW on August 16, 2023, 09:51:34 pm
Post by: Maximum Spin on August 16, 2023, 10:47:44 pm
Might not truthfully take all that long for a different species to take our place after we're gone.There's no really plausible extinction scenario for humans that leaves the rest of the biosphere intact anyway, though. You'd have to go for a giant meteor or something. Anything much short of that, and there will be some humans left to come back.
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 16, 2023, 11:24:49 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on August 16, 2023, 11:51:40 pm
Post by: Quarque on August 17, 2023, 12:03:06 am
Labelling it as a human construct is not really fair, either. Other animals can count to a limited degree. Computers can do math nowadays.
And there is a degree of objectivity to it that is unique among the sciences. Only in math can you find such universal agreement between scientists about what is true, false or unknown. To deny that and write off math as yet another set of biased human opinions is taking an extreme postmodernist position, akin to saying of 'everything is just opinion and facts don't exist'
Post by: Frumple on August 17, 2023, 12:32:12 am
Math is on an incredibly fundamental level a constructed system, though. It's the major reason why there's as much agreement on what's true or not in regards to it, because of course if you're working from the same priors (mathematical axioms) using the same systems of interaction (human brains, formal logic, etc.) you're going to have broad agreement in what's true and what isn't. It's unique among sciences specifically because it's a constructed system, not something that has to deal with reality or nature in general.
Math's mostly just a language, at the end of the day -- an incredibly useful one that we've gotten a lot of mileage out of and will pretty certainly get a lot more, but that doesn't make it somehow spontaneously generate from a platonic form or somethin'. Until we meet other relatively equal intelligences, and especially ones with extremely disparate means of processing thought (and computers don't count even a little, considering humans make the things, with all that entails), we don't really have a way to prove otherwise.
We just also don't need to, to keep using it for all sorts of helpful stuff, heh.
Post by: Quarque on August 17, 2023, 01:00:00 am
Computers are already better at it than most humans. That does show that the human brain isn't required or even very good at it.
If a very different sentience would disagree on what mathematical axioms to work with, they are even less likely to agree on what is "useful". It is also worth noting that mathematics isn't limited to one particular set of axioms.
Post by: MaxTheFox on August 17, 2023, 03:42:08 am
Post by: TD1 on August 17, 2023, 07:09:42 am
Post by: McTraveller on August 17, 2023, 07:24:57 am
Computers are only "better" than humans at math in some aspects; they are faster and don't get bored and usually don't make trivial mistakes, but they can't make leaps of intuition or know "which method to use in what situation" unless there's a pre-coded lookup table to do so (or perhaps a brute-force search to find the method that works).
Basically, computers are bad at shortcuts and guessing, but are really good at "turning the crank."
Also, I think there is confusion between "the machines, including our brains, that we use to perform math depend on physics" and "math depends on physics." In the One True Math, math exists outside the need to have a physical embodiment - Math Is and Was and Will Be. 8)
Post by: Frumple on August 17, 2023, 11:31:14 am
Also, I think there is confusion between "the machines, including our brains, that we use to perform math depend on physics" and "math depends on physics." In the One True Math, math exists outside the need to have a physical embodiment - Math Is and Was and Will Be. 8)Though now the question is, are you a platonist just in regards to mathematics, or do you extend that to other things :P
Post by: McTraveller on August 17, 2023, 12:07:04 pm
Post by: Frumple on August 17, 2023, 01:42:10 pm
They're a rare breed, but they do exist even in the modern era...
Post by: Maximum Spin on August 17, 2023, 02:32:15 pm
Post by: hector13 on August 17, 2023, 02:34:14 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on August 17, 2023, 02:51:14 pm
My religion prohibits me from followingPerhaps we're not so different after all~
(Forgive me for I have sinned... Though I AM *mostly* off Twitter. I was weak! Perhaps I should get banned again. Last time all it took was quoting someone at himself)
Post by: Egan_BW on August 17, 2023, 02:55:31 pm
Post by: zhijinghaofromchina on August 19, 2023, 10:27:15 am
I should say that I am not religious. But this time when our family's car tire got broke down on a highway where is somewhat very busy. It's so lucky for my family didn't got harm there. Maybe that's because the deity there help us safe from this disaster. I am still kicking. Otherwise I will RIP.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on August 25, 2023, 04:33:49 am
railgun bad
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 27, 2023, 02:17:35 pm
Maybe it's unlucky for me Our family went on a trip to Qinghai, a province whose raligun is Tibetan Buddhism, my family visited a temple there.Glad you got out of that okay! Just don't tempt fate too much. You don't want to run out of guardian angels :P
I should say that I am not religious. But this time when our family's car tire got broke down on a highway where is somewhat very busy. It's so lucky for my family didn't got harm there. Maybe that's because the deity there help us safe from this disaster. I am still kicking. Otherwise I will RIP.
Railgun good?railgun bad
Post by: Egan_BW on August 27, 2023, 03:09:36 pm
Post by: Maximum Spin on August 27, 2023, 03:59:15 pm
Railgun good, Gaussgun better.Nah, the railgun is more practical in many circumstances. It's more of a tradeoff than a strict superiority situation.
Post by: Egan_BW on August 27, 2023, 04:59:19 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 27, 2023, 06:10:11 pm
Post by: TD1 on August 29, 2023, 06:06:10 pm
Post by: Magmacube_tr on August 29, 2023, 06:15:07 pm
But still less efficient than giant worms
Giant worms suck. They make the planets they infest really ugly.
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 30, 2023, 04:59:15 am
Idk what if they're just giant earthworms and they make giant soil quality for giant treesBut still less efficient than giant wormsGiant worms suck. They make the planets they infest really ugly.
Post by: TD1 on August 30, 2023, 06:13:48 am
Post by: zhijinghaofromchina on August 31, 2023, 08:48:29 am
Post by: Strongpoint on August 31, 2023, 09:03:46 am
Dear bay watchers ! Having read Conan Doyle's a study in scarlet, is there anyone who could tell me more about the Mormons , it seems that they are evil , is that right ?
Nah, not really. It is just a weird sect of Christianity (up to the point when it is questionable that they are Christian. But I follow the rules of evolution. What evolved from Christianity is Christianity, like birds are dinosaurs. And yep, Christianity and Islam are subtypes of Judaism).
Yes, this sect has questionable ethics, sex and child abuse scandals, very unpleasant leaders who get rich by using gullible, etc... But it is no different from any other religion. There are better religions but there are also worse. Also, Mormons have many subdivisions themselves.
Post by: WealthyRadish on August 31, 2023, 09:24:32 am
The usual criticisms of any religion apply as Strongpoint says (and they're on the worse end of religions as a whole). However, in the US most criticism of Mormonism one will encounter in personal life will be from other Christians criticizing it on theological/cultural grounds, and if this is the source of their dislike it can be ignored (and is likely on some level hypocritical).
Post by: TD1 on August 31, 2023, 09:51:11 am
Post by: Frumple on August 31, 2023, 10:19:55 am
They're better than the southern baptist convention, at least!
My cat's shit out stuff with better moral turpitude than that mess, though, so...
Post by: Magmacube_tr on August 31, 2023, 10:28:50 am
Dear bay watchers ! Having read Conan Doyle's a study in scarlet, is there anyone who could tell me more about the Mormons , it seems that they are evil , is that right ?
They suck.
Post by: TD1 on August 31, 2023, 10:32:40 am
Post by: zhijinghaofromchina on September 01, 2023, 05:14:44 am
According to my limited knowledge of the religions , my questions are as follows.
Firstly in Victor Hugo’s the miserable, the series show that the religion plays a positive role in awakening the humanity inside a seemingly evil man .
Second in the TV series the Dopesick the victims of drug abuse were trying to escape from the prison of OxyContin but they failed, desperately and poorly , end up with a horrible death.
How do you think about the facts above?
Thirdly several days ago a stranger contacted me accidentally he asked if I am a Christian, and he wanted to make me become one, I am not religious ,how to reject him politely?
By the way if I want to know more the western religions what books should I read?
Post by: MaxTheFox on September 01, 2023, 05:37:28 am
Post by: Magmacube_tr on September 01, 2023, 10:06:55 am
Mor(m)ons.
GOTTEM
Post by: Strongpoint on September 01, 2023, 12:04:36 pm
*as long as it is not Disney Star Wars 'sequels'
Post by: Frumple on September 01, 2023, 12:09:54 pm
They're not nearly as large as the mormons, but it's not like there aren't groups that expand on canon that have far less baggage. There's piles of 'em, really.
Post by: MaxTheFox on September 01, 2023, 08:01:34 pm
I mean, sure, but there's far more copacetic groups, like some of the christobuddhists or whatever they are. Knew a radical ordained christian preacher/minister (old college prof, though I forget which denominations they originated from) at one point that had published some stuff on possible connections between jesus and buddhism (stuff like investigating the possibly ol' streaker J took off eastwards after resurrection, iirc), and there's denominations out there holding beliefs along those lines.I almost went that way but decided not to. With my faith crisis over, and my specific sect of Protestantism being fully baked into my new, entrenched worldview and ideology, I likely never will.
They're not nearly as large as the mormons, but it's not like there aren't groups that expand on canon that have far less baggage. There's piles of 'em, really.
Post by: Schmaven on September 01, 2023, 08:47:29 pm
Thanks bay watchers for your kind replies !
According to my limited knowledge of the religions , my questions are as follows.
Firstly in Victor Hugo’s the miserable, the series show that the religion plays a positive role in awakening the humanity inside a seemingly evil man .
Second in the TV series the Dopesick the victims of drug abuse were trying to escape from the prison of OxyContin but they failed, desperately and poorly , end up with a horrible death.
How do you think about the facts above?
Thirdly several days ago a stranger contacted me accidentally he asked if I am a Christian, and he wanted to make me become one, I am not religious ,how to reject him politely?
By the way if I want to know more the western religions what books should I read?
I have seen people transform their behavior into more kind, compassionate ways because of religion, so I think it has some real value for society in that regard.
To politely refuse someone's conversion attempts, I usually just talk with them, and point out specifically what I disagree with about being converted to their beliefs. But also bringing up what I believe instead of / in place of what they believe. However, those sort of people typically will talk over you and bring up dozens of things I take issue with before there's even a chance to say anything. It's okay to ask them to repeat themselves, and also to just admit that you don't have 4 hours right now to discuss the matter.
That being said, I have learned a lit from such long discussions, despite their failures to convert me. As long as you maintain respect for the other person, and avoid straw manning their arguement, you can approach those situations in many ways.
No idea about the books though.
Post by: dragdeler on September 02, 2023, 03:27:12 am
(stuff like investigating the possibly ol' streaker J took off eastwards after resurrection, iirc), and there's denominations out there holding beliefs along those lines.
Jules V Christus, in 70 days around the world: eclectic buggaloo.
Post by: Strongpoint on September 02, 2023, 06:43:37 am
Quote
I have seen people transform their behavior into more kind, compassionate ways because of religion, so I think it has some real value for society in that regard.
Because of religion or because they found a new community in which they are valued?
Post by: Schmaven on September 02, 2023, 07:31:45 am
QuoteI have seen people transform their behavior into more kind, compassionate ways because of religion, so I think it has some real value for society in that regard.
Because of religion or because they found a new community in which they are valued?
Because of religion.
Post by: McTraveller on September 02, 2023, 07:51:33 am
Remember, those authors didn't know they were writing "the Bible" - they were writing letters to their friends and neighbors to share what they experienced. They are more like (auto)biographies of "hey we met this guy, and he changed our lives." It isn't fiction.
Now, you don't have to believe the implications of everything they said - but to say it's fiction is to deny what those works actually are.
There are similar academic approaches to the Old Testament books too, including all the allegories and apocalyptic literature. Now apocalyptic (Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc.) does have fantastic imagery that is fictional, but it's fiction with a purpose. Think of all the books written "in more modern times" that make social commentary. The plot of the stories may be fiction, but the commentary is not - that commentary is real. This is what Bible scholars mean when they say the Bible is the word of God - the social commentary is the true part, not the literal words on the page (which is why people who claim only a single translation is The One are actually wrong, and need to be told that - kindly).
My personal feeling is that people that focus on the actual words are missing out - they're caught in details that don't matter. And that focus on the words, rather than the "heart of God", often generates social unrest, which seems pretty opposite to what Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God, which didn't seem to be characterized by unrest.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on September 02, 2023, 08:24:46 am
-snip-
Yeah yeah yeah, I am not getting conned by a lowly desert god.
Yahweh can shove it up his ass.
Post by: Strongpoint on September 02, 2023, 09:27:49 am
That argument that (all of) the Bible is "due to imagination" does not pass scientific muster: the gospels, at least, are almost universally accepted as being legitimate first- or second-hand accounts of some events in the early first century.
Gospels are still fiction, loosely based on some real events but still fiction. Just like Three Musketeers is fiction even if it has a lot of real people and events in it. Difference that people don't really think that it what happened and Dumas not claimed that he knows the truth from God or something. Note that the plot of Three Musketeers is far more believable than plot of the Bible because it doesn't have magic.
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’” Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels came and waited on him.
How is stuff like this not fiction? How can it be a first-hand or second-hand account? It would make some sense if it wrote: "Jesus said that he had the following encounter with the Satan" but it is not what the text says.
It is either a divine inspiration or... imagination of someone from whom Gospels copied
Post by: dragdeler on September 02, 2023, 09:56:27 am
Post by: Maximum Spin on September 02, 2023, 02:58:37 pm
That argument that (all of) the Bible is "due to imagination" does not pass scientific muster: the gospels, at least, are almost universally accepted as being legitimate first- or second-hand accounts of some events in the early first century.Not even close. The gospels are definitely not historical accounts, as we can trace the history of their development. Real historical accounts don't gain details over future editing, much less contradictory ones.
Post by: Strongpoint on September 02, 2023, 03:28:43 pm
It is so sad that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas didn't make it because some ancient nerds decided that it was not canon enough...
Child Jesus kicked ass in this one.
_________
And if we speak fiction or non-fiction. I know a trick. If a story contains magic you can safely conclude that it IS fiction.
Post by: McTraveller on September 02, 2023, 04:08:19 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on September 02, 2023, 05:26:19 pm
-snip-
Yeah yeah yeah, I am not getting conned by a lowly desert god.
Yahweh can shove it up his ass.
This "lowly desert god" seems to still be active:
https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/aug/28/burning-man-protest-climate-change-environment (https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/aug/28/burning-man-protest-climate-change-environment)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/burning-man-attendees-advised-shelter-place-conserve-food-water-due-he-rcna103127 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/burning-man-attendees-advised-shelter-place-conserve-food-water-due-he-rcna103127)
Post by: Magmacube_tr on September 02, 2023, 08:13:02 pm
This "lowly desert god" seems to still be active:
What do you mean? What do those two things have to do with Yahweh?
Post by: MaxTheFox on September 02, 2023, 08:43:35 pm
Post by: Maximum Spin on September 03, 2023, 01:07:22 am
Post by: Frumple on September 03, 2023, 03:20:35 am
If there actually are any around, there's no goddamn way to tell which one it is. Bonus points, some of them supposedly get pissy if you guess wrong, so have fun with that one, ha.
Post by: Strongpoint on September 03, 2023, 03:30:39 am
There's tons of information online and in bookstores and libraries about how the canon was decided, none of it is really secret. Even Wikipedia is pretty "traditional" in its explanations of why Thomas isn't in the canon, for instance (the author shouldn't have copied so many coptic texts, basically).
Good thing that 4 dudes copied fewer unrelated myths to their Gospels. What was the threshold?
Post by: Maximum Spin on September 03, 2023, 04:45:43 am
Maybe, but there's like... dozens. Of gods that would do something like that, if they existed and got the whim to.Yes, that's the rub. Logically, given the region, the obvious candidate is Coyote. You certainly can't fault that for plausibility.
If there actually are any around, there's no goddamn way to tell which one it is. Bonus points, some of them supposedly get pissy if you guess wrong, so have fun with that one, ha.
Post by: Egan_BW on September 03, 2023, 03:36:16 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on September 14, 2023, 09:56:18 am
They envy and admire Muslims. I mean stuff like: " They actually pray regularly. Their mosques are always full. Their women are modest and chaste. They don't allow sodomy run rampart" and similar BS. Is this a local phenomenon or do Christians in your countries have similar sentiments?
Post by: Grim Portent on September 14, 2023, 10:04:02 am
I have started noticing an interesting trend among Christians here, in Ukraine:
They envy and admire Muslims. I mean stuff like: " They actually pray regularly. Their mosques are always full. Their women are modest and chaste. They don't allow sodomy run rampart" and similar BS. Is this a local phenomenon or do Christians in your countries have similar sentiments?
The conservative/regressive ones do, or some of them anyway. Depends on if they're more bothered by social liberalism or xenophobia.
Really when you get into the socially conservative sphere of religious people they all become pretty interchangable. A fundamentalist generally has more in common with fundamentalists of other faiths than with moderates of their own faith when it comes to actual social attitudes.
Post by: Telgin on September 14, 2023, 10:33:26 am
Post by: Frumple on September 14, 2023, 12:23:53 pm
Like, they want to glass every muslim country on the planet, but they're envious of some of the theocratic policy or practices seen in some of them. So some degree of envy, yes, it's just envy that's part of a generally genocidal sentiment, so...
Post by: McTraveller on September 14, 2023, 02:35:10 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on September 14, 2023, 02:36:13 pm
Post by: Maximum Spin on September 14, 2023, 02:49:29 pm
Post by: TD1 on September 14, 2023, 05:09:13 pm
There's a difference between admiring devotion itself and admiring the object of that devotion. Thing is, devotion itself isn't what really matters; it turns out the object of devotion is quite significant.Devotion and not its object is the only thing to exist, however difficult it may be to quantify. and therefore matter.
Post by: MaxTheFox on September 14, 2023, 11:18:34 pm
Post by: TD1 on September 15, 2023, 04:36:07 am
Nope, haven't heard about that here.If you're referring to my post, I will revise my wording.
'Within the balance of probability, devotion and not its object is the only thing to exist, however difficult that devotion may be to quantify. Therefore it is the only thing to matter.'
Most religious folks will acknowledge that their worldview doesn't rank highly in terms of probability, simply that their faith stipulates it to be true anyway.
Regardless of faith, though, the real-world likelihood of most religious thought being correct is nearly zero, and this doesn't factor in the different layers of faith. From institutional, to national, to regional, to parish, to church, to individual etc.
The likelihood of an Irish Catholic from Ulster, living in Ballymoney and participating in the Parish of Ballymoney and Derrykeighan, attending Our Lady & St Patrick's Catholic Church, and with a personal cocktail of beliefs concerning, perhaps and among other things, the accuracy of saying 'this is the body of Christ' ---- the likelihood of her being correct is technically possible, but not in a way that would register on any meaningful scale.
In this scenario, the object of her faith isn't important. But the fact of her devotion is.
Edit: Unless you're this guy.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MaxTheFox on September 15, 2023, 05:42:11 am
Post by: TD1 on September 15, 2023, 06:17:04 am
Cheers anywho.
Post by: Strongpoint on September 15, 2023, 10:53:57 am
Post by: Frumple on September 15, 2023, 06:36:44 pm
Post by: MaxTheFox on September 19, 2023, 03:01:11 am
I cannot understate how much of an embarrassment the Chick Tracts are. While he is of a broadly similar denomination to myself, there's a reason why the saying goes "the most vehement disagreements are between people who are not in total opposition". Actually no, that is being charitable. He is a moralizing, dogmatic, science-denying, fundamentalist. Catholics go to Hell, Orthodox go to Hell, non-denominationals go to Hell, non-fundamentalist Evangelicals go to Hell (with myself being in the fourth category). Only his little sect, with its bizarre interpretation of theology is worthy.
I still read them, to riff on them, because I think they're hilarious in a tragic way, or a "oh no I can't look away" way.
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 20, 2023, 09:03:27 am
I suppose this little vent rant fits the most in this thread.
I cannot understate how much of an embarrassment the Chick Tracts are. While he is of a broadly similar denomination to myself, there's a reason why the saying goes "the most vehement disagreements are between people who are not in total opposition". Actually no, that is being charitable. He is a moralizing, dogmatic, science-denying, fundamentalist. Catholics go to Hell, Orthodox go to Hell, non-denominationals go to Hell, non-fundamentalist Evangelicals go to Hell (with myself being in the fourth category). Only his little sect, with its bizarre interpretation of theology is worthy.
I still read them, to riff on them, because I think they're hilarious in a tragic way, or a "oh no I can't look away" way.
The DnD ones however are all hella balls to the walls awesome
"DON'T TALK TO ME BLACKLEAF. YOUR CHAR DIED. YOU ARE DEAD"
10 panels later
Blackleaf's player has died. If you die in the game, you die in real life
Post by: Strongpoint on November 04, 2023, 11:51:05 pm
If your ideology promotes misogyny, homophobia, pedophilia and many other "good" things... You will be protected by the state if that ideology includes belief in supernational beings
Post by: hector13 on November 05, 2023, 12:07:46 am
Post by: Laterigrade on November 05, 2023, 09:56:52 am
Anyone else have a similar experience?
Post by: Strongpoint on November 05, 2023, 11:18:15 am
I fell out of my faith a few years ago and I think I’ve acted pretty intellectually dishonestly with regards to it, but I just can’t bring myself to care; to take up arms and wade into the swamp of figuring out whether Jesus did what was claimed, or establishing the accuracy and relevance of the Old Testament, or the trustworthiness of the Gospels, or any other such thing.
I see nothing dishonest in this. You have no obligation to check if something is true, to "fix" a lack of belief in something.
I can understand why you may feel this way. For a Christian, believing in God is the main element of morality and if your faith wavers it is your moral duty to fight the doubt and bring that faith back. But it really isn't.
Post by: Eschar on November 05, 2023, 02:45:50 pm
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 06, 2023, 02:43:44 am
Honestly most atheists I know are probably more moral than I am now. I'm not a good person though I am trying. At least my past self and her actions and ideology lie dead, obliterated. So it's all worth it. Which is part of why I keep my faith: as protection from the militant, deranged arch-pseudo-rationalism of oldMax.
(But I also went through the effort of making my faith coherent by figuring out what to discard and what not which is more thought than most raised-Christians put into it... I don't blame anyone for not doing so. It's draining.)
Post by: Strongpoint on November 06, 2023, 06:56:17 am
Never happened. I still care deeply about what is just, what is good, and what is honorable.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 06, 2023, 07:02:18 am
Post by: Telgin on November 06, 2023, 11:59:14 am
Worries about my morality were the last thing that kept my last theistic views. I was worried that once I become fully convinced that there is no reason to believe in an afterlife in which everything is rewarded or punished, that there is no divine justice or some other kind of karma, that there are no even mandated, pre-created rules of what is good and evil - I will become cynical and cold.
Never happened. I still care deeply about what is just, what is good, and what is honorable.
Same.
Well, I never worried that I'd lose any sense of morality when I stopped believing, but losing my belief never changed my morality. Actually, I'd argue it changed for the better. I stopped splitting hairs over meaningless things and judging people for things that hurt no one.
If you think about it, it's a bit silly to think that religion is the only thing keeping people from twirling mustaches and tying helpless women to train tracks. A lot of morality is pretty deeply baked into humans being social cooperative creatures, if you want to look at it from a more objective point of view.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 06, 2023, 12:42:54 pm
Post by: McTraveller on November 06, 2023, 01:15:54 pm
The questions I ask are more "Why do I behave in ways that are contrary to what I think is moral? Do I really believe these things, given that I don't put them into practice? Do I really think morals are what I think they are?"
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 06, 2023, 08:03:48 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on November 06, 2023, 09:06:44 pm
Huh? Those are not the questions I ask at all about morality, and I'm a theist.
The questions I ask are more "Why do I behave in ways that are contrary to what I think is moral? Do I really believe these things, given that I don't put them into practice? Do I really think morals are what I think they are?"
Those questions answer seek a different answer. Those are variants of "Why do I not act in a way I consider to be morally right?", my questions are "Is this action moral and why?"
How exactly do you determine the latter?
Post by: McTraveller on November 06, 2023, 09:44:40 pm
Post by: Schmaven on November 06, 2023, 10:47:36 pm
Eh, that’s a flawed question anyway: actions don’t have morality, it’s the intent behind them that matters.
While any action could be good or bad depending on the circumstances, some can be seen as just plain immoral for 99.9recurring% of the time. What makes war crimes immoral for example? Only when the other side does it? Or are some actions simply never justified? And what would those commiting such attrocities have to say about why they do them?
For the more neutral actions, intent absolutely is the main factor in whether something is moral or not.
Post by: Schmaven on November 06, 2023, 10:48:02 pm
- that’s a flawed question anyway: actions don’t have morality, it’s the intent behind them that matters.
While any action could be good or bad depending on the circumstances, some can be seen as just plain immoral for 99.9recurring% of the time. What makes war crimes immoral for example? Only when the other side does it? Or are some actions simply never justified? And what would those commiting such attrocities have to say about why they do them?
For the more neutral actions, intent absolutely is the main factor in whether something is moral or not.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 06, 2023, 10:58:15 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2023, 11:01:28 pm
Eh, that’s a flawed question anyway: actions don’t have morality, it’s the intent behind them that matters.That's definitely the kind of heuristic folks that beat children like to hold to, heh. If the intent is "good", why, it's okay to break their arm to teach them right and wrong, yeah! All the pain and suffering in the world is a-okay if you're inflicting it with the right mindset... nevermind that sort of behavior's horribly flawed at best and actively detrimental more often. It's the intent that matters, not what you're doing.
Similar sort of canard that gets trotted out about raping someone straight, at times, now that I think about it.
... intent can make a difference in regards to whether or not something is moral, but there's quite a few actions that really do have a morality baked right into them, and no amount of (what someone thinks is) good intent or authority or anything can mitigate it. It's definitely not something I'd recommend holding as an absolute, 'cause it leads to some damn terrible places. Some shit just ain't right, and there ain't no making it right.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 06, 2023, 11:07:09 pm
Eh, that’s a flawed question anyway: actions don’t have morality, it’s the intent behind them that matters.To simplify: Morality is a set of some group's standards (including a group of one) of what is Good or Evil.
It can apply both when evaluating the action and the intent of the action.
Going around and killing random people is absolutely, undoubtedly immoral even if the person in question is mentally ill and their intent is killing demons.
Post by: dragdeler on November 07, 2023, 04:50:00 am
Im sorry that is some weak minded shit people tell themselves to paint everything as inevitable, and whats the big deal anyway, I said I'm sorry stop ruminating.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 07, 2023, 06:24:36 am
It may only be considered immoral if there are some supernatural mind-reading beings around (even then - not their business) or if such evil thoughts have some magical influence on the world.
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2023, 06:26:36 am
Such a person does not spread their blackness. But they're still black.
Edit: To head off any criticism at the pass - - - - moral blackness/depravity.
Post by: Rolan7 on November 07, 2023, 06:41:59 am
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2023, 07:00:30 am
The fact of being? Bad.
I'd not say that those two things even each other out into neutrality. I suppose you could call her a Schrödinger's Kleptomaniac. Both bad and good, depending on how it is considered.
Moving beneath the surface of what you said, I understand it is meant to carry emotional undertones. You are invoking the plight of people with mental handicaps. The implication is that for these people, it is something done to them, and not by them. ((Please correct me if I am misrepresenting you - I'm riding the long black train of inference here.))
I'm saying this in the anticipation of future appeals to mental illness. My stance is that, for the purposes of judging moral worth, mental illness is not separable from the individual. The key word in 'insane murderer' is 'murderer.'
Post by: Strongpoint on November 07, 2023, 07:06:22 am
I care?What exactly is "black?" Define it.
Such a person does not spread their blackness. But they're still black.
I vaguely define evil as "someone or something that causes harm". Naturally, no action = no harm = not evil.
Post by: TD1 on November 07, 2023, 07:10:14 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 07, 2023, 07:13:02 am
I think a wannabe child rapist, for example, is evil even if he keeps it under control. But he's less evil than one who acts on his desires. The ratio and value both change depending on how bad the desired crime is. A wannabe thief, or wannabe vandal... meh. I don't mind them at all as long as they do indeed keep themself together. Hell, I get vandalism impulses at times. But I don't do it.
Evil to me is not purely something based on actions. It is a state of being that only sapient beings can have. A tornado is not evil even if it kills and displaces thousands. A tiger is not evil if it eats a baby. And so on.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 07, 2023, 08:00:42 am
Is a seething, tentacled mass which desires rape and murder with its entire being only evil when its cage door is opened?No. Because we know that it not only desires it but will also do it.
I wasn't clear with my example. I meant not a person who has "evil thoughts" and doesn't do it because they are outright unable to do it or don't act yet out of fear or inconvenience and will do that at the first opportunity (such a person is evil but it is impossible to detect because it is contained) but chooses not to.
I mean mostly stuff like "If you look at your friend's wife and feel the desire to have sex with her you are an immoral sinner and should pray to God for forgiveness"
Quote
I think a wannabe child rapist, for example, is evil even if he keeps it under controlFunny. I think being aroused by the idea of sex with children or rape or a combination of the two is not that different from any other sexual preference, fetish, or even orientation. It is not something. The tragedy of such people is that they can't pursue what they want without harming other people and their only moral option is constant self-restraint. Those are victims, not evil. And if it is God's test... He is a cruel bastard.
(also there are degrees of that - one may have minor pedophilic tendencies but enjoy normal sex with adults. But there are people who just can't be aroused by adults because their brain is wired in a weird way)
Post by: McTraveller on November 07, 2023, 08:19:38 am
The examples of a mentally ill person going on a rampage: that's tragic, but it's not immoral. It's no more immoral than a person with rabies going on a rampage - there is no agency there.
Things like physical harm to "build character" - that's lying to oneself about intent. The intent there is to harm and use "build character" as a justification. Same for any other "I'm doing this for your own good!" kind of reasoning - if the focus was on "your own good" you'd find another way to do it, not the way that lets you indulge in violence or self-aggrandizement.
It's also why having malicious thoughts but not acting on them is still immoral, and why "thoughts and prayers" without action is also immoral.
The ultimate conclusion is not a new one: every single person is immoral to some extent.
Quote
I mean mostly stuff like "If you look at your friend's wife and feel the desire to have sex with her you are an immoral sinner and should pray to God for forgiveness"
This example is... incomplete at best. Stopping at merely forgiveness is where it falls short - the better prayer is to ask also to change your desires, so that you no longer want something you don't have. Pining after someone not your spouse is, if nothing else, not good for yourself even from a selfish standpoint.
Quote
The tragedy of such people is that they can't pursue what they want without harming other people and their only moral option is constant self-restraint. Those are victims, not evil.
This presupposes the highest aim is self fulfillment, and not everyone shares that belief. Also children aren't victims when you try to teach them restraint from wasteful activities "that're what they want" - so why would it be universal that simply because an "adult" wants something, asking them to exercise restraint makes them a victim? It also presupposes a narrow definition of "harm" limited generally to discomfort rather than a more broad meaning like perpetuating misunderstandings of the universe - take flat earth belief for an example of "harm that doesn't cause physical or emotional pain."
Post by: dragdeler on November 07, 2023, 09:09:21 am
If you get to repress your bad thoughts so that they don't verbally swim at the surface of your attention, you considered an angel, but if you have some self introspection suddenly the thing does a 180?
It's a bad system just because the justice the justice system overly relies on this system so there is some wiggleroom in which well paid lawyers get to exercise their spiel, doesn't make it a good system. If justitia were truely bliind, sentences should be uniform, wit all the paper they wasted you can't tell me that we couldnt have a catalogue with every possible infraction at every degeree of severity imaginable for the same effort worth. But how would we favor the rich then.
Post by: McTraveller on November 07, 2023, 09:22:24 am
If you're too dense to plan ahead and have no impulse control? You don't get to go consequence free for being a brute. But if you really have no impulse control (e.g., say you had a brain tumor) then you are morally exonerated, not free from social consequences.
Maybe that's the key - don't confuse moral impact with social impact! Consider the quote (which I'm paraphrasing) "giving to the needy doesn't require love, but loving the needy requires giving." Giving to the needy in both cases likely has the same social impact, but they have quite different moral implications.
Regarding the "if you repress your bad thoughts... you are considered an angel." I suppose maybe you are considered one by society, but you aren't one. You're a struggling, internally miserable human.
I mean, what if you are a closet dog-hater but never act on it, never attend an event, but in your heart of hearts you want to destroy all dogs in the most gruesome way possible. I'd say you are not a "moral" person, even though society would not notice.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 07, 2023, 09:29:59 am
Quote
This example is... incomplete at best. Stopping at merely forgiveness is where it falls short - the better prayer is to ask also to change your desires, so that you no longer want something you don't have. Pining after someone not your spouse is, if nothing else, not good for yourself even from a selfish standpoint.
Last time I checked, having fantasies about someone is actually... pleasant. And, if it stays secret, it doesn't harm anyone in any meaningful way.
What self-harm is there? Unless you hate yourself for the "immorality" of your desires. Or you want it SO bad that not having it makes you unhappy which is usually not the case.
Quote
This presupposes the highest aim is self fulfillment, and not everyone shares that belief.
No. It presupposes that people actually suffer when they must fight what is deeply wired in us by evolution like sexual drive. And it is bad because people suffering is bad. People not suffering is good. But there is no moral way out of this when your only option to not suffer is to make others suffer to a much higher degree.
The best solution, is, of course, to remove or redirect those urges but it is no damn easy(if possible at all).
Quote
take flat earth belief for an example of "harm that doesn't cause physical or emotional pain."
Flat earth is a narrow example of a wider problem "I know better than professionals in the area" And it leads to very physical and real harm when people oppose vaccination or do similar stuff.
This is why spreading lies like Flat Earth is very clearly immoral.
Post by: Egan_BW on November 07, 2023, 09:31:07 am
Post by: dragdeler on November 07, 2023, 09:34:38 am
And then what, we're going to measure the character of a person by intrusively thought policing, instead of by their actions?
It seems terribly contorted and is intuitively abject to me.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 07, 2023, 09:43:56 am
Thoughts can be unethical.And here I disagree completely. Thoughts are not part of behavior! And ethics are all about behaviors.
Post by: McTraveller on November 07, 2023, 09:47:28 am
Basically - worrying about what's moral or not, is not actually the point. Even in my religion, which oft gets blamed for over-moralizing. The namesake of the religion, even, had tons to say about "you're doing morality wrong*!" to both the religious elite of the day, and the people who were so shamed by the religious elite they thought themselves worthless.
*And a lot of it was "Thoughts matter, not just actions. Your sacrifices and alms and giving are a stench to me. Your neglect of the downtrodden is horrific."
White-tower pontification of morality doesn't really benefit anyone... although I admit it is a pleasant diversion.
Post by: Egan_BW on November 07, 2023, 09:53:11 am
Post by: Strongpoint on November 07, 2023, 09:53:30 am
as smashing but to a lesser degree? Does glass change its properties because of my thought?
If I imagine myself doing something harmful to society does it mean that something happens to society just because of that? Is it somehow the same as doing that harmful thing but to a lesser degree? Does society change its properties because of my thought?
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 07, 2023, 10:09:49 am
Call me irrational, whatever. It feels wrong, so I consider it wrong.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 07, 2023, 10:26:47 am
I think some thoughts are just metaphysically evil. Why? They just are, even if there is no actual harm done. Imagining yourself committing pedophilia (and enjoying it) feels that way to me. Even if many lesser crimes don't. Sometimes there's just no root reason for something."Feels" is an awful way to measure morality, even for actions.
I am a very straight man, imagining doing anything remotely sexual with a dude is utterly, absolutely, totally disgusting for me. Watching gay porn will be like a mild torture for me. Even when guys are merely kissing is somewhat discomforting. This fact does nothing to change my opinion on the morality of homosexuality
There is also a long list of sexual fetishes (like the simple and rather common "golden shower" but it is innocent compared to many others) which also feels utterly disgusting.
Pedophilia is a great evil not because it is disgusting but because it causes very real, very measure, very serious harm to the most vulnerable. But thoughts about having sex with a child - do not cause harm.
Post by: dragdeler on November 07, 2023, 10:35:44 am
Ethically: what entitles me to to cause such extended physical and mental pain for my own sexual gratification?
Morally: are we just going to let them abuse OUR children?!
And that's allready a pretty extreme example, I struggle to find something that just is evil without a particular reason.
Post by: McTraveller on November 07, 2023, 10:44:41 am
It also means you shouldn't really call things good or evil - only harmful or benign, and to go further, as "personally harmful/benign" vs "publicly harmful/benign."
That's a difference between atheistic and theistic morality though... one is that there is an existential, fundamental "good/evil", the other is that everything is just pragmatic.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 07, 2023, 10:53:05 am
There's a difference to me between feeling disgusting and feeling evil. I did not mention disgust in my post. Piss fetish and the like feels disgusting and I'd never do it. Yet I don't consider it evil in the same way I consider having a pedophilia fetish.I think some thoughts are just metaphysically evil. Why? They just are, even if there is no actual harm done. Imagining yourself committing pedophilia (and enjoying it) feels that way to me. Even if many lesser crimes don't. Sometimes there's just no root reason for something."Feels" is an awful way to measure morality, even for actions.
I am a very straight man, imagining doing anything remotely sexual with a dude is utterly, absolutely, totally disgusting for me. Watching gay porn will be like a mild torture for me. Even when guys are merely kissing is somewhat discomforting. This fact does nothing to change my opinion on the morality of homosexuality
There is also a long list of sexual fetishes (like the simple and rather common "golden shower" but it is innocent compared to many others) which also feels utterly disgusting.
Pedophilia is a great evil not because it is disgusting but because it causes very real, very measure, very serious harm to the most vulnerable. But thoughts about having sex with a child - do not cause harm.
One can despise things in more than one different way, you know.
It's not hard tho to tell why pedophilia is bad tho, so it kinda not "just is evil".I know, I was talking about pedophilic fantasies though, not the act itself. Yes, I consider some thoughts evil. That might be a bitter pill to swallow. It was for my old self too.
Ethically: what entitles me to to cause such extended physical and mental pain for my own sexual gratification?
Morally: are we just going to let them abuse OUR children?!
And that's allready a pretty extreme example, I struggle to find something that just is evil without a particular reason.
Good night.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 07, 2023, 11:04:23 am
Quote
You mean things are only "evil" if they result in a physical change to the universe, or other people? That's sort of a... functional definition, not an existential definition.Yes, the universe, other people, other living things, something actually existing must be changed before we can even start speaking about evil or wrong in the action.
Quote
one is that there is an existential, fundamental "good/evil", the other is that everything is just pragmatic.
Rational is a better word. And yes, As I said, I use reason to determine what is good, and what is evil by measuring the effects. It all started when I said that theists need to answer different questions to determine what is moral. I specifically listed "Is this good or evil on a cosmic scale of morality?" as a question that theists ask themselves.
And you said that you don't ask this question AT ALL. So do you ask yourself that or not?
Post by: dragdeler on November 07, 2023, 11:04:40 am
IMO it is more useful to define some action where the agent was completly oblivious to it's harm as evil, than it would be to define bad thoughts as evil. One creates accountability, the other is just an expression of your moral-aesthethical preferences.
Post by: hector13 on November 07, 2023, 11:10:20 am
You mean things are only "evil" if they result in a physical change to the universe, or other people? That's sort of a... functional definition, not an existential definition.
It also means you shouldn't really call things good or evil - only harmful or benign, and to go further, as "personally harmful/benign" vs "publicly harmful/benign."
That's a difference between atheistic and theistic morality though... one is that there is an existential, fundamental "good/evil", the other is that everything is just pragmatic.
I don’t think that’s the difference between atheistic and theistic morality. Theistic morality preaches that there is evil in thought (which means you might as well just do the act if it’s the same) but also that there’s evil in things that we consider benign in modern times, homosexuality being one of the big ones.
Some religions also think that removing evil is a good thing. They try “convince” the gay to be straight, through means from relatively benign (pray the gay away) to utterly cruel (conversion therapies, correctional rape, outright murder) because performing a smaller evil to prevent a greater one/save a soul is worth the sin.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 07, 2023, 11:50:27 am
I don’t think that’s the difference between atheistic and theistic morality. Theistic morality preaches that there is evil in thought (which means you might as well just do the act if it’s the same) but also that there’s evil in things that we consider benign in modern times, homosexuality being one of the big ones.
Before someone jumps in with - not all theist considers homosexuality a sin. We know.
Only the most narrow-minded of theists go like "What is moral or not determined by what is written in my holy text and if I have reasons to think differently I should remind myself that I am a child and can't possibly understand father's laws, I must obey them."
Most theists balance societal morality with their holy texts with ideas like "It didn't exactly mean that!" "It is outdated and applied only for that time." "It is an allegory" "Later part of the holy text cancels this!"
Post by: Rolan7 on November 07, 2023, 11:57:20 am
The homophobia could go either way depending on whether they act like Paul was divinely inspired or just a zealous prick who
Post by: McTraveller on November 07, 2023, 12:24:26 pm
Same for the (even scriptural) basis against "oh if there's no moral difference between thinking about thing and doing it, then I'll just do it" - there's a difference in actual outcomes, but there is no moral difference - that's what's missing in that assessment.
As for why I don't ask "is this moral or not?" is because I already have the answer: If it's self-first, it's immoral. If it doesn't help people in need, when I have the ability to - it's immoral. If it's thinking that humans know best - it's probably immoral, but might just be misguided. If it's hating people, that's immoral.
Incidentally I'd argue that it's because people read scriptures without passing them through a cultural lens that we have many problems. Lack of understanding what was cultural, versus what was "for all time", is indeed a huge problem.
Also funny that the Christian texts at least, explicitly say that nothing from the OT is cancelled, not one jot or tittle. (I think that "updating" older guidance is from Islam?)
Random: I think people also often confuse merely "unwise" for "immoral." They are different concepts.
Post by: dragdeler on November 07, 2023, 12:37:36 pm
I do not believe there'd be the chance of a snowball in hell, that altruistic concerns are able to solve the oncoming mass extinction. Only a wise self-interest could. But also I notice how most of the conversation turns around abvious criminality while my responses ooze in the subtext of declarations of collective guilt as it relates to the ecology.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 07, 2023, 01:17:12 pm
Quote
As for why I don't ask "is this moral or not?" is because I already have the answer: If it's self-first, it's immoral. If it doesn't help people in need, when I have the ability to - it's immoral. If it's thinking that humans know best - it's probably immoral, but might just be misguided. If it's hating people, that's immoral.
Wow... How comfortable and simple...
Is it immoral to kill in self-defense? (it is self-first BY DEFINITION)
Is it immoral to hatelessly kill heretics so they don't spread their lies and hurt other people's immortal souls?
Is it immoral to torture people with an attempt to save their immortal soul? After all, it is better than hell.
Is it immoral to have any leisure at all when you could help other people instead?
Is it immoral to cause extinctions of animal species? (as long as you do it not for "self-first")
Post by: McTraveller on November 07, 2023, 01:32:55 pm
You can justify killing in self defense, but that doesn't make it moral.
The only subtle one is probably the leisure time one. There's a point where if you over-stress yourself, you reduce your ability to server others, so that can be immoral.
I mean of course I used reductio-ad-absurdum to show that for most things the argument is silly and is probably just trying to self-justify behavior or internal monologue or justify criticizing other peoples' thoughts and/or behaviors.
Some things are... blurry perhaps, but in that case, just err on the non-blurry definition.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 07, 2023, 02:32:32 pm
I actually want to know what makes those actions (im)moral from your theistic worldview.
I can answer my own questions.
Is it immoral to kill in self-defense? - Depends. Usually no. If you are a normal person, your life is more valuable for society than that of a wanna-be murderer. Also, it is good when violent people know that there is a risk of dying as a result of their violence, they will be less prone to practice that violence and this also benefits society.
Is it immoral to hatelessly kill heretics so they don't spread their lies and hurt other people's immortal souls? In most cases, yes. Even if you replace souls with minds. There are usually better ways. But sometimes there are no better ways. Killing members of ISIS or similar fanatical religious groups is good, if there are no other ways to stop them.
Is it immoral to torture people in an attempt to save their immortal soul? Yes. Torture doesn't work as mental therapy. Even if it did, the amount of suffering will likely outweight any gain
Is it immoral to have any leisure at all when you could help other people instead? Not really. Having fun that causes no harm can't be immoral by itself. but there is an "opportunity cost" of not doing something MORE moral. The problem is that this "opportunity cost" can be applied to anything "How dare you to save kittens when there are people starving in Africa? MONSTER!" Of course, inaction can be immoral but it is unrealistic to expect that every human being will always act in a completely selfless way seeking what is the absolute best way to improve society. It is not how we function.
Is it immoral to cause extinctions of animal species? Very, very tricky one. For me it is yes but I am fully aware that view on the idea if morality spreads to animals (and to what degree) varies greatly. Even from the point of human-centric morality it looks immoral because we as humanity lose access to those species.
Post by: Schmaven on November 07, 2023, 05:52:07 pm
Thoughts precede both verbal and physical actions, and so thoughts are a nonphysical aspect of those actions.
Whenever I start a new habit, or stop an old habit, I fantasize about my words or deeds in the manner of whatever change I am trying to accomplish. After some thinking, I eventually see opportunities to act in new ways. And by leaning into that direction with the choices I make, I can affect real changes in patterns of being. Maybe my brain is wired differently from everyone else, but for me, thinking about certain actions makes it easier to engage in those actions.
Now this doesn't just apply to intended changes in behavior. I have also experienced how fantasizing about the pleasures of eating ice cream can lead to eating more ice cream than is healthy to consume. Or how ruminating on how mad I'll be if so and so does that thing again can lead to an angrier than normal response to some stupid problem.
I extrapolate that in a similar way, fantasizing (in essence, thinking) about committing a particular crime would make someone more succeptible to actually engaging in that criminal action. And that if the situation were to present itself it would require greater restraint to hold back than if such fantasies were not induldged.
While the thoughts themselves alone cause no harm, because they have the effect of pulling one in the direction of nonvirtue, they are inseparable from that chain of cause and effect that brings about variously moral and immoral actions.
So I categorize thoughts as having degrees of morality similar to how actions do. But I am not a mind reader, and have trouble understanding exactly what people mean when they speak, so I do my best to always avoid judging the morality of others, but instead try to consider my own, and act accordingly.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 07, 2023, 10:42:44 pm
Yes, but we are talking about if having pedophilic desires is evil, don't we? I chose the example of an act that is so clearly evil exactly because I want to illustrate that thoughts even about something as horrible as this... are not evil themselves.Well, I think they fundamentally are. Even if they're not as horrible as the act.
Me when the fundamental difference in moral foundations. My moral system is not like a simple, clean mathematical formula. It's more like a complicated rulebook for a game. Not everything needs to be elegant and have a simple answer.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 08, 2023, 02:32:31 am
1) Your think has no why, no doubt, and no method to possibly check if what you think is true. So it is more like believe aka assert something as true when you don't know that.Yes, but we are talking about if having pedophilic desires is evil, don't we? I chose the example of an act that is so clearly evil exactly because I want to illustrate that thoughts even about something as horrible as this... are not evil themselves.Well, I think they fundamentally are. Even if they're not as horrible as the act.
Me when the fundamental difference in moral foundations. My moral system is not like a simple, clean mathematical formula. It's more like a complicated rulebook for a game. Not everything needs to be elegant and have a simple answer.
2) Morality is anything but simple and elegant. Like most examples of emergent complexity, it is messy, blurry, and extremely hard to figure out - especially in corner cases. And that's before we consider that there are no MORALITY, there are moralities. We may speak about personal morality or "universal human one" but even those are vague.
3) Having a rulebook IS an easy and simple way to look at reality.
Post by: lemon10 on November 08, 2023, 02:44:20 am
1) Do you believe in objective morality?
2) If yes, do you believe it comes from God?
3) If again yes, do you think that things are only good/evil because that is what God has ordained/thinks?
Re: Morality and intent.
Personally I think intent matters a great deal for if an action is moral or not.
And yes, someone that beats his wife because he believes it would make her a better person would be more moral and less evil then one that does it because its fun or because he hates her. (I also think they would be wrong and deluded, but that's a different thing from being evil).
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 08, 2023, 03:03:21 am
Honestly, yes to all three. My morality is indeed a belief. And I'm content with that. Objectivity is desirable in STEM[1] and in law. Applying it to philosophy is a fool's errand that only results in arguments that go nowhere at best, and LessWrong-style insanity at worst. Speaking of the law, this conflict between the subjective and the objective is why many laws are unjust. Alas, we can only approach total justice. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.1) Your think has no why, no doubt, and no method to possibly check if what you think is true. So it is more like believe aka assert something as true when you don't know that.Yes, but we are talking about if having pedophilic desires is evil, don't we? I chose the example of an act that is so clearly evil exactly because I want to illustrate that thoughts even about something as horrible as this... are not evil themselves.Well, I think they fundamentally are. Even if they're not as horrible as the act.
Me when the fundamental difference in moral foundations. My moral system is not like a simple, clean mathematical formula. It's more like a complicated rulebook for a game. Not everything needs to be elegant and have a simple answer.
2) Morality is anything but simple and elegant. Like most examples of emergent complexity, it is messy, blurry, and extremely hard to figure out - especially in corner cases. And that's before we consider that there are no MORALITY, there are moralities. We may speak about personal morality or "universal human one" but even those are vague.
3) Having a rulebook IS an easy and simple way to look at reality.
Questions mostly for the theists here:1) It's complicated? I think it's partially subjective and partially objective. I don't think someone is immoral for having somewhat different values from me. I don't think Strongpoint and McTraveller are evil in any meaningful way, even though I disagree with both of them. But if someone's values are so different as to e.g make them a fascist, or a murderer, their subjective morality is evil.
1) Do you believe in objective morality?
2) If yes, do you believe it comes from God?
3) If again yes, do you think that things are only good/evil because that is what God has ordained/thinks?
2) This is a hard question to answer. My particular morality, and some others I think are within tolerances, do at least partially come from God. But an atheist can be moral, and a Christian can be immoral. It's up to the individual to make themself not suck.
3) Nah.
[1] And even in most STEM fields there is no absolute "proof". The joke goes, proof is for mathematicians and brewers.
Post by: McTraveller on November 08, 2023, 08:39:22 am
Post by: Strongpoint on November 08, 2023, 12:19:30 pm
Quote
1) It's complicated? I think it's partially subjective and partially objective. I don't think someone is immoral for having somewhat different values from me. I don't think Strongpoint and McTraveller are evil in any meaningful way, even though I disagree with both of them. But if someone's values are so different as to e.g make them a fascist, or a murderer, their subjective morality is evil.
2) This is a hard question to answer. My particular morality, and some others I think are within tolerances, do at least partially come from God. But an atheist can be moral, and a Christian can be immoral. It's up to the individual to make themself not suck.
3) Nah.
1) In other words you do believe in objective morality which is the part of overall morality, right?
2) It doesn't answer the question. Is that objective part of morality created by god? mandated by God? Is it part of the universe that somehow exists independently of God?
3) So... Does it mean that God's requests and desires may be objectively immoral?
Post by: None on November 08, 2023, 12:33:27 pm
is god immoral for doing genocides, or is he moral for genociding immoral people
so is genocide moral if it's against immoral people
or is immorality not 'evil' if perhaps god can be immoral but not evil
Post by: Strongpoint on November 08, 2023, 01:20:01 pm
Post by: lemon10 on November 08, 2023, 01:44:26 pm
To better understand the question - by objective morality do you mean morals that exist independently of human sentiment, morals that are merely constant over time, or both?If I had to define it I would say that they are morals that are objectively true and exist independently of human cognition.
Post by: McTraveller on November 08, 2023, 01:51:31 pm
Would it be immoral for you (as the creator) to destroy that robot?
What if the robots were self-replicating and could self-modify their code. Under what circumstances would it be moral for a robot to destroy another robot, if any? Under what circumstances would it be immoral for you, the creator, to destroy some of the robots? Under what circumstances, if any, would it be immoral to not destroy some of the robots?
Post by: None on November 08, 2023, 01:56:10 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on November 08, 2023, 02:19:11 pm
Consider if you made a robot that had sensors that if you started dismantling the robot, or damaged the robot, it made the robot try to run away and/or make a loud noise.
Would it be immoral for you (as the creator) to destroy that robot?
What if the robots were self-replicating and could self-modify their code. Under what circumstances would it be moral for a robot to destroy another robot, if any? Under what circumstances would it be immoral for you, the creator, to destroy some of the robots? Under what circumstances, if any, would it be immoral to not destroy some of the robots?
Robots? I thought we are children of God, not unfeeling robots incapable of suffering.
So let's change it. Let's assume I created a world with feeling, sentient, beings over which I have full power...
Yes, I would totally destroy some if I, for example, would have seen that some guys with funny mustaches would kill those beings by MILLIONS in concentration camps or artificial famines*. I would destroy guys who do this with such fury and clear demonstration of my Divine Power to let every future genocidal maniac know what will happen should they try again. And yeah, I would consider this kind of action to be moral. (and as a being of Divine Power, I would limit collateral damage and not go Global Flood level of imprecision)
*to be fair, if it came to that, it would mean that I already neglected the well-being of those beings.
PS.
I would also not tolerate crimes done in my name, those people would also have gruesome deaths with a clear indication that it was done by that all-powerful guy over there, who they claimed to serve.
Post by: McTraveller on November 08, 2023, 04:00:09 pm
I mean I guess is this is the big thing going on now about "should AI have rights" - because at some point someone is going to pull the plug on a non-biological machine running something that is deemed to have "feelings."
Where lies the line between "machine that we can damage or destroy with no moral implication" and "machine that has moral implications if we damage it"? What's the difference between biological machines and other machines, for that matter?
Post by: Strongpoint on November 08, 2023, 04:10:31 pm
Where lies the line between "machine that we can damage or destroy with no moral implication" and "machine that has moral implications if we damage it"? What's the difference between biological machines and other machines, for that matter?I have no idea where this line is. Also, we don't need hypotheticals. We have non-human animals and we are very far from drawing a clear boundary there. And there is also a line between a fetus and a human, which is also not clear at all.
Post by: McTraveller on November 08, 2023, 04:18:50 pm
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 08, 2023, 10:26:44 pm
1) Yes, I suppose a significant element of it is objective.Quote1) It's complicated? I think it's partially subjective and partially objective. I don't think someone is immoral for having somewhat different values from me. I don't think Strongpoint and McTraveller are evil in any meaningful way, even though I disagree with both of them. But if someone's values are so different as to e.g make them a fascist, or a murderer, their subjective morality is evil.
2) This is a hard question to answer. My particular morality, and some others I think are within tolerances, do at least partially come from God. But an atheist can be moral, and a Christian can be immoral. It's up to the individual to make themself not suck.
3) Nah.
1) In other words you do believe in objective morality which is the part of overall morality, right?
2) It doesn't answer the question. Is that objective part of morality created by god? mandated by God? Is it part of the universe that somehow exists independently of God?
3) So... Does it mean that God's requests and desires may be objectively immoral?
2) I don't know.
3) Maybe, I don't know.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 09, 2023, 01:50:11 am
Well, my position is (as is stated above) that there is no line. Not everyone agrees...
If there is no line then the life of a human and the life of a bacterium have the same value.
Post by: McTraveller on November 09, 2023, 07:49:12 am
Post by: Strongpoint on November 09, 2023, 09:30:37 am
Not value - same moral implication. I don’t get the impression you think morality of an action depends on the value of the object of the action though… I’m just highlighting the sublety.You got me confused here. The morality of an action absolutely depends on the value of the object of the action. Morality is not a boolean - evil or good. Morality is a value that can be small or huge in either direction.
Morality is about the impact of an action, something that can (in theory, not really in practice) be measured.
Humans created a special enforced system of morality called the justice system which is made to measure the degree of immorality and punish accordingly.
China goes further with the system of Social Credit that punishes or rewards for a far wider number of actions than laws do.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 09, 2023, 10:18:55 am
Post by: McTraveller on November 09, 2023, 11:58:48 am
I don't believe there are "scales" of morality, even though that's not a mainstream view. There's no "this is a little bad" versus "this is a LOT bad" kind of "weighing the balance of good and evil in the scales, to see if you end up in the Good Place™ or the Bad Place™". I don't believe that; I believe that it's a simple boolean: if the "immorality is nonzero, it's immoral."
What does scale is the practical impact of actions. The earlier examples in this thread demonstrate that: thinking about murdering someone, to me, is just as immoral as actually murdering them. The consequences are very different: in one case, the person is still walking around and in the other they are dead. Same for fantasizing about various acts... big practical difference in just thinking about it versus acting on it. Killing one person versus "wipe them all out"/Palpatine has a vastly different impact in society.
So if we are arguing about the practical ramifications of behavior, I keep that as separate from the morality. Because you can be an immoral evil person and have really pleasant practical impact on the world, or you can "only ever have good thoughts" but have zero or even negative impact on the world, for example simply by eating, you are depriving some other organism of its life.
I think the justice system is often abused and blurs the lines between addressing actual impact (like you really did kill someone) versus moral assessment, and I agree that jailing people for "thought crimes" is not what the justice system should be doing.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 09, 2023, 12:48:02 pm
Quote
I don't believe that; I believe that it's a simple boolean: if the "immoraity is nonzero, it's immoral."Well, yes. Ignoring zero, numbers are also either positive or negative. It doesn't mean that 1 is the same as 10000000 because both are positive.
Quote
The earlier examples in this thread demonstrate that: thinking about murdering someone, to me, is just as immoral as actually murdering them.Having a thought is as immoral as murder. Being impolite to a neighbor is as immoral as murder. Shoplifting is as immoral as murder. Yeah, I guess your opinion IS unpopular.
Quote
Because you can be an immoral evil person and have a really pleasant practical impact on the worldPlease, explain, why having millions of such "immoral evil people" is in any way bad.
And what exactly do you mean by evil? Because for me, something not harmful is not evil by definition. An entity needs to be at least potentially harmful to be considered evil.
Post by: McTraveller on November 09, 2023, 01:28:47 pm
Sounds like you are a pragmatist, where some of us are existentialists.
I agree your views are consistent for a purely pragmatic view - there's no difference between "good/evil" and "constructive or restorative/destructive or harmful" in that view - because the only measure of merit is how constructive/destructive things are.
For existentialists, "good/evil" is a different axis from "helpful/harmful."
Post by: Strongpoint on November 09, 2023, 01:42:10 pm
Why exactly murder (or a thought of murder) is evil?
Post by: McTraveller on November 09, 2023, 03:40:14 pm
For a pragmatist I suppose you could say that evil is "goes against the optimal fitness function" and good is "aligns with it". Others use "evil is things that cause harm for harm's sake, good is avoiding harm as much as possible (given that sometimes 'harm' is physically impractical to avoid, such as generally you have to harm things for some definition of harm in order to get food to live)."
In both cases, there's lots of room for arguing about "what is the design intent" and "what is the optimal fitness function", or "what actually is 'harm'" respectively.
I would say though there is much overlap - I think a ton of "design intent" is avoiding harm as much as possible, stewarding resources, not being a jerk, etc.
Post by: Frumple on November 09, 2023, 05:05:10 pm
If we're built by some sort of god (or at least common conceptualizations of them), we're very intentionally built to do great and often far and away excessive harm to all sorts of things, and some of that is difficult or outright impossible to avoid. Our "design intent" is kinda' fucking horrible if you look at how we function; jackass should have built us to photosynthesize and probably reproduce by parthenogenesis or something, just as a start. Maybe put some more effort into quality controls because holy good goddamn shit do we have problems on that front.
Hell, basically everything living has problems on that front, fucker shouldn't have pushed out a release build while nearly everything still got cancer, good gods. QA team for that one needs to be fired, possibly into the sun.
... but yeah, it's one of the reasons I kinda' hate the whole intelligent design thing, personally, and basically everything adjacent to it. If something designed mankind (or most everything, for that matter) the bastard was bloody malignant. If there's no god behind that, I don't have to live with the knowledge I have a great need to hate the divine with basically every fiber of my being, and that's a much more comforting world, t'me. I can live with uncaring better than I can malice.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 09, 2023, 08:22:49 pm
Other than that? I am a transhumanist. Fuck this body. I do not believe God would make us susceptible to diseases we could very soon avoid or outright exterminate using technology.
Post by: McTraveller on November 09, 2023, 08:27:28 pm
I mean, just look at all our machines that we do build, even simple ones - the fact they are all realized in the physical universe means they have failure modes. I think it's probably a mathematical proof that everything has failure modes.
I don't think being "slow" beings powered by photosynthesis, or having asexual reproduction, would solve any of the problems we experience. I'm sure if you had beings capable of forming an opinion, they'd find some way to fight each other; after all, if nothing else, entities are going to compete for access to an energy gradient...
Now why did God create a universe with these rules of physics, including entropy and quantum mechanics? Or why did the universe spontaneously inflate with the rules of physics we have, including entropy and quantum mechanics? These seem to be... irrelevant questions, given the universe exists.
Post by: Egan_BW on November 09, 2023, 08:29:02 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on November 09, 2023, 09:30:39 pm
For me personally evil is "goes against design intent" and good is "aligns with design intent." This is definitely theist, because it assumes intent.It doesn't answer how to tell evil from good. I guess the actual answer is to look in a holy book of some kind because there is no other way to determine "the design intent".
Also, you have a very weird version of existentialism fully embracing the absurdity of design intent. Design intent assumes that there is an external purpose to our existence and either I understand existentialism very wrong or it goes against the core idea of existentialism.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 10, 2023, 12:49:03 am
Well that line of argument presupposes that it's possible to get the kind of complexity necessary for agency, without the possibility of even things like cancer. Kind of like Godel... if you have a sufficiently capable system, there are unprovable things in it; extend to life, "if you have physical beings capable of any kind of agency, then you inevitably have potential for nasty side effects."The issue is that yes, you could possibly cure cancer. And Huntington's. And Alzheimer's. And hundreds of other debilitating diseases. Of course conflict will always exist no matter what, but I have little to no respect for the human form. The human mind, sure.
I mean, just look at all our machines that we do build, even simple ones - the fact they are all realized in the physical universe means they have failure modes. I think it's probably a mathematical proof that everything has failure modes.
I don't think being "slow" beings powered by photosynthesis, or having asexual reproduction, would solve any of the problems we experience. I'm sure if you had beings capable of forming an opinion, they'd find some way to fight each other; after all, if nothing else, entities are going to compete for access to an energy gradient...
Now why did God create a universe with these rules of physics, including entropy and quantum mechanics? Or why did the universe spontaneously inflate with the rules of physics we have, including entropy and quantum mechanics? These seem to be... irrelevant questions, given the universe exists.
For the record, I think creationism is essentially discredited and so I subscribe to theistic evolution more or less.
Post by: anewaname on November 10, 2023, 01:13:08 am
what the heck, you guys aren't talking about railguns in here at all!The carefully-avoided topic is the thread-ending railgun.
Post by: TD1 on November 10, 2023, 07:28:09 am
Post by: dragdeler on November 10, 2023, 07:59:03 am
You know your mirror neurons, the ones that can allmost make you taste the sprite if I showed or even just described to you how I'm gulping down an ice cold, refreshing, moist because of the condensation can of sprite.
So when these mirror neurons flare up and you feel bad, you know you done fucked up and it's propably too to late remedy the situation, so in future avoid the situation at all cost. That is assuming we're collectively too dense to predict how something is going to make us feel.
That is the thing that is real, realer than being bound to any cultural preconceptions, realer than the entire linguistic superstructure we superimpose onto reality.
At some point you have to permit me to ask: common guys really? are you really being for real here, really?
Post by: Schmaven on November 10, 2023, 08:15:32 am
How to tell good from evil crash course:
...
So when these mirror neurons flare up and you feel bad, you know you done fucked up and it's propably too to late remedy the situation, so in future avoid the situation at all cost.
...
Do you mean that people feel bad when they do evil things, and that inner conscience is a way to tell good from evil?
Post by: dragdeler on November 10, 2023, 08:21:44 am
Post by: Schmaven on November 10, 2023, 08:27:39 am
The so often ascribed to children innocence, would see this clear as the day. It takes "nurture" (most cynical use I ever did of that word) to be able to confuse oneself over this.
I must be wrong, but I can't help but interpret that to mean that people who do evil things while feeling pleasure do not exist.
Post by: dragdeler on November 10, 2023, 08:57:02 am
Sure we're not born with the same energy levels, some kids will steamroll others and be way too hyped to even notice they did a thing... But what allways happens when things get out of hand and one kids cries unconsolably? The other offers to be hurt back, that is because intuitively we know we can't revert the past, but the least we could offer is to be hurt back, to make it even... Because through are mirrorneurons we perceive the pain and it's unbearable to us so the first thing that springs to mind is to offer to make amends... sure there is the cultural overlay: "dont tell mum" and that can never be totally abstracted... But it's not the fear of punishment that hits us in the gut like that (else punishment would allways be a sufficient deterrent) it's the fact that we actually can not stand to see our siblings in distress. And if you push through it you're just going to developp ptsd or some other disorder.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 10, 2023, 09:29:14 am
Normal, kind, not-sociopathic people can be very happy seeing... let us say, seeing the stoning of an adulterer to death. Their empathy is satisfied seeing a harmful influence removed and not causing harm anymore.
Post by: dragdeler on November 10, 2023, 10:18:33 am
But yeah evil can be banal like that, it most often is.
Post by: Schmaven on November 10, 2023, 10:24:47 am
Post by: dragdeler on November 10, 2023, 10:30:15 am
Post by: Strongpoint on November 10, 2023, 11:21:03 am
It's very conducive to it... Still a psychopath could rationally decide to behave, just not on a feelings level.
Not really, definition of psychopathy includes poor behavioral control
Post by: McTraveller on November 10, 2023, 11:32:32 am
The flip side is, don't complain if people do to you, what you do to others.
Post by: dragdeler on November 10, 2023, 01:16:39 pm
Not really, definition of psychopathy includes poor behavioral control
Well,uninhibited behaviour is to be expected if you lack remorse. I'll admit I didn't read up on it, but allow me the question:
Wouldn't that be the definition of a symptom according to the dsm? So the telltale signs the professionals agreed upon in order to enact their agenda which is first and foremost to run a health institute and second to provide good outcomes for the patients. It seems ungenerous when I say it like that but heed the acronym: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is a handbook of best practices, which practices are measured by statistical analysis. It serves as a guide, but also as legal cover... I sincerely doubt every diagnosed psychopath has had the priviledge to get his brain activity measured in order to confirm the diagnosis, because it is not unimaginable that you simply would be dealing with a giant asshole that can shut down his empathy as opposed to a psychopath who never had any to begin with. Next thing: why would a person with lack of remorse seek medical attention. You have to assume that those psychopaths who found themselves in a mental institution or in therapy, were admitted there because they were visibly pathological. That's another thing: you can probably manage an entire career as psychiatrist without ever actually meeting a schizophrenic person, why? Because procedure can make it such that once they get to them, these people are allready heavily drugged.
Post by: Strongpoint on November 10, 2023, 02:16:32 pm
Also, the Golden Rule quickly breaks apart as soon as your action impacts more than one person. By treating one person in a way you want to be treated, you will often deny such treatment to the other person.
Like "you want people taking your side in a conflict" but if you choose one side in a conflict you automatically deny the Golden Rule treatment for the other side.
Post by: McTraveller on November 10, 2023, 02:30:21 pm
Also rhetorical nonsense: How would you get in a conflict, if everyone was following the Golden Rule in the first place?
Post by: Frumple on November 10, 2023, 03:55:30 pm
Golden rule's definitely not a terrible starting point, mind -- for all I pretty regularly give christian scripture shit on the ethical side of things, it's mostly because its god is a fucking monster and its eschatology and metaphysics are kinda' grotesque; much of the brass tacks ethical instruction in the new testament (at least that's directly ascribed to jesus, some of the other folks in there can get pretty sketchy) is more or less okay -- but it's very, very far from sufficient on its own, and it'd cause a hell of a mess if you tried to implement it without a pretty significant amount of support.
I like "And it harm none, do what you will" more, personally, but even that requires a pretty damn robust conceptualization of harm that doesn't just spring from the aether.
Forget who said it (carlin probably said something similar at some point?), but there's some kind of paraphrase that basically boils down to "Don't be a shit, also stop trying to make this complicated" that's probably better than either of them, really.
Post by: MaxTheFox on November 11, 2023, 12:22:51 am
Post by: McTraveller on November 11, 2023, 07:57:56 pm
"There's always a way!"™
Post by: Schmaven on November 12, 2023, 12:57:36 am
Attempting to objectively define things like "harm" is like trying to cover a complicatedly-shaped object with a rigid sheet of plastic.
Physical harm is easy to define. The challenge comes when mental harm is added to the definition. I would much rather suffer any mental harm than lose a limb. I can always change my mind and see things in different ways, but some physical injuries are permanent. They are 2 totally distinct categories of harm. And mental harm is almost entirely subjective, making its definition rather unique to each individual and their personal feelings. A big jerk can go around being very mean to everyone, and while some just see the jerk as an idiot and don't give it a second thought, others can take it personally, and be deeply affected by their sharp insults. Similar I suppose to how a strong person can be tackled by Rob Gronkowski and get right back up, but an unconditioned individual would require a stretcher to leave the field: harm does depend on the victim's response and how resilient they are. But strictly speaking, physical harm is physical injury, especially that which is intentionally inflicted. It is much harder to fake physical injury than it is to fake hurt feelings.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on December 16, 2023, 05:31:19 am
I think there is a genuine disconnect between academia related to this topic and the reality of the situation. Academia is hard-set on putting stuff in neat little boxes. While the brain and consciousness simply doesn't works that way.
Like, playing a piano is a conscious act, right? But does the pianist calculate each and every push of a key? No. It happens automatically. But the pianist is aware of the movement, the song, and the act itself, and can stop at any moment they desire. After that, they can consciously push keys individually.
Like everything about humans, consciousness is fluid. It shifts, ascends and descends levels. It might be there for one process before vacating somewhere else right after. It moves constantly, and exists in a spectrum.
There was a stupid study where some idiot tried to measure the existence of free will by reflexive actions and concluded that it didn't existed. Yea, dumb right?
But the real problem is that the other studies are like, a notch above that one. They measure conscious finger movements, instead of reflexive ones. Then they see the neural lag of the cerebellum and the person synching -the slow rise they are talking about- and conclude that free will doesn't exists. I think you are beginning to see the problem.
There seems to be a very strong inclination among neurologists to test free will with these very minuscule things that doesn't tell anything about the workings of higher brain functions. Surprise, even a planarian can consciously move when presented with stimuli. It's as if neurologists just don't have actual conscious agency on what they are doing, and that they are trapped in this vicious cycle of conducting inadequate experiments on the nature of will because they don't have free will.
There is also the problem of trying to meaningfully measure a concept that is so nebulous, that no one has a full and satisfactory definition of it.
All things aside, I think it is simply impossible to measure something that is just a non-real concept.
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 16, 2023, 06:16:27 am
Post by: dragdeler on December 16, 2023, 07:12:26 am
All things aside, I think it is simply impossible to measure something that is just a non-real concept.
At least you came this far, if can't prove something we err on the side of it doesn't exist tho. The point being that sure, you can execute on your desires, but how much can you actually will yourself to want something else than you wanted? Much like with people with such weak sense of ethics that they argue that a collection of stories from the bronze age is required to be able to orient their actions: the falsifiability is needed to knock the hybris down a few pegs, it's simony thats what it actually is. If people are free to alter their will to any extent at any time, they sure make damn poor use of it.
If you don't like the methodology of neurology, and despise arthur schoppenhauer as well, then think of it like this: much like a LLM forms it's sentences, the previous words decide what the next words can be, the next words can not be litterally anything, they are bound by (statistical in this case) rules.
Post by: McTraveller on December 16, 2023, 09:06:07 am
Doesn't matter if it's after the fact - that initial "decision" process is still a decision, and that mechanism could be considered to be the one making the "decision" "freely". That is, the pre-cortex thing is really "you", and your cortex is an observer on it. Just like if a person makes a decision, and some other person observes it and describes it.
Sure this is perhaps "turtles all the way down", but to me it's a false distinction: that initial decision-making mechanism made it "freely" did it not?
<NOTE: This is indeed all just the physical mechanics part of the discussion. Not even trying to get into the potentially spiritual "mechanics" of it.>
Post by: dragdeler on December 16, 2023, 09:13:25 am
Post by: Strongpoint on December 16, 2023, 10:17:28 am
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 16, 2023, 10:18:57 am
My opinion on the free will solidified quite a long time ago. My thoughts\actions are either caused by something and that means no free will. Or my thoughts\actions have no cause aka they are random and that also means no free will. Existence of god(s), soul, afterlife, etc changes nothing.What even is free will.
These discussions always come down to "what the fuck even is free will". It's inherently a vague concept.
Post by: dragdeler on December 16, 2023, 10:25:50 am
Post by: Egan_BW on December 16, 2023, 01:10:04 pm
I think that part of the issue is that while people can't really define what something non-deterministic and non-random would look like, they feel trapped by both ideas. To which I say the solution is to use your free will to not feel trapped. Just because you're the product of your surroundings (and a small amount of random chance) doesn't mean that you're not you and that you can't use those feelings to change yourself, and thus the decisions you make.
Post by: Eschar on December 16, 2023, 02:45:59 pm
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 18, 2023, 09:38:00 pm
Post by: Frumple on December 18, 2023, 11:05:44 pm
Like, I get the joke but sweet hell the amount of evil that's been inflicted over the years from that sentiment is not small.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 21, 2023, 10:16:48 pm
I just found out that tomorrow's the solstice! I'm going to do a short nature walk in appreciation. I think the day holds special significance in Wicca?Holy carp, 8 years ago?? I didn't think the last thread-change was that long ago...
Or it's just the closest significant date to Christmas, so it's a good excuse to join in the holidays. Which isn't really a coincidence... This time of year is special to a lot of diverse groups, and that's cool.
Anyway, I hope everyone finds some happiness this holiday season.
Well, I still feel the same way :) The solstice is almost over for me, but I hope all of us in the northern hemisphere enjoy the sunlight returning. Hmm... makes me want to rewatch Legend, actually.
I've been meaning to do that anyway... it has some serious Gender in it...
Take care, y'all <3
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 24, 2023, 06:29:23 am
Post by: McTraveller on December 27, 2023, 12:41:32 pm
Post by: hector13 on December 27, 2023, 12:47:34 pm
Post by: McTraveller on December 27, 2023, 04:24:13 pm
Post by: hector13 on December 27, 2023, 04:50:17 pm
Post by: Grim Portent on December 27, 2023, 04:54:00 pm
Post by: Maximum Spin on December 27, 2023, 05:12:02 pm
The whole "Christmas is just a rebranded pagan holiday" idea - indeed, the same idea for many modern holidays - is largely a myth. The feast of Sol Invicti, which was on the 25 of December, is also often cited, but that actually seems to be later than the Christian tradition, dating to AD 274, and may have been trying to usurp it rather than the other way around. Contrary to the common wisdom, though, the approximate date of Christmas is indirectly given in the book of Luke, according to the Jewish tradition that miraculous conceptions happen on the instant that God announces them: John the Baptist's conception is announced to his father, a priest, while the latter is in the Holy of Holies, which can only be entered on Yom Kippur; and the Annunciation to Mary is stated to take place six months into that pregnancy, placing the Nativity nine months after that, or fifteen months after Yom Kippur overall - solidly in about the last week of December, since Yom Kippur falls near the end of September or beginning of October. Similarly, the Annunciation is traditionally celebrated on March 25, which is consistent with that timeline.
Saturnalia, the Hellenic winter festival, was all about charity, generosity and festivities with family and servants.Not exactly.
Post by: McTraveller on December 27, 2023, 05:57:18 pm
We wouldn't have "Christmas" without that. We'd just have... some other festivals. Sure modern society would have an overly-commercialized version of whatever they are, but it would not be Christmas.
Post by: Maximum Spin on December 27, 2023, 06:26:09 pm
Right I mean they are "exactly the same" if you don't include the entire God becoming incarnate as Jesus aspect?They're not even close to being the same even apart from that.
Post by: Strongpoint on December 27, 2023, 09:02:46 pm
Saturnalia isn't even the same week.and it is relevant because? Christians decided that the birthday of Jesus needs to be celebrated... The question is how? Taking from Judaism is impossible, no Jesus here. There are zero instructions on how to do it in the Bible (or any indication of how it should be celebrated at all).
They took existing traditions and adapted them, including moving the date to what they assumed is correct. There were no other sources to take from.
Post by: Maximum Spin on December 27, 2023, 09:18:42 pm
People do make up new things, you know. And even when old things are borrowed, they don't have to be taken identically in identical form from the nearest thing in time.Saturnalia isn't even the same week.and it is relevant because? Christians decided that the birthday of Jesus needs to be celebrated... The question is how? Taking from Judaism is impossible, no Jesus here. There are zero instructions on how to do it in the Bible (or any indication of how it should be celebrated at all).
They took existing traditions and adapted them, including moving the date to what they assumed is correct. There were no other sources to take from.
Of course taking from Judaism is possible, just as there wasn't any Jesus in Roman religion where you think they did take from.
There's really no functional similarity between Saturnalia and Christmas except "well, they were both celebratory feasts". They both look like every other remotely similar holiday, including modern Hanukkah, but they have none of their unique features in common - we don't celebrate the receipt of our social norms at the beginning of civilization on Christmas by symbolically reversing them.
Post by: Strongpoint on December 29, 2023, 02:24:26 am
It is so illogical... If a core element of an ideology is not being violent then an extremist, by definition, would be an extremely non-violent person.
If extremists of your ideology (and every religion is an ideology) are violent that means your ideology doesn't put not being violent high on the list of priorities
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 29, 2023, 06:38:29 am
Post by: Egan_BW on December 29, 2023, 05:17:00 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 29, 2023, 05:37:51 pm
Eh. I'd say that any ideology can be used to promote violence if someone's fallen deep enough into the trap of promoting said ideology at any cost. "We will show them our peaceful ways, by force!""I am freeing you from your self-destructive religion! Now we can kill each other over politics instead!"
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 29, 2023, 08:18:57 pm
Eh. I'd say that any ideology can be used to promote violence if someone's fallen deep enough into the trap of promoting said ideology at any cost. "We will show them our peaceful ways, by force!"Yeah I should have also said this. You can find an excuse in most ideologies for most kinds of bigotry. Though I rarely see this, it's conceivable that a "rational atheist" (of the obnoxious and rational-in-name-only, YOU KNOW THE TYPE) would hate gays because he wants to optimize population growth. And yet most atheists I met were chill.
Aside from inherently bigoted ideologies like fascism and paleoconservatism, I do not consider ideology to be the major determining factor if someone is a bellend or not.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 29, 2023, 08:48:51 pm
Yeaaah, I've seen quite a few atheists replace Christianity with Traditional Western Values and such. Seems like a lot of them found their way back to the worst kinds of religion in all but name.Eh. I'd say that any ideology can be used to promote violence if someone's fallen deep enough into the trap of promoting said ideology at any cost. "We will show them our peaceful ways, by force!"Yeah I should have also said this. You can find an excuse in most ideologies for most kinds of bigotry. Though I rarely see this, it's conceivable that a "rational atheist" (of the obnoxious and rational-in-name-only, YOU KNOW THE TYPE) would hate gays because he wants to optimize population growth. And yet most atheists I met were chill.
Aside from inherently bigoted ideologies like fascism and paleoconservatism, I do not consider ideology to be the major determining factor if someone is a bellend or not.
Personally I like to think that holding on to my vague spirituality, despite it's irrationality, helped me stay away from such things.
(though being a sexual minority helped (and yet I was "one of the good ones" and full of internalized homophobia for too many years. There but for the whims of the fey go I...))
Anyway, just wanted to acknowledge that atheists definitely aren't automatically progressive. A lot of really cool leftists are Christians, they've really helped me be less afraid of the religion as a whole.
Post by: Strongpoint on December 30, 2023, 02:10:28 am
Eh. I'd say that any ideology can be used to promote violence if someone's fallen deep enough into the trap of promoting said ideology at any cost. "We will show them our peaceful ways, by force!"Well... nope.
Pacifism can't be used for that. You can twist it and start killing in the name of non-violence but it will be pseudopacifism and every actual pacifist will denounce that pacifist, don't call them extremist pacifists. An extremist pacifist will be someone refusing to use violence even when it is justified and necessary.
It is like very very extremist vegan may go as far as start killing meat-eaters but if a vegan will start killing other people pet's and eat them raw - no sane person will call this kind of behavior extremist veganism. It goes against the core of what veganism is.
But they do when a religion that proclaims love, mercy and forgiveness as its core values goes around murdering people. Do you know why? Because those are not core values. They are secondary, at best.
There are actual pacifist religions, but neither mainstream Christianity nor mainstream Islam qualifies. The core idea of both is "Humanity must embrace the Lord\Allah". Naturally, the extremist version of this justifies making it happen by force, using forced conversion or outright murdering people who believe differently.
Post by: Frumple on December 30, 2023, 10:25:58 am
There are actual pacifist religions, but neither mainstream Christianity nor mainstream Islam qualifies.Somewhat depressingly, there are, and the few times they've actually managed to obtain significant secular influence, the cultural groups they presided over still indulged in proselytizing by the sword.
Success of any meaningful degree is just kinda' poison to whatever ethical strictures any religion claims, pacifist or not. S'one of the reasons I'm pretty staunchly irreligious, organization in general is just persistently corruptive towards spiritual practice.
Better that folks not, keep that shit personal and out of the driver's seat for pretty much any sort of decision making. It won't guarantee things get better, but the alternative has quite consistently made things worse.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 31, 2023, 07:49:45 am
Somewhat depressingly, there are, and the few times they've actually managed to obtain significant secular influence, the cultural groups they presided over still indulged in proselytizing by the sword.Jains might get the golden trophy for being a major religion that managed to survive thousands of years without abandoning pacifism. Also can't think of a religion that makes non-violence as integral to being a member of the religion as jainism. I grew up with a jainist in my school, super cool dude, never ate meat though which I think he should've as a kid as it stunted his growth. But yeah you could be a violent jain but then you'd not really be a jain then would you? It'd be like a Christian who says they don't believe in Christ. There were also the Moriori, who ardently held onto their pacifistic faith until the very end (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide) even though they had the ability to fight back. But it also does kinda painfully illustrate why it's so rare for a truly pacifistic religion to not get wiped out by the first secular or religious power to wield the sword
Success of any meaningful degree is just kinda' poison to whatever ethical strictures any religion claims, pacifist or not. S'one of the reasons I'm pretty staunchly irreligious, organization in general is just persistently corruptive towards spiritual practice.
Post by: Frumple on December 31, 2023, 08:36:43 am
Forget exactly which one it is, and it's entirely too early to do the research to remind myself, but one of the few times it actually ended up as a more-or-less state religion, said state was still violently expansionist and spread jainism (among other things) by the sword.
Religious organization, especially when it interacts with secular influence of substantial note... it's just a pox on spiritual beliefs. Consistently, all throughout history. There's just some point at which it'll go wrong, more or less every time. It's possible (if not likely) to avoid that when there's, like, not very many people involved (e.g. the moriori you mention), but once there's a sort of critical mass it's going to go bad on some (or many) level(s). Cultural dominance is poison for faith.
Greatest trick the metaphorical devil ever pulled was to convince people they need a book, a priest, and a second opinion to know the divine, heh. If I actually believed in the existence of a god worth worshiping, I'd call it a really goddamn blatant sign of what people shouldn't be doing. When shit fucks up more or less every single time folks do something, maybe that's god telling folks they shouldn't be doing it, y'know?
Post by: MaxTheFox on December 31, 2023, 11:44:31 am
Maybe Frumple is right, maybe it's for the best.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 31, 2023, 12:42:58 pm
Jainism was actually one of the ones I was referring to in that first sentence :-\IIRC Jainism is one of the few that didn't do this. The only thing I can think that comes close is Emperor Chandragupta or Emperor Ashoka of the Mauryan Empire. Chandragupta became a jain, but under his reign all religions were respected, even hellenic and zoroastrians. Ashoka was reputed to be a cruel and vicious warlord, who converted to Buddhism and gave up his warlike ways. Because he then instituted a state religion based around stuff like dharma and ahimsa, which dharmic religions tend to all have in common like buddhism, hinduism and jainism. Given the amount of overlap sometimes I wonder if the distinctions between the dharmic faiths even make sense, if they're just a practical consideration conjured up for legal census and identity reasons. It is very strange seeing cases of Buddhist and Hindu communities killing one another whilst in others they have the same prayers, the same holy sites, pray to the same people and hold the same values. Some real Sulis Minerva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulis) syncretism. But before I get sidetracked, Ashoka also supported jainism, and he send buddhist teachers around his Empire and abroad, but there were no spreading by the sword or forced conversions
Forget exactly which one it is, and it's entirely too early to do the research to remind myself, but one of the few times it actually ended up as a more-or-less state religion, said state was still violently expansionist and spread jainism (among other things) by the sword.
Post by: Schmaven on December 31, 2023, 01:05:14 pm
Given the amount of overlap sometimes I wonder if the distinctions between the dharmic faiths even make sense, if they're just a practical consideration conjured up for legal census and identity reasons. It is very strange seeing cases of Buddhist and Hindu communities killing one another whilst in others they have the same prayers, the same holy sites, pray to the same people and hold the same values.
I don't know much about Hinduism, but from what I gather, Buddhism and Hinduism are similar like how Islam and Christianity are similar. They share a lot in common, but some particular tenants are 100% incompatible. Viewing Jesus as divine in the muslim faith would amount to polytheism/blasphemy and I think there have been crusades waged somewhat along those lines.
More accurately, all "religious" wars are in reality political in nature, and the various religious aspects are simply used as excuses to justify them to their populaces.
Post by: Maximum Spin on December 31, 2023, 01:16:03 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 01, 2024, 11:09:21 pm
Buddhism and Hinduism are completely incompatible by design, in a manner more similar to replacement-theology Christianity and Judaism. Buddhism basically says that the entire Hindu social system is wrong and must be scrapped.Depends if you tack the whole caste system stuff as a Hindu thing or Indian thing. Got lots of Hindus who live outside of India and don't follow caste system, whilst there are places where Buddhism is part of the caste system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newar_caste_system), Indian Muslims have the whole Ashraf Sayyids/Shaykhs/Rajputs/Pashtuns/Mughals/Julāhās/Untouchables, and even Christian Indians carry over historical castes/become a caste unto their own. I like these more optimistic takes (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4414252) where people try to find the best in a faith and actually challenge if there is any basis in the cold aspects of it. Like people who choose to obey the old testament fire and brimstone and ignore the new testament hard work to do good for others and be forgiving... Why?
Post by: Magmacube_tr on January 05, 2024, 02:14:41 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on January 05, 2024, 02:24:16 pm
You know, I was apprehensive about Christianity, but after hearing this (https://youtu.be/GTh5J0HsIAg?si=gy3NEhVJvEHtepWZ) amazing reading of the Bible, I feel a bit on the fence about it all.
Now I know how I will be punished in hell for atheism
Post by: MaxTheFox on January 06, 2024, 05:48:37 am
Post by: Egan_BW on January 06, 2024, 11:51:14 am
Post by: Rolan7 on January 07, 2024, 11:13:14 am
The point seems to be that worship of a human, especially a ritually unclean human, violated a lot of local taboos and thus drew particular ire. So Christians would get blamed for bad fortune (but only once it arrived, due to the way the law worked).
I don't know if it's true but it's an interesting claim! https://qr.ae/pKxk23
Post by: McTraveller on January 07, 2024, 01:32:58 pm
I thought most of the ire was that the Caesars claimed themselves deity, and didn't want to share "king of kings" title with anyone.
Early Christians were also an economic and social disruption: they eschewed magic (there was a booming business of selling "spells" in the day) and they also cared for the downtrodden instead of just letting them rot.
Nobody with any academic chops ever thought The Way was a cannibal cult either; that sounds like modern-day conspiracy theories that retconned transubstantiation to a reduction ad absurdum into history. Nowhere in the New Testament does salvation hinge on communion anyway - in fact there's way more about baptism than communion, and even that is still not a requisite for salvation.
I can see the bit about violating local taboos though; there were tons of "city deities" and I bet the Christians saying "sorry, that's not really a god you're worshipping" didn't go over very well.
Post by: Strongpoint on January 07, 2024, 03:01:53 pm
Also, a necromancy cult that eats body\drinks blood of their dead god is spooky.
Post by: MaxTheFox on January 07, 2024, 11:30:13 pm
Post by: Magmacube_tr on January 08, 2024, 08:30:02 am
This is Medjet. An Ancient Egyptian God. His powers include being formless, emitting lasers from his eyes and breathing fire.
Here is a more moderm depiction of him.
(https://i.imgur.com/8jylNM2.jpeg)
Must be the shittiest god you can be the cleric of, I swear.
Post by: Frumple on January 08, 2024, 01:27:38 pm
Laser eyes alone elevates it above most gods, really, the rest is just icing on the laser cake.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 08, 2024, 01:40:01 pm
Where's the deity with railgun-eyes? :-\
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 11, 2024, 12:29:39 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This is Medjet. An Ancient Egyptian God. His powers include being formless, emitting lasers from his eyes and breathing fire.
Here is a more moderm depiction of him.Must be the shittiest god you can be the cleric of, I swear.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Oh hey it's Gondola's ancestor (https://youtu.be/HnqFiq3cX2g)
Post by: Schmaven on January 22, 2024, 05:25:14 pm
It seems like the enjoyment of murdering children is always evil, no matter how one looks at it. On the other end of the good and evil spectrum, caring about others seems like it is always good.
There are many things however that totally depend on the context. Such as stealing. Stealing someone's medicine just for the thrill of it is evil. But stealing someone's weapons before they go on a blind rampage is good.
Post by: feelotraveller on January 22, 2024, 05:56:10 pm
And to play devil's advocate (i.e. I don't really believe this but for arguments sake) given that children are being murdered anyway isn't it better that someone gets some enjoyment out of it. Seriously heard some utilitarians argue this sort of line albeit on different issues.
Post by: Schmaven on January 22, 2024, 06:15:00 pm
Pretty sure nearly all 'morality' is objective - as in, I object to your thing.
And to play devil's advocate (i.e. I don't really believe this but for arguments sake) given that children are being murdered anyway isn't it better that someone gets some enjoyment out of it. Seriously heard some utilitarians argue this sort of line albeit on different issues.
I suppose you could imagine some civilization ending sort of contagion in children as a way to try and justify their murder. But if they were my children, it would not be better that someone took sadistic pleasure in their death, so it still seems 100% objectively evil for someone to enjoy killing children just for the thrill of it.
Soldiers in war seems more like that utilitarian argument.
Post by: McTraveller on January 22, 2024, 07:48:57 pm
Pretty sure nearly all 'morality' is objective - as in, I object to your thing.
I like the cut of your jib!1
- - - -
Overall though I think this is a silly process and it's been pretty much settled by humanity: If there is no such thing as an external source of morality, then morality is indeed just a cultural label for utilitarian behaviors. Things can't be ontologically "good or evil" without some external cause. Sure nobody likes killing children or stealing, so those are "universal", but that is just the evolutionary effect of needing to propagate the species, eh? I mean if you kill children or deprive a population of necessities, that stops propagation. But it's not "good or evil", it's just better or worse for the fitness function. People enjoying their lives is not strongly coupled to propagation; many miserable beings propagate just fine. So "personal happiness" as a high moral value is actually quite non-utilitarian and often anti-utility.
You can only be "morally" good or evil in the religious sense if there is more to it than merely propagating the species or propagating culture or whatever; it's the only thing that can instill value outside utility.
Spoiler: 1 (click to show/hide)
Post by: feelotraveller on January 22, 2024, 11:13:24 pm
Things can't be ontologically "good or evil" without some external cause.
Hmm, Immanuel Kant, for one, thought otherwise (see Categorical Imperative). Although how much this is some sort of weird substitution for religious thought is a good question. But there is a non-utilitarian answer there about why killing is
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Strongpoint on January 23, 2024, 01:48:29 am
Is there such thing as objective morality?
It seems like the enjoyment of murdering children is always evil, no matter how one looks at it. On the other end of the good and evil spectrum, caring about others seems like it is always good.
Caring about others is not always good. Like if you are in abusive relations with someone there is nothing good in caring for your abusive partner enabling and empowering their evil.
Post by: Schmaven on January 23, 2024, 02:58:45 am
Is there such thing as objective morality?
It seems like the enjoyment of murdering children is always evil, no matter how one looks at it. On the other end of the good and evil spectrum, caring about others seems like it is always good.
Caring about others is not always good. Like if you are in abusive relations with someone there is nothing good in caring for your abusive partner enabling and empowering their evil.
If I really cared about an abusive partner, I wouldn't want them to engage in abusive actions. It's legally bad for them, as well as morally bad for them to be abusive. So for their sake, I would end the relationship (for both our sakes really). It's the insecurity and fear that would make me want to stay in a mess like that, not the caring.
Empowering someone's evil is not a nice thing to do, and isn't a caring act, but a submissive act based out of selfishness, either because we get something out of their evil ways, or because we fear for our wellbeing if we were to be unsupportive.
Caring still seems 100% good.
Post by: McTraveller on January 23, 2024, 07:46:05 am
Without the supernatural anyone talking about "good and evil" is just blathering on ultimately about personal or group preferences.
(I am using a rhetoric debate style here, by the way.)
EDIT: addendum: without the supernatural, I propose replacing "good vs evil" spectrum simply with "destructive vs constructive (a subset of which is 'promotes vs hinders procreation')" and "pleasurable vs painful." Perhaps also add in "sustainable vs unsustainable."
Post by: Egan_BW on January 23, 2024, 08:01:10 am
Without the supernatural anyone talking about "good and evil" is just blathering on ultimately about personal or group preferences.also: with the supernatural
god is a very strong dude but nothing makes the philosophy that he promotes any more inherently valid than any other
Post by: McTraveller on January 23, 2024, 08:07:42 am
So extending that, I will concede that in human-created constructs the value of those constructs is and can be established by humans. I claim though that these are not "objective" classifications because they depend on the whims/preferences of humans, not based on some human-independent phenomena.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 23, 2024, 09:18:11 am
If we're *actually* just talking about a creator then they could be limited in power or knowledge, and/or be malicious. I can look at an ant farm and get mad at how the ants are behaving, but neither the ants nor me are correct. I'm just more powerful.
Of course the Christian God isn't just a creator, he's the Creator. But that involves a LOT of assumptions other than merely "it created us".
Post by: McTraveller on January 23, 2024, 09:21:53 am
You are correct I was assuming a Creator like the Christian God, not just a creator like someone who builds things. Fair point.
Post by: MaxTheFox on January 23, 2024, 09:24:16 am
Also, only a few actions are universally good and only a few are universally evil. Most actions are very morally subjective.
Thus I suppose the answer to "is morality objective" is:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: feelotraveller on January 23, 2024, 05:14:07 pm
"Denying freedom" isn't any kind of inherent thing though - that also stems from limiting procreation and/or inflicting discomfort. These are just results of evolutionary pressure. There is nothing in the laws of physics which ranks "freedom" above anything else; nor is there even a concept of freedom to begin with. Everything must adhere to the physical laws.
Without the supernatural anyone talking about "good and evil" is just blathering on ultimately about personal or group preferences.
(I am using a rhetoric debate style here, by the way.)
EDIT: addendum: without the supernatural, I propose replacing "good vs evil" spectrum simply with "destructive vs constructive (a subset of which is 'promotes vs hinders procreation')" and "pleasurable vs painful." Perhaps also add in "sustainable vs unsustainable."
Kant's position is that although everything 'appears' to adhere to physical laws (i.e. can be explained as caused by purely physical chains of events) we also inherently possess the notion of free will - we appear to ourselves as being free. It is unknowable whether events occuring 'as if' we have free will are caused by it (or not). The physical chain of events would be a sufficient explanation but nothing provides evidence of it being a necessary one. As humans appear to ourselves as free (having free will) it is necessary to treat ourselves and others as 'ends in themselves' - that is acknowledge and enable our status as free beings otherwise we are denying our own or others humanity.
Short reply because my time is limited. If you are really interested poke me about this in a couple of weeks when I might be able to do it justice. (Also I am recapitulating Kant not necessarily providing my own views here.)
Post by: McTraveller on January 23, 2024, 06:37:20 pm
As humans appear to ourselves as free (having free will) it is necessary to treat ourselves and others as 'ends in themselves' - that is acknowledge and enable our status as free beings otherwise we are denying our own or others humanity.
Well this is where I'd disagree with Kant - where does that necessity arise? I don't think it's "necessary" at all. Even though he puts that condition on it, that failure to treat others as free beings denies their humanity, that doesn't have anything to do with "good or evil". It merely asserts that behavior that doesn't acknowledge agency denies the agency aspects of individuals, which seems kind of like a tautology violation, but I don't think that's related to good or evil or morality.
It's presupposing that honoring agency is "good", without any argument as to why it would be so.
Post by: feelotraveller on January 23, 2024, 07:26:14 pm
(The argument and its terms are much more complicated than that (already muddied the water with that 'necessary', my bad) and as I suggested at first better to go and read it for yourself. Trying to summarise it in a few words was always going to be prone to failure. At least reading Kant yourself would mean your arguments are with him and not my poor takes.)
The main point I was trying to bring out was that it is possible to believe in both physical laws governing causation and free will being real without invoking a supernatural being. I've got an inkling that the beauty of this particular take is that if you want your deity (of whatever flavour) it is easy enough to add them as 'making' humankind that way but I'll leave that to you religious folks to sort out.
BTW to say that how we treat people (e.g. denying their agency or not) is not related to morality just seems weird to me. Got to wonder what your motivation in saying that is.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: McTraveller on January 23, 2024, 08:56:31 pm
This doesn’t mean you can’t have a moral system without such an agent, it just means it must be subjective. Even the Kant argument - it fails to give a reason why it’s morally superior to treat people well. The reasons cannot be derived from “first principles” so to speak.
Post by: Frumple on January 23, 2024, 09:50:06 pm
Any case, if you're content saying a divine "just is" and defines morality, there's no reason to not just cut the divine out. If god can be your first principle, so can just about anything else, including whatever system of morality you're caring to use. They're being pulled from the same aether, at the end of the day :V
It's no more difficult to come up with an agentless objective morality than it is to come up with one that has an agent, because adding an agent into the mix is literally making your proposition more complicated. The argument you're making's the same, just with an added step. You don't have to make the added step, heh, and it pretty necessarily doesn't make your theory any easier to justify or construct.
Post by: McTraveller on January 23, 2024, 10:30:48 pm
Or put another way, being arbitrary does not preclude objectivity.
Objectivity just means measured/determined to be the same by all relevant observers.
So in that sense, the jury is still out if morality is truly subjective or if we just don’t have the tools to “measure” it enough to get an objective measure.
Or it could even be that morality is a concept for which objective vs subjective doesn’t even apply.
Post by: EuchreJack on January 23, 2024, 10:36:40 pm
I think morality is independent of a creator or Creator, or indeed anything supernatural, but also that it is impossible to quantify in any kind of rigorous way. This is not possible to rectify. It is an inherent consequence of sapience and consciousness.Good and Evil is easy.
Also, only a few actions are universally good and only a few are universally evil. Most actions are very morally subjective.
Thus I suppose the answer to "is morality objective" is:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Hurt others to help yourself, and you're a sick fuck that won't admit that you're evil. And will spend lots of time insisting how morally righteous you are.
Help others even if it hurts yourself, and you're probably too decent to regularly remark how good you actually are. And you'll probably
Cring at what others define as "moral".
Morality is ambiguous to the point of being useless, unless you're looking for a tool to beat other human beings with. Ergo, morality is basically evil.
Post by: MaxTheFox on January 24, 2024, 12:25:31 am
Quantify in the sense of "how much better is this thing than another". This I agree with.I think morality is independent of a creator or Creator, or indeed anything supernatural, but also that it is impossible to quantify in any kind of rigorous way. This is not possible to rectify. It is an inherent consequence of sapience and consciousness.Good and Evil is easy.
Also, only a few actions are universally good and only a few are universally evil. Most actions are very morally subjective.
Thus I suppose the answer to "is morality objective" is:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Hurt others to help yourself, and you're a sick fuck that won't admit that you're evil. And will spend lots of time insisting how morally righteous you are.
Help others even if it hurts yourself, and you're probably too decent to regularly remark how good you actually are. And you'll probably
Cring at what others define as "moral".
Morality is ambiguous to the point of being useless, unless you're looking for a tool to beat other human beings with. Ergo, morality is basically evil.
And I disagree, Frumple. Arbitrariness is inherent to consciousness. Why fight it? Why does everything need to be elementarily-definable?
Post by: Schmaven on January 24, 2024, 02:33:55 am
Good and Evil is easy.
Hurt others to help yourself, and you're a sick fuck that won't admit that you're evil. And will spend lots of time insisting how morally righteous you are.
Help others even if it hurts yourself, and you're probably too decent to regularly remark how good you actually are. And you'll probably
Cring at what others define as "moral".
Morality is ambiguous to the point of being useless, unless you're looking for a tool to beat other human beings with. Ergo, morality is basically evil.
Ultimately, we are the ones who have to live with our own actions, and I suppose unless we're writing a philosophy book or giving a lecture on the subject, we're better off just keeping thoughts about morality to ourselves.
It is interesting though how different people have different bases for their morality, and also how everyone would agree that stealing people's medicine just for the adrenaline rush is a bad thing to do (or going far to the extremes: rape). So there does seem to be some objective consistencies to good and bad underlying everyone's views, despite our inability to articulate what that might be.
Post by: McTraveller on January 24, 2024, 08:23:31 am
That's why we have millennia of philosophy trying to discuss it, because at some point even enforcing moral codes involves exerting might/will over others...
Post by: Schmaven on January 24, 2024, 02:03:07 pm
The point is that "everyone" doesn't agree on those. Some people really do believe that "might makes right" and self above all others, and when two "selfs" conflict, the stronger one makes right. There's no "right" there's just "who imposed their will more effectively."
That's why we have millennia of philosophy trying to discuss it, because at some point even enforcing moral codes involves exerting might/will over others...
Do you mean to argue that some believe rape is good and not bad? And furthermore, that such a view could be valid?
Post by: hector13 on January 24, 2024, 02:17:25 pm
The point is that "everyone" doesn't agree on those. Some people really do believe that "might makes right" and self above all others, and when two "selfs" conflict, the stronger one makes right. There's no "right" there's just "who imposed their will more effectively."
That's why we have millennia of philosophy trying to discuss it, because at some point even enforcing moral codes involves exerting might/will over others...
Do you mean to argue that some believe rape is good and not bad? And furthermore, that such a view could be valid?
Corrective rape (or rather, the idea that it works) is a thing. I imagine if you believe that you’re saving someone’s soul as a consequence, it’s “right”.
I don’t think that was what McT was arguing though.
Post by: McTraveller on January 24, 2024, 04:38:00 pm
I'm just arguing that the evidence is strong that moral systems are subjective, because people really do have different views of what is and isn't immoral.
I mean take even something less controversial: polygamy. Immoral or not? Marrying your third cousin - immoral or not? Second cousin? Fourth?
Seems like, without religion in the mix it must be subjective. And even with religion in the mix, it is still at least often subjective.
Post by: Schmaven on January 24, 2024, 05:23:55 pm
I'm not arguing for any particular moral system, no.
I'm just arguing that the evidence is strong that moral systems are subjective, because people really do have different views of what is and isn't immoral.
I mean take even something less controversial: polygamy. Immoral or not? Marrying your third cousin - immoral or not? Second cousin? Fourth?
Seems like, without religion in the mix it must be subjective. And even with religion in the mix, it is still at least often subjective.
The middle area does get very subjective, but at least at the extremes, it seems everyone can agree that rape is immoral for example.
There's definitely not 100% agreement across the whole spectrum if actions, but there is some agreement at the ends, and it's not clear why that partial alignment exists. Maybe some aspects of morality have to do with basic empathy / an idea of the golden rule?
Post by: MaxTheFox on January 24, 2024, 08:15:28 pm
Post by: Strongpoint on January 25, 2024, 02:46:09 am
The point is that "everyone" doesn't agree on those. Some people really do believe that "might makes right" and self above all others, and when two "selfs" conflict, the stronger one makes right. There's no "right" there's just "who imposed their will more effectively."
That's why we have millennia of philosophy trying to discuss it, because at some point even enforcing moral codes involves exerting might/will over others...
Do you mean to argue that some believe rape is good and not bad? And furthermore, that such a view could be valid?
Ehm... There is a category of people like that... I think they are called... Rapists?
Or do you think all of them are like - "Oh my! I did a horrible thing"?
Post by: Grim Portent on January 25, 2024, 03:38:37 am
Ehm... There is a category of people like that... I think they are called... Rapists?
Or do you think all of them are like - "Oh my! I did a horrible thing"?
I would posit that most rapists don't think of rape as good, just not necessarily as bad. Though some feel it's bad and do it anyway, then feel some guilt or shame.
The only contexts in which I would think someone thinks rape is 'good' is when they believe in corrective or punitive rape, otherwise they likely view rape as not-evil at best, and that sort of person probably doesn't view anything much as evil, at least by any rational sensibilities.
Personally I don't feel the concept of Objective Morality makes much sense, and it's kind of irrelevant unless you have some sort of infallible way to detect it anyway. It's not like gravity, momentum or heat where you can definitively demonstrate, measure and/or calculate it. Morals flow from core ethical concepts, but those vary by individual, culture and faith. It's far more practical to discuss the merits of group vs individual morality, what is and is not a fundamental right, under what circumstances those can be abrogated, so on and so forth, with the view that these things can change rather than trying to discern some kind of fundamental inviolate truth. Law is not made of immutable crystal, and neither are morals.
Post by: Schmaven on January 25, 2024, 05:06:50 am
Post by: Strongpoint on January 25, 2024, 05:41:20 am
I didn't expect rape to be so much mixed up in the gray area for people. Going further to the extreme, surely killing innocent people and genocide are both immoral by all standards?
Well, all you need to do is to declare people non-human (savages, heathens, heretics, racially inferior, the list goes on) and genocide becomes quite moral in a given society.
Post by: Schmaven on January 25, 2024, 05:49:28 am
I didn't expect rape to be so much mixed up in the gray area for people. Going further to the extreme, surely killing innocent people and genocide are both immoral by all standards?
Well, all you need to do is to declare people non-human (savages, heathens, heretics, racially inferior, the list goes on) and genocide becomes quite moral in a given society.
So the holocaust was the morally right thing to do for the Nazis?
Post by: MaxTheFox on January 25, 2024, 08:21:54 am
What's wrong with simply considering some people to be... just straight up wrong in their values? This does not mean embracing fully objective morality either. One can consider some things objective while considering others subjective.
I suppose part of why I believe in what I believe is that I consider the slippery slope argument to be, in most cases, a straight-up fallacy. "If you consider X to be subjective, why don't you consider Y to be subjective too?" simply doesn't make much sense to me as a question. What do you mean why? I feel that way, that's why. I would likely feel this way, also, if I was not a Christian but an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Satanist. I am not a robot, I'm not required to base my opinion on objective facts (though, given how actual AIs are these days, I think that analogy breaks down...)
Spoiler: kinda self-deprecating (click to show/hide)
Post by: Strongpoint on January 25, 2024, 02:10:33 pm
I didn't expect rape to be so much mixed up in the gray area for people. Going further to the extreme, surely killing innocent people and genocide are both immoral by all standards?
Well, all you need to do is to declare people non-human (savages, heathens, heretics, racially inferior, the list goes on) and genocide becomes quite moral in a given society.
So the holocaust was the morally right thing to do for the Nazis?
I wouldn't look at Nazis for that, it is a mutation of morality that was (partly) eliminated by (relatively) healthy all-humanity morality.
I would look way back, to human early history. Their morality was simpler, - what is good for my tribe is good, what is bad for my tribe is bad. Therefore, killing a competing tribe and taking their resources is good. And it comes directly from biological evolution, from the rudimentary morality of non-human social animals.
Then it became more complex in cultural evolution. Cooperation between tribes is also advantageous and moral systems that were more prone to cooperation with other tribes got reproductive advantage tied not to genes but to bits of cultural\moral ideas.
Post by: Schmaven on January 25, 2024, 03:37:27 pm
I suppose the absolutists and the relativists will just have to agree to disagree here.
Post by: Grim Portent on January 25, 2024, 05:44:35 pm
So the holocaust was the morally right thing to do for the Nazis?
If you accept that they genuinely believed in their racial purity bullshit, then yes, according to their moral values it was ethical to perform the Holocaust. It violates my moral values, but so do a lot of things. Just shrugging my shoulders and saying it was some kind of immutable evil is not productive compared to discussing why killing people is bad and the root values the Nazis were working from were bullshit. The former is a non-argument, the latter can be used to develop more practical or nuanced moral philosophies, and also makes it easier to remember that the Nazis were humans, working from an ethical system that wasn't all that unusual for their time. Most people who I would consider evil from my perspective are probably closer to the average human than I am, especially if you involve people from the distant past.
Post by: Schmaven on January 25, 2024, 11:25:38 pm
And keeping with that theme, all the things I would consider good seem to be traced back to selflessness as a big factor in their motivation. Consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others. But since as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", some wisdom is necessarily also a factor.
If everybody were extremely selfish, the world would be a hellish place. And if everyone sincerely cared about others, with the wisdom to avoid silly extremes, there would be no wars.
Post by: EuchreJack on January 26, 2024, 06:19:58 pm
The root of all things I would consider evil seems to be based on selfishness. Being more concerned with their own desires than the welfare of others. Looking at how things affect themselves and their beliefs rather than how others are impacted.
And keeping with that theme, all the things I would consider good seem to be traced back to selflessness as a big factor in their motivation. Consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others. But since as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", some wisdom is necessarily also a factor.
If everybody were extremely selfish, the world would be a hellish place. And if everyone sincerely cared about others, with the wisdom to avoid silly extremes, there would be no wars.
I think you are on to something there.
The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" mostly refers to folks that kinda, sorta, maybe would like to do something decent, but never follow through. Or worse, completely abandon their good course of action for a bad course of action due to it being easier for them.
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2024, 06:39:44 pm
It's primary usage after that is when the "good intentions" are seriously fucked up, ala conversion therapy or exorcisms or whatever, where the intent sometimes isn't terrible (help their child, etc.), but their execution is fractally, sometimes fatally, scuffed. This one is where stuff like the lewis quote on tyrannies comes from.
Spoiler: spoilered 'cause the full thing's a little lengthy (click to show/hide)
It's usually not about falling short or falling off the road, least not that I've seen it used.
Post by: lemon10 on January 26, 2024, 08:13:02 pm
Obviously for most people tastiness is basically the same: Stuff with (a reasonable amount of) sugar in it: Good. Stuff that's clearly rotten: Bad.
But the argument that sugar is good because of some empirical law of the universe is just strange. No, sugar is tasty because sugar=calories and lack of calories is pretty much the prime way life dies.
Similarly the argument that rotten meat isn't tasty because its just... evil or something is equally strange, no, it tastes bad because eating it will mess you up and possibly kill you.
But if someone went: Nah, rotting meat *is* tasty I would give them a look, because while there is no true objective tastiness, there is objectively standard human tastes, which almost always go "nah fam, don't eat that shit".
Of course this isn't absolute either, tastiness depends on both nature (your tastebuds, DNA) and nurture (what you ate growing up, how that one time when you were 6 you had bad sushi and threw up for two days and thus as an adult hate raw fish). So while most people would look at Lutefisk as being objectively nasty that doesn't mean that it actually is, or that said opinion of rotting stuff=bad even applies to all humans.
---
Its the same with morality, even though say, cannibalism isn't objectively wrong that doesn't mean I won't look at anyone who says its fine as being kind of crazy in the most generous interpretation.
But of course as with many other 'evil' things its trivial to think of circumstances where cannibalism isn't wrong, most notably where the other person is already dead and your only way to survive is to become a cannibal. By the same token its also a thing that many cultures throughout the world partook of willingly and *didn't* think was evil.
I would look way back, to human early history. Their morality was simpler, - what is good for my tribe is good, what is bad for my tribe is bad. Therefore, killing a competing tribe and taking their resources is good. And it comes directly from biological evolution, from the rudimentary morality of non-human social animals.I disagree, conflict is and has always been extremely expensive (assuming the other group isn't way weaker), and the other tribe can cooperate with and help you as well, which can be very significant when life is as risky as it was back then.
Quote
Back at the lab, researchers analyzed them to find that they were black pigments: The oldest paleo-crayons ever discovered, dating back to around 300,000 years ago.Even hundreds of thousands of years ago trade was a thing, and along with alliances (which certainly existed as well) there would be incentives to maintain relationships with neighboring tribes and travelers. If you don't care about them at all your members are more likely to start conflicts (which again, are very expensive), so part of ethics, even way back then presumably included caring for people not in your tribe to some small extent.
That was only the beginning of the intrigue. Having long studied this site and this period in human evolution, Potts knew that early humans generally sourced their food and materials locally. These “crayons,” however, were clearly imported. They’d formed in a briny lake, but the closest body of water that fit that description was some 18 miles away. That was much farther than most inhabitants likely would’ve traveled on a regular basis, given the uneven terrain. So what was going on?
The pigments, Potts and his co-authors now believe, were part of a prehistoric trade network—one that existed 100,000 years earlier than scientists previously thought.
That said if they are messing with you or otherwise impacting your chance of survival *and* they are too weak to stop you then just killing/enslaving them all becomes the logical choice, so you can't care about them that much.
Post by: Travis Bickle on March 24, 2024, 04:14:56 am
Pueri Hebraeorum (https://youtube.com/watch?v=6oIGu_DSAaI)
Post by: StrawBarrel on March 29, 2024, 04:03:34 pm
Where Did Ancient Christians Meet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnJ0komM8tU
It appears that some scholars believe that some early Christians had meetings in insulae and villas. Later on more dedicated places of worships would be formed.
The background music in the video is a bit loud. Opening the transcript or closed captions might be needed.
Post by: Travis Bickle on March 29, 2024, 11:11:24 pm
The Passion According to St. John (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRoh_Ui5FJQ)