Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Orange Wizard]

Technically it's for discussion pertaining to religion in general. But Christianity being the ubiquitous thing that it is, we always drift back to it.

Though most of the thread is atheist circlejerk anyway.

[UXLZ]

I mostly use It because an 'Utterly Perfect Being's' (and I believe that's the common idea behind the Christian God?) cannot possibly be male. Or rather, It cannot possibly be male without also being female, non-specified, 'chair' and everything else as well as nothing else. 'It' is the closest descriptor I can use in English.

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'.

[Orange Wizard]

Indeed. God is not Utterly Perfect^TM in the sense you've explained. He is not a chair, or nothing.

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? )imaginable.
Then there's the issue of Jesus coming into the Matrix world, but let's not get into that.

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.

[UXLZ]

Indeed. God is not Utterly Perfect^TM 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 Perfect^TM' 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? )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 Perfect^TM' 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.

[Helgoland]

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?)

[UXLZ]

Not the slightest idea. Usually one does so when recurring to God but in our recent posts OW and I didn't really do so.

I wouldn't really consider the Church worthy of it.

[Orange Wizard]

I'm really inconsistent with what I capitalise and what I don't. I don't think it's necessary to capitalise pronouns in the majority cases.

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.
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.'
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.

Fair enough. I don't agree, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

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.

[Bohandas]

Regarding the whole "chosen prople" angle in the old testament, has anybody else noticed that there's kind of an ironic paralell beteween that and the guiding philosophy of Nazi Germany. In fact, I would contend that "Nazi Germany" is also a valid answer to the question posed in Deuteronomy 4:8 ("And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today" -Deut 4:

[TempAcc]

The old testament was basically just jews adapting the abhramic teachings into a system that put them on top of the world as god's chosen people in a time in which every region they inhabited had multiple beliefs that were at odds with theirs. It even had undertones of racial purity in places, which, if you consider the historical context, was kinda justified since it had the objective of keeping the jews togheder instead of dissipating themselves  into the much larger civilizations of the time, IE the egyptians, the greeks and the Roman Empire. There are guidelines for praying in secret rather then in congregations to avoid getting unwanted attention, not betraying other jews, and generally readying them for the comming of the messiah.

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.

[TheDarkStar]

(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?

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

(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)

[TheDarkStar]

(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?

[Angle]

Relevant!

[Arx]

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)

(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.

[UXLZ]

Arx, I did have evidence, that being logic. It's a conclusion I've drawn and it isn't 100% based on 'what I think.'  I know that God is massively, insanely powerful, but I also know that He isn't truly omnipotent, what I said was just an analogy.