My case for why there is no conscious, seperate entity such as God (Bible-like God, that is) by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
"You have not been called here to understand, you have been called here to feel."

Thanks for the reply, and the story, HK.

About pain; life is pain. It's part of the whole life experience, as essential as sunlight or vitamin-C. I wasn't lookin' to get God to fix our pain as much as to say that Heaven and Hell are right here, right now on this planet and everywhere else. And God's here and everywhere too.
Not a mean old man with a beard judging our souls worthy or unworthy to enter His House, but the living essence of what the universe is made of.

Many like to seperate things; God is outside of me, those people are not like me, there is only the 'right' way, and the 'wrong' way.
The world makes sense if you can simplify it into blacks and whites, or say it's God's will and not mine. (BTW, this thread was my finger's will, and not mine

.)

Putting a singular 'face', or personality on God, seperate from ourselves, our planet or the universe was probably the dumbest, most destructive thing ever done by man, IMHO.

But, in my own Quasi-Buddhist way I must say...I could be wrong.

But I don't think so at this moment Chrisisall

P.S., missed you HK

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by liminalosity:
Unless I missed something, and none of the ungrateful wretches managed to make the Friday extension. In that case, they got what they deserved.

Well, that's the thing.

I'm paraphrasing the story (which I haven't heard in years) from memory. I don't know if any had them done by Friday, or not. My impression was that all of those who'd missed Tuesday, had also missed Friday, and were arrogantly expecting even more time. I can't say for certain.

Anyhow, as I said before, you're picking out one thing (which I can't reply to, as I don't know the specifics) which really hasn't anything at all to do with the analogy -- that anything given beyond the initial requirement is grace, and not entitlement.

Quote:
Originally posted by liminalosity:
I do think one 'sin' (one act out of balance) does keep me in debt to the universe, but comitting one transgression, which I subsequently make reparations for should not keep me in infinite debt, or what's the point.

The one sin keeps us forever in debt to God because what is the penalty for any sin? Eternal death/separation from God. We can't repay what's not ours to give.

I hate analogies, because none of them are perfect, and there are always holes one can find in them (as you like to) --

but, let me try this...

Let's say there's a rule that if you blink your eye, you owe me a billion to the billionth power dollars, which you have to pay before you die. Whether you blink your eye once or a billion times, you still owe that completely unpayable sum.

I don't like that analogy, but I'm trying to express that we can't pay the debt. But, why anyone should worry or fret that we can't pay the debt is beyond my understanding, as God has already paid the debt for us. All we have to do is accept the gift.

I mean, why get our buns twisted up in a knot over the fact that we can't pay off our mortgage, when someone has come and already paid it for us -- all we have to do is accept it and cash the check.

I mean -- it's free. We can't ever pay it, but someone else has. For heaven sakes, stop complaining that we can't pay it and take the stinking check and cash it, already!!

On a side note (if I might be indulged to comment on something said previously by someone else)...

Yesterday, someone mentioned about how low one's self esteem would have to be to be a Christian. I initially replied to that, but something dawned on me just this morning, which I think is also applicable.

Which of the following two belief systems would provoke a better feeling about oneself? And which is more likely to spiral its adherents into deep depression?

#1) That a sovereign, loving, all-powerful, creator God has made us each with a distinct purpose, and in spite of the fact that we continually rebel against His perfect will for us, has paid an enormous price to forgive our debt so that we could spend eternity in His presence without any pain, sorrow and trouble?

or

#2) That we are all accidents of chance that just happened to evolve here, and when we die, that's it. Whether it's five seconds or five millennia, once we're dead, we're going to be forgotten, and even if we aren't forgotten, what difference does it make, because we're all cosmic accidents existing in an accidental universe where there can be no absolutes, because everything is an accident of chance?

Personally, I think the former belief system is far more encouraging than the latter. If anything should make a person feel good about themselves it's that they have a purpose, and that God wants to be with them forever. Seriously, you can't ask (or even imagine) more than that. At least, I can't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I attended at Our Lady of Perpetual Bingo.

Since you're in such a serious mood, Signy, I must tell you about a movie idea I've been working on: These scientists come upon an actual hair from Christ, and attempt to complete the missing genetic material with that of frogs, inadvertantly creating a new Super-Hero!

Jurrasic Jesus!!

Sam Neil Bruce Willis Jessica Alba Jeff Goldblum
in
A Steven Speilberg Movie
Music by Basil Poledouris
Screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan and Chrisisall
Directed by Steven Speilberg

Read the Bantam book

Chrisisall*wakes up...*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by liminalosity:
Yikes, 'Toon, this sounds to me more like an abusive parent who makes everything the fault of the child than a reasonable deity.

lol, yeah, doesn't it?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:39 AM

TAMFANIAM

God is here,
God is real and He created the whole shebang universe, including us (made in His likeness no less.) But of all creation (including angels) we are the only ones with free will. He will come into our lives, but only at our invitaion. I too struggle with the suffering that goes on around me... but I don't lay the blame of it at God's door, but our own; man's. It would be nice if we had a perfect world where there would be no hunger, no injustice, no greed and brutality but... wait. That would be heaven, and Jesus ain't come again. Yet.

tamfaniam

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:49 AM

You know what's funny? the pseudo intellectual cases against God.

God's existence has nothing to do with whether you believe or not, the problem here is that most of you talking about how Christians are self-deprecating A-holes and all that hoo ha are so miss informed that the information they do have is exactly as they say it.

You are the people that read a few passages here or there, maybe your were baptized and confirmed, maybe nothing it all, probably have been to church once or twice, had a bad experience (like you wont have one again) and gave it up because it expected something of you...now you resort to attacking something you have a very minor understanding about and it doesn't matter how much history or background you know because none of what Christianity professes is about history, its about faith and living now...

But, obviously those Christians among us are fools for believing in something like God, we are all depressed ignorant knaves...

While those who want to be controversial bring up subjects that need to be understood while looking at the whole picture, not the individual case... you be believe your life is so important that it should consist of no suffering not realizing the context in which our life is lived.... in a world that contains suffering! Look at God's own Son...(but of course here comes the argument that he didn't come just to live...well then ask yourself, are you? maybe all the suffering you experience is part of what you are here to learn/do)

But, of course the next question is some bitchy complaint about 'WHy, why is there suffering! I pray to God! Therefore he should ease my pain..."(No one said it was going to be easy, especially when you are watching your own child suffer...no one said that wasnt' part of life...times like that require more faith and still might not be your desired outcome...time to buckle down and do everything you can)

Read the lives of some of the saints, you will see that things did not work that way, in fact you will see that suffering is not something viewed the way all of you who complain about suffering think it is....ie. as an evil bad bad thing....

Read some St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila and educate yourself, you can act like ignorant people the rest of your life and it will still not help...

Just maybe...MAYBE...if you could conjure up some faith and practice the faith and truly try to understand it, you just may discover some peace and truth...

Remember that Jesus said "Blessed is he who believes but as not seen"-- a pill to hard to swallow...but of course I can't USE the bible as a reference...shame I must give you some real world experience...OH! The shame!...

Remember the desire for damnation is based on desire....(oh here comes the bitching next about 'OH, who really wants to go to hell! Wah wah wah..." think about it before you go mouthing off about yet another subject of which you have no understanding about....

Read some Marcus Aurelius (yes he persecuted the Christians but ain't it funny how close his philosophy is to Christian ethics) but of course your going to get caught up in the fact that he persecuted Christians so much so that it will taint anything you might learn...ultimately because you don't want to learn...

You have the naive view that your logic alone is good enough to give you the answers you desire, you're logic will only go so far until it reaches the cliff that requires faith...faith is the bridge that will lead you to the answers you desire...but expecting those here who would rather bitch then search for the answer to get some faith..(and asking questions or spurring on a debate is not a search for answers)...miraculous

Quote:
#1) That a sovereign, loving, all-powerful, creator God has made us each with a distinct purpose, and in spite of the fact that we continually rebel against His perfect will for us, has paid an enormous price to forgive our debt so that we could spend eternity in His presence without any pain, sorrow and trouble?

No! We can't believe in such a thing! There is no proof...we must believe in chance and odds and ideas which are more believable, like the infinite expansion and regression of the universe from one strange point of energy that during the infinite time of "in and out" that somehow somewhere all the situations needed for life to live and flourish will finally come by chance.....even though the odds are infinite! That..that I CAN believe with out proof....oh and (shhhh don't ask where that first life form with imminent activity came from...they will ask where God came from and because we can't answer that, they will think that is a counter-argument)

-OD (The self deprecating, ignorant, stupid, depressed, superstition Christian....LOL, ah, that was sarcasm for those literal among us)

Good times!

PS.

Quote:
But of all creation (including angels) we are the only ones with free will.

No, the angels have free will, that's why some rebeled...the angels do what they do because they choose to, for God, for us. Otherwise, you're right with what you said...humans like to complicate much of everything...

PPS: The smartest (and also the one I respect the most) Athiest I have ever met, when asked why he does not believe in God, simply looked me in the eyes and said,

" I just don't. There is no reason why or why not."

That is the ultimate answer...You just do or you just don't. But, to be a non-believer and to try to hack away at something you have no desire to believe in is just ignorance and/or malice...But, thou do as thou will...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

OmegaDark-

Quote:
You are the people that read a few passages here or there, maybe your were baptized and confirmed, maybe nothing it all, probably have been to church once or twice, had a bad experience (like you wont have one again) and gave it up because it expected something of you...now you resort to attacking something you have a very minor understanding about and it doesn't matter how much history or background you know because none of what Christianity professes is about history, its about faith and living now...you be believe your life is so important that it should consist of no suffering not realizing the context in which our life is lived.... in a world that contains suffering!

You seem to create your opinions out of whole cloth. I was raised Catholic. I went to Catholic school and had catechism as part of the curriculum, attended Mass every day, even sang in the choir (badly). I didn't give up my religion because I had "bad experience" or expected God to take away all pain. I read the stories of the saints, at one time I would have been happy to be part of the clergy. I gave up my religion (which was actually quite comfortable, all things considered) because I started asking questions like What is real and what is a dream? Since all religions claim to have 'the truth' how can I rell which one is right? It was a very unsettling year, but once you realize that you can't even 'prove' reality the whole notion of believing in something that isn't manifest kind of goes down the drain.

You should know that you can't berate someone into faith.

So, tell me- other than not 'burning in hell', why should I believe? I have a philosophy that says the Universe is as it is, and suffering and grief is part of it. Despite my lack of faith, I still expect quite a bit of myself, since I have an ethic that says we should love one another and understand ourselves. When I'm disappointed, I'm disapointed in people. I don't need to rationalize to myself (and others) why this God who loves us all seems to want to rather capriciously plunk us into eternal damantion or eternal gratitude for being as we were created to be.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, tell me- other than not 'burning in hell', why should I believe?

As shortly and as honestly as I can put it -- the best reason I can give is because we were made to believe, and we won't ever fulfill the reason for which we were created if we don't.

But, as you said, no one can be forced to believe.

No one else can cash the check in my name. I have to take it and cash it, myself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:47 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Say that the case against God is Pseudo intellectual...

Fine. But its a harsh generalization to suggest that everybody is trying to hack away at your faith if they are discussing it from a sceptical standpoint. I'm a little dismayed by the whole "just do," or "just don't" door slam on conversation that you advocate. That's not even pseudo intellectual...that's a lack of curiosity, a vanity even, that you cannot learn more about your own religion by talking to a doubter.

And I know too many people who "just do." What I mean by that is that they have no honest understanding of what it is they believe. They believe in the bible. They know that truth is inside..but they've never read it.

I think its important to understand your own beliefs or your own doubts. There's a whole crap load of inconsistency out there on the bible...One can turn it into a tool for whatever he wants. As Jon Stewart said about it, "it's like an atom. Split it one way you get nuclear power, split it another, you get a bomb."

People who don't know their own faith often allow somebody else to interperet it for them. That allows for a vast degree of inconsistency even in their own living. The cohesiveness gets lost.

In my opinion, True Christians are those who have asked questions, have had discourses, have doubted, despaired, and have yet, come out of it all with a stronger faith than ever. They are not told by their religious leaders where they stand on an issue...that Michael Schaivo is in cahoots with the devil, or that God is killing our people in Iraq because of our tolerance for Homosexuality.

There's a lot to reconcile in the bible. The journey, I would guess, is a rewarding one, but its one that must be taken, and that means suffer some slings and arrows for your own good.

I'm out of my depth, I freely admit, but one of those deadly sins that are apparently the reason for all of our suffering here on Earth(according to those readers of the bible who have conveniently ignored Job)is Sloth. Laziness, when it comes to invoking God's name, has got to be a particularly heinous sin then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:54 AM

SignyM:

I appreciate your background and understanding and you personal philosophy. (Nice run on sentence? )

I hope you didn't think I was talking directly to you, I wasn't.... I was talking about what people say....

Quote:
I don't need to rationalize to myself (and others) why this God who loves us all seems to want to rather capriciously plunk us into eternal damnation or eternal gratitude for being as we were created to be.

See, it's comments like that, that make me realize that the knowledge of what you claim has major errors.

If someone at least brought up an argument with understanding that was correct about Religious philosophy and catechetical understading that didn't contain absurd ideas (like God just damns people for the hell of it), then both you and I would be much better off for it.

I truly respect 90% of the people who have had the dissenting opinion about religion. Some people have been willing to know and wanted to understand it from both sides...as I truly want to understand it from those who have left or don't believe...but when people tell me why they don't based on certain ideas that are NOT Christian but claim 'this is the case, and it doesn't make sense' I have to reply, your right it doesn't make sense because that ISN'T THE CASE!

I just find it rare when someone presents the right information and the CORRECT understanding of it and simply says I don't believe... then that person is much farther ahead that those who give false reasons to false ideas that are misconstrued and falsely placed inside the structure of 'Christianity'. The person who knows yet doesn't believe is much more respected...and is much more liable to believe

Quote:
You seem to create your opinions out of whole cloth. I was raised Catholic. I went to Catholic school and had catechism as part of the curriculum, attended Mass every day, even sang in the choir (badly)

What makes you a follower of Christ is in your Mind, on your tongue, and in your heart....being baptized, etc etc etc is only the start...and you can learn until the cows come home, but until you have FAITH, all your actions are just that....action

Tat Tvam Asi

you just have to believe it

- OD

Prov 26:4

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:01 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Actually, if you were referring to my previous posts, knowing that God loves us should do just the opposite than cause us to harbor "profound self-hatred", etc. I mean, who wouldn't feel "great" that the eternal, creator God personally loves them?

Heya Cartoon,

Y'know...we're talkin' turkey here, right? See, what you say here, right here about God's love and the self tells me you really (I mean really) don't know what I'm talking about. Trouble is, this stuff, this emotionally perceived stuff, is experiential: very hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it themselves--y'know, like mystical experience.

See, self-esteem is about your self, about you and your accomplishments and your potentiality. It's not about an external source of validation, whether it be a paternal God, or a loved one. Getting personal validation from how someone else loves you, is the opposite of self-esteem. That kind of self worth makes you helpless, it makes you a slave. You can be perfectly happy being helpless or being a slave (as long as you can ignore a few facts), but if that goes on too long it isn't healthy.

You know about the baby elephant that get's tied to the post? The baby elephant tries and tries to free himself from the post, but he's not strong enough and eventually gives up. And then when the elephant's grown up, and can pull whole trees out of the ground with its trunk, it never tries to escape when it gets tied to the little post, because it "learned" that it was "helpless" against the post ("learned helplessnes" we call it).

Without self-esteem we don't test our personal limits, without self-esteem we may find contentment with our apparent "lot in life" but the longer we stagnate in that way, our spirit atrophies.

People find a lot of contentment in the illusion of control. The Christian God, popularly conceived, creates a comforting perfection to sooth our restless awareness. But the God Captain Kirk and I talk to made our spirits restless for a reason. It's something in the nature of being human to test limits and so surpass ourselves.

Quote:
And we don't have to have low self-esteem or hate ourselves to approach God. We do need to realize that (as He said) we have wronged Him, admit it to Him, and gratefully hold our hand out to accept the free gift. How does that invoke depression?

Okay, good question. To give you an adequate answer, I'm gonna have to go a little in depth here, be merciful: whether you are very conscious of it or not, original sin is a central underpinning of mainstream Christian thought. The inherent evil of Man after the Fall is hard to get around. A lot of Christians, like a lot of the folks posting on this thread, tend to conveniently blank it out when it suits them. But because of Eve we are all inherently evil, even little babies straight out the womb--that's why they need baptizin'. Evil. You, Cartoon, are evil. I am evil. Everyone you have ever known and ever loved has been evil. And you come along, "But I'm happy about it! Praise the Lord!" I think you may be happy 'cause you've mastered the art of cognitive dissonance.

And no one's gonna choose Christianity unless the Crucifixion appeals to them in some way. You gotta admit, the Crucifixion is a pretty dire symbol, not reflective of a happy-go-lucky experience of life. Conversion stories are fraught with darkness and despair that could only be cleared by the Savior's love. Belly-button Christians may not have such dramatic stories, but they're told often enough where they'd be without Christ.

Here's the thing: all dualistic religions (the ones that believe in good vs. evil) amount to spiritual crisis management. The crisis resides in the fact that nothing in a dualistic world view can "just be." Everything is either/or. The central question becomes, "Am I doing the right thing?" And uncertainty is generally assumed to imply a negative; sort of the spiritual equivalent of the old joke: "If you have to ask, you can't afford it."

The story of Christ can help people who are lost in the darkness to find the light again. Unfortunately, human's are afflicted with a tendency to identify healing with something outside themselves and so think that Christ pulled them into the light, when really He just pointed the way.

In this way, becoming a practicing Christian, is a little like someone who's been trapped in the basement worshiping the stairs they used to climb out.

You see, since religion is crisis management, it is necessary for the practicing Christian to manufacture crisis in order to remain Christian; in this way, loss of faith is a periodic necessity in the life of a Christian because loss of faith will be experienced as a crisis. When the crisis becomes serious enough, suddenly religion will make sense again and they can go back to being a happy Christian. But they're really just falling down and climbing up the same stairs over and over again.

And just to be as clear as I can with a complex subject (because folk like to see things in blacks and whites when the picture is actually in full color), I've known many good people who would identify as Christian. Dr. Martin Luther King is a hero of mine (side note--Christianity did nothing to help him with his infidelity to his wife--Biblical Christianity has no way of healing the sexual wound in human consciousness). Saint Francis, Theresa of Avila and Joan of Arc knew what they were talking about. Prayer works. The Christ is a powerful cleansing and healing energy--very good with demons, for instance. I have it on good authority that a Christ actually died on the cross 2000 years ago, but folks really, really missed the point of all that.

Satan, the Adversary, that part of human consciousness that wants power over others (not "original sin" but a wound with an historical, evolutionary source) got into the Church on the ground floor, as it were. By the time Paul started preaching, the Church was wedded to power and many, many very bad things have been done in Jesus' name. If Christianity is not going to destroy us with war and intolerance it will have to be cleansed of the Earthly Church, which means it will have to be cleansed of the Bible.

As things stand, being a Christian is a mild (in some cases not so mild) form of self-torture. It's entirely possible to survive torture with your morals intact, but the process makes it harder. These days, mainstream Christianity is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:12 AM

SignyM:

I appreciate your background and understanding and you personal philosophy. (Nice run on sentence? )

I hope you didn't think I was talking directly to you, I wasn't.... I was talking about what people say....

Quote:
I don't need to rationalize to myself (and others) why this God who loves us all seems to want to rather capriciously plunk us into eternal damnation or eternal gratitude for being as we were created to be.

See, it's comments like that, that make me realize that the knowledge of what you claim has major errors.

If someone at least brought up an argument with understanding that was correct about Religious philosophy and catechetical understanding that didn't contain absurd ideas (like God just damns people for the hell of it), then both you and I would be much better off for it.

I truly respect 90% of the people who have had the dissenting opinion about religion. Some people have been willing to know and wanted to understand it from both sides...as I truly want to understand it from those who have left or don't believe...but when people tell me why they don't based on certain ideas that are NOT Christian but claim 'this is the case, and it doesn't make sense' I have to reply, your right it doesn't make sense because that ISN'T THE CASE!

I just find it rare when someone presents the right information and the CORRECT understanding of it and simply says I don't believe... then that person is much farther ahead that those who give false reasons to false ideas that are misconstrued and falsely placed inside the structure of 'Christianity'. The person who knows yet doesn't believe is much more respected...and is much more liable to believe

Quote:
You seem to create your opinions out of whole cloth. I was raised Catholic. I went to Catholic school and had catechism as part of the curriculum, attended Mass every day, even sang in the choir (badly)

What makes you a follower of Christ is in your Mind, on your tongue, and in your heart....being baptized, etc etc etc is only the start...and you can learn until the cows come home, but until you have FAITH, all your actions are just that....action

Tat Tvam Asi

you just have to believe it

- OD

Prov 26:4

Quote:
People who don't know their own faith often allow somebody else to interpret it for them. That allows for a vast degree of inconsistency even in their own living. The cohesiveness gets lost.

boy you said it!!!

Quote:
In my opinion, True Christians are those who have asked questions, have had discourses, have doubted, despaired, and have yet, come out of it all with a stronger faith than ever.

THANK YOU!!!

Quote:
There's a lot to reconcile in the bible. The journey, I would guess, is a rewarding one, but its one that must be taken, and that means suffer some slings and arrows for your own good.

You said it....

Quote:
But its a harsh generalization to suggest that everybody is trying to hack away at your faith if they are discussing it from a sceptical standpoint. I'm a little dismayed by the whole "just do," or "just don't" door slam on conversation that you advocate.

I NEVER said everyone, just those who don't care to learn or truly want to have a discussion, but those who are just hacking for it's own sake...

You're preaching to someone who agrees with you...if you take time to read my past posts and then to read this one, you will see what I am getting at, to read just this one, is an awfully out of context view of what I say....

Quote:
And I know too many people who "just do." What I mean by that is that they have no honest understanding of what it is they believe. They believe in the bible. They know that truth is inside..but they've never read it.

Well, that's a tough line to draw, some people don't have the capacity to break things down and understand it, I have met some people who have no intellectual ability in the case you discuss and yet are very very very very good people...amazingly so they just 'know' when someone from their religion (or not) is full of it...blessed are those people...

My Official and Final Statement:

My religion (Catholic) is not really about God. It is about me, you, and the world; trying to make some minor difference, no matter how small, just so that the direction of the world could have a chance to go upward. So that amidst all the suffering, there is some instance of comfort, of love, and of faith...

Lastly, I enjoy engaging in these discussions, only when people bring in the correct ideas and argue from them. When they bring in false ideas there is no where to go accept break down the argument and eventually offend that person...

Either way, you make good friends or good enemies but you know what they say about that...

Good day all, see you around, blessing and prayers for all (i know i know some don't want any prayers, so then just ignore it

)

- OD

PS: HKCavalier, what the are you talking about, you really lost me? There is only one thing I think I can talk about in that whole post:

If man was created very good then how does he then become INHERENTLY evil after his fall? Like his nature completely changed? Or are you trying to say that Origional sin does not make man evil but is the sin that allows me to do evil? there is a drastic difference because if we were inherently evil there could be no good that comes out of us...we quite often do what is in our nature to do, and you know there are good things and bad things...to say that our nature consists of these dual ideas could explain it, but it wouldn't be right. ( I know I posed and answered a question in the same sentence..i know you didn't say it, I did)

Man is inherently GOOD, if not, we're not from God...i just think you misunderstand what it is to be sinful or what it means to have original sin...but ultimately i don't know how to explain man's tendency for destruction and separation...

Quote:
Biblical Christianity has no way of healing the sexual wound in human consciousness

i don't know if it has NO way of healing...but I have no proof for that...i do know that subject is a mighty difficult one and intriguing one... a topic not answered...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay- let me reiterate/ expand part of my post and rephrase part of it.

To reiterate/ expand: If it's impossible to even prove "reality", then the whole notion of believing in something that isn't manifest kind of goes down the drain. I have three a priori assumption that underpin my view: The universe exists, we are a part of it, and we come to know it through our senses. That pretty much does away with subjectivism, idealism and religion right off the bat. Given those assumptions, everything else is subject to enquiry. Open-ended enquiry is, in my view, a healthy thing. Enquiry in which one simply seeks to prove an already agreed-on concept is a dead end.

So, to rephrase the other part: I don't need to rationalize to myself the workings of ANY god, whether s/he/they be warm and fuzzy, capricious, consistent, just, or satanic. IMHO following Harvey might get you locked in the looney bin, following Moloch should land you in jail, and following the Xtian God is socially acceptable but in terms of "proof" they are all on the same plane: can't be done.

In other words: I don't believe.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:32 AM

QUEENOFTHENORTH

See, Cartoon, I told you, my posts are invisible. You are the only one with the miraculous ability to read and reply to them. But, I'll post all over again, just because I can.

My question to Chrisisall (and anyone who uses this argument) is what makes the suffering of a small child so much more important than the suffering of anyone or anything else? Because they haven't lived their full life yet? But who has? Is the suffering of the 45-year-old woman dying of breast cancer deserved more than that of the small child? Why? Who says so? At what age does that suffering become more acceptable? 10? 15? 20?

It is my understanding that God loves us all equally. So, therefore, he wouldn't feel obliged to ease the suffering of a baby over that of an adult. It's us humans that are saying he should, essentially telling him what to do. Supreme arrogance, that. So then, should he ease all suffering? That would give us heaven on earth, wouldn't it? We've already dropped the ball on that one, so we aren't getting a second chance at it. Our second (and last) chance is heaven after death. I don't think the bible-like God is going to give us a free ride until then. But that's just my invisible opinion.

"I'm having one of those things - a headache with pictures."

"Of course I'm right. And if I'm not, may we all be horribly crushed from above somehow."

Like books? Go to this thread: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=14862
to find out how to buy mine!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think it's because children are deemed more innocent, or less culpable, than adults and don't "deserve" to suffer.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
See, self-esteem is about your self, about you and your accomplishments and your potentiality.

Okay. I agree with that. But, it didn't sound like that's what you were trying to say. I apologize if I misinterpreted your previous statement.

As a Christian, though, I'm also a bit concerned about what you said above, because there's a fine line between "self-esteem" and "pride" (the latter which is a sin). While I agree we should not be unduly down on ourselves, neither should we think of ourselves more highly than we should. Where to draw that distinction (at least to me) is a fuzzy one.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Evil. You, Cartoon, are evil. I am evil. Everyone you have ever known and ever loved has been evil. And you come along, "But I'm happy about it! Praise the Lord!" I think you may be happy 'cause you've mastered the art of cognitive dissonance.

I entirely agree with your first three statements above -- but, by your 4th statement, I'm lead to believe that you misunderstood (or I didn't adequately explain) my position as a believer.

No, I'm not the least bit "happy" about being evil. The Lord never wanted us to be "happy" about evil. He wants those who have accepted His free gift of salvation to be happy and gracious (unlike Sproul's entitlement-minded, arrogant students who presumed upon grace) that He's rescued them from that "evil" state into which we were born. Believe me, I never even meant to imply otherwise.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And no one's gonna choose Christianity unless the Crucifixion appeals to them in some way. You gotta admit, the Crucifixion is a pretty dire symbol, not reflective of a happy-go-lucky experience of life.

The only thing appealing about the cross is that God loved us enough to go through that horrible, humiliating death to pay the price for those who would freely receive it. If anything, the horror of the cross should show us how bad our sin must be in God's eyes that this was the price it cost Jesus to pay for it.

I have to say I disagree with much of your final paragraphs, and we'll have to let it go at that -- because space and time won't allow me to cover where I disagree on the inerrancy of the scriptures, and my at-hand knowledge won't allow me to go into where the early church (which was adhering to the scriptures) got turned aside (shortly thereafter -- but not during Paul's time on earth, as I believe you were implying.) (I'd say the church was fine for the whole first century. It was after those who had actually walked with the Lord had gone, that those coming after them had a tendency to add and subtract things.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 12:11 PM

I didn't respond to your question, Queen, because (aside from the fact that I like to pretend that I don't like you) I don't have any qualms with your statement.

Regarding why everyone else ignores you, I can only assume that they genuinely don't like you.

You know, it would go a long way towards endearing others to you if you lost that "I can kill you with my brain" thing next to your name. Believe it or not, that does tend to frighten some folks off.

You know how it initially scared me.

(I'm still not fully recovered.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:46 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
As a Christian, though, I'm also a bit concerned about what you said above, because there's a fine line between "self-esteem" and "pride" (the latter which is a sin). While I agree we should not be unduly down on ourselves, neither should we think of ourselves more highly than we should. Where to draw that distinction (at least to me) is a fuzzy one.

Heya, Cartoon, thanks for your very civil reply.

Yes, it was the pride thing in the first place that set me off. The whole pride=sin concept is sooooo 13th century, dude--been there, done that!

Seriously, the doctrine of the seven deadly sins is not in the Bible, Jesus had nothing to say on the matter, the whole thing was a medieval improvization on a theme of wickedness.

Quote:
The only thing appealing about the cross is that God loved us enough to go through that horrible, humiliating death to pay the price for those who would freely receive it. If anything, the horror of the cross should show us how bad our sin must be in God's eyes that this was the price it cost Jesus to pay for it.

"...how bad our sin must be..." I have to disagree here. To my mind, the crucifixion is a genuine mystery. The doctine of God coming to free us from sin is only hinted at in only one of the four gospels--and the last one to boot, written over a hundred years after the facts--and the writer of John's gospel absolutely had an axe to grind on the subject. He was promoting a whole way of interpreting the life and works of Jesus that the power brokers within the early church liked a good deal better than, oh say, the version of divinity presented in the gospel of Thomas.

Furthermore, I perceive that procelytism (i.e.: coercion, manipulation and scare tactics) is evil. No real good comes from convertion--whatever good there is in a Christian life (and there can be much) happens inspite of having one's mind attacked and weakened in this way. Jesus instructed his deciples to go out and tell the world his story, he didn't say anything about telling people they would burn in hell if they didn't go to mass every Sunday. What happened to the church from the get go was human power-hunger, plain and simple; the will of men like Paul to dominate others.

Organized religion doesn't work. Theocracies, across the board, have been at the root of the vast majority of atrocities throughout history. And as far as I can glean from Jesus' few words, he advised his followers to stay out of politics and the religion business, period. Oh well.

Thanks again, Cartoon, for reading my post without prejudice. That means a lot to me.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sayings from the Gospel of Thomas:

2) [Jesus said]: "Let him who seeks not cease until he finds, and when he finds he shall wonder; wondering he shall reign, and reigning shall rest."

3) Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. [Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

4) Jesus said: "Let the old man who is full of days not hesitate to ask the child of seven days about the place of life; then he will live. For many that are first will be last, and last, first, and they will become a single one."

5) Jesus said: "Recognize what is before your face and that which is hidden from the you will be revealed to you. For there is nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest, nor buried which shall not be raised."

6) His disciples asked him and said to him, "How do you want us to fast? And how shall we pray? And how [shall we] give alms? And what kind of diet shall we follow?" Jesus said, "Do not lie, and do not do what you hate, for all things are disclosed before truth. For there is nothing hidden which shall not be shown forth."

27) Jesus said: "Unless you fast to the world, you shall in no way find the Kingdom of God; and unless you sabbatize the Sabbath, you shall not see the Father."

28) Jesus said: "I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh I was seen by them, and I found all drunken, and I found none among them thirsty. And my soul grieved over the souls of men, because they are blind in their heart and see not. [...]

Just FYI

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Heya, Cartoon, thanks for your very civil reply.

You're welcomed.

People can disagree without becoming disagreeable -- and I have to say I've found more to disagree with in your last response than in your initial post.

It's difficult without going into great detail (which I could -- but which would likely just result in us going back and forth, ad naseum), but just a few brief comments if I may...

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Yes, it was the pride thing in the first place that set me off. The whole pride=sin concept is sooooo 13th century, dude--been there, done that!

Actually, just to site a single example, Jesus specifically mentions "pride" as a sin in Mark 7 (along with a whole lot of other sins which "defile a man from within").

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The doctine of God coming to free us from sin is only hinted at in only one of the four gospels--and the last one to boot, written over a hundred years after the facts--and the writer of John's gospel absolutely had an axe to grind on the subject.

Just to site a few in the other gospels, in the very first chapter of Matthew, the angel announcing Jesus's birth to Mary: "He will save His people from their sins." In Mark 2, Jesus says to the crowd that He came "to call sinners to repentence". In Luke 1, Zacharias prophesies that Jesus would give knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins, etc. That's one example from each of the other gospels just in the first few chapters of each book. There are many many more throughout.

Regarding John's gospel, it was written by the apostle John during his lifetime, several decades after the events portrayed therein -- as was the entire NT (most likely between 45 and 95 AD), and all were circulated throughout the church and acknowledged as being written by the persons with which they were associated in that time period --which is why they were accepted (a few centuries later) into the canon of scripture as authenic, and others were not.

You can obviously site liberal theologians who dispute this, but they are in the minority, and the evidence supports otherwise. I have studied the origins and compilation of both the Old and New Testaments at some length, and am quite satisfied with the Hebrew & Greek manuscripts from which our English translations are derived. Obviously, many others -- mostly non-believing detractors, are not. I acknowledge that we will, unfortunately, not find agreement on this, however.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Furthermore, I perceive that procelytism (i.e.: coercion, manipulation and scare tactics) is evil.

I agree. The gospel cannot be coerced. I've said as much for as long as I can remember. You cannot force someone to believe, and you shouldn't try. Present the gospel plainly, in a non-confrontational manner. If someone is interested, pursue the matter. If not, move on. Jesus said as much, Himself.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Jesus instructed his deciples to go out and tell the world his story, he didn't say anything about telling people they would burn in hell if they didn't go to mass every Sunday.

Yes, Jesus gave no instructions regarding time and place of worship, nor that failure to adhere to a certain schedule would result in damnation. In that respect, you are entirely correct.

However, Jesus did, indeed, preach about hell -- in all four of the gospels. As others (who have spent more time than I have searching such things) have pointed out, Jesus speaks about "hell" more than everyone else in the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) combined. Jesus frequently warned His listeners about hell, and Jesus's descriptions of such are quite frightening -- the Lord did not pull His punches on the subject in the least.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
What happened to the church from the get go was human power-hunger, plain and simple; the will of men like Paul to dominate others.

Many throughout history who were supposed to be representing the Lord have certainly misused and abused His word and the authority they utilized in His name (but certainly without His approval).

I disagree, however, that the apostle Paul was one of them. Jesus's disciples all embraced Him as a brother, and Peter even mentions in his own epistles that what Paul has written is "from the Lord" and he considered it as "scripture". So there is clear evidence from within the Bible, itself (from sources other than Paul) that Paul's teachings were from the Lord and accepted by the other apostles and body of believers as a whole.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Organized religion doesn't work. Theocracies, across the board, have been at the root of the vast majority of atrocities throughout history.

For the most part, you're correct. But, "disorganized" followers of the Lord don't get much done, either. Some sort of organization is needed, but often times, administration and man-made rules which deviate from the scriptures (both adding to and subtracting from) get in the way (the same thing happened to Judiasm in Jesus's day, which He was constantly at odds with for distorting the scriptures with their "doctrines from men".)

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Thanks again, Cartoon, for reading my post without prejudice. That means a lot to me.

You're most welcomed. And while I disagree with much of your views, I likewise appreciate the civility and courtesy.

And, regarding "prejudice", as a believer in the Lord, I know that I am better than no one on this earth -- a sinner saved by grace, not by anything I've done (and therefore cannot boast). As such, it would be foolish and hypocritical for me to look down on anyone else's opinion, even the ones which I believe to be false, and the ones which often make no sense to me. I'm sure I sound fairly crazy to others at times , myself -- well, maybe more than just "at times".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:58 PM

Chris--

Sorry if this has been covered (I just don't have time to read 70 other posts).

So your argument (if I understand it) is:

A) God, as commonly conceived, is all-powerful (P), and all-good(G).
B) If God is, indeed, all-powerful and all-good, then He would not permit the presence of suffering (S) or evil (E) (P&G)->~(SvE)
C) But suffering and evil exist (SvE)
D) Therefore, God (G) does exist (~G)

So your argument looks like this, symbolically:

1 (1) P&G A
2 (2) (P&G)->~(SvE) A
1,2 (3) ~(SvE) 1,2->E
4 (4) Sve A

But your concluding move (at line D above) doesn't follow from your premises (lines A-C). Logically speaking, you are entitled to make the following move as an alternative to D: "Therefore, it is not the case that God is all-powerful and all-good", which would look like this:

.:2,4 (5) ~(P&G) 3,4RAA(1)

This argument does not (and cannot) disprove God's existence. What it can do is call into question His power or goodness, or our conception of suffering or evil, or the assumption that He would not permit them given unlimited power and goodness. But your premises don't treat the subject of God's existence-as-such, so that existence can't be disproven unless you revise your arguments in some way (for instance, start with "If God exists, then He is all-powerful and all-good"). Then you would at least be able to claim formal logical validity for your argument. (for a definition of formal validity go here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm)

To be intelletually responsible, I must hasten to add that the rules of predicate logic disallow the predication of existence. A number of philosophers, Aristotle and Kant among them, agreed in some form with the maxim that existence cannot be predicated of thing. This would jeopardize any argument which predicated existence to some particular.)

But even if existence can be predicated (in which case you would have a formally valid argument) I would dispute the soundness of your argument (see the link above for the definition of logical soundness). I would assert that your understanding of God's goodness and power is flawed, or that you mistake the import of suffering and evil vis-a-vis that power and goodness. Those are, of course, more theological than philosophical, and in light of your desire for logical debate, I shall simply say that I disagree with your conceptions.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:30 PM

Cartoon

Thank You...

Thank You..

Thank You...

- OD

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:26 PM

BURNTHELAND

This has been a truly thought provoking thread to read and I appreciate the effort and ideas that you all have put forth. I'm not looking to bash or make anyone doubt their own beliefs, in fact I'm just looking for answers (although why I'm looking on a message board for a TV show, however great that show may be, is not entirely clear).

I guess my question has to do with "Why?" If God created humankind, why did he create us with the capability to do such harm to one another?

If he loves us so, and wants us to follow him, why do we kill each other over the manner in which he should be worshipped? And if he is seeing this, why does he allow it to continue?

Why create us with carnal desires that we need to repress in order to live more "holy" lives?

Does God just enjoy watching us struggle? Does he think in order to follow him and understand him that the journey must be difficult or it isn't worth travelling?

I was told once that if I believe in God I must also believe in Satan. I don't know why, but believing in a red man with horns and a tail and carrying a pitchfork, is beyond me. It's like believing in leprechauns or the tooth fairy to me. I guess it's the same deal with Adam and Eve for me. Talking snakes? Huh? I didn't think I was supposed to take these things literally. But apparently I was wrong.

God gave humans a chance by placing them in Eden and then said "Don't eat of the tree of knowledge." Then he gave them free will. Now God is all knowing, surely he knew what man would do. So why even bother with the whole set up? It seems like the reason we are born into the world as sinners, is because that's the way God wanted it.

I seem to have wandered off and forgotten what it was I wanted to talk about.

Cartoon has written some really nice things that have helped me in this thread but I have a problem with the following:

#1) That a sovereign, loving, all-powerful, creator God has made us each with a distinct purpose, and in spite of the fact that we continually rebel against His perfect will for us, has paid an enormous price to forgive our debt so that we could spend eternity in His presence without any pain, sorrow and trouble?

or #2) That it's all up to chance, etc...

The problem with #1 is that I was raised Catholic, and at one point in time thought that I had faith. But now I no longer have that absolute belief, and infact may not believe at all. So if #1 is true, then I know that my questioning God's existence means I get to toil away here on Earth, and although I at least try to be a decent human being and caring to those around me, I don't get to spend eternity in His presence without pain, sorrow, or trouble. So I beat myself up over the issue, and try as I might, can't seem to make myself believe. So my family who are believers will go to Heaven when they die but I will not. Now my family loves me, will it not make them sad that they must spend eternity without me? But there's no sorrow in Heaven. So now I'm angry and confused by living in a universe that follows premise #1.

With premise #2, I live my life in a morally "good" manner simply because it makes life a bit better here in the only existence that I know of. And I don't worry about the cosmic ramifications. And I'm a little bit happier which makes life for those around me a little bit better.

Anyway... I've rambled way too much. I didn't mean to offend or antagonize anyone, and I'm sorry for using "he" instead of "she", or "it", or "He" as the case may be... thanks for any response, I really do want to hear back.

"Mercy is the mark of a great man"

"Guess I'm just a good man"

"Well, I'm alright"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 4:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:

My question to Chrisisall (and anyone who uses this argument) is what makes the suffering of a small child so much more important than the suffering of anyone or anything else?

Your posts are not invisible, and seeing them is always a good thing, Q.
My answer (I would have sooner, but very rushed these days) is simple; We are all on the same level, I just used babies and children on the original post for those that would take that state as relativly 'sin-free'. In truth I sometimes look at elderly folk and get a 'flash' of what they looked like as babies or children- and I sometimes see babies and get that same 'flash' of them as adults and senior citizens. It's a kind of time-travel, I guess, sort of seein' sideways across the time-line for a moment (or just a vivid visual imagination

). Sometimes it brings a tear to my eye, the whole 'invisible' timeless reality we're in....

And since I don't believe that this is our ONLY shot here, it's hard for me to discuss the whole 'last' concept.
The 'Verse, without beginning and without end...

To God, there is no zero Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 4:56 AM

AMITON

Hey everyone. I personally have been extremely impressed with the level of discussion and intercourse in the recent set of religion threads, and this one in particular. I fancy myself a hobbyist of religious history, and you guys have given a lot of interesting perspectives to study - and stayed mostly civil at that. Cool =p

Anyway...my input. I consider myself as a Christian, and I can go into the whats and whys about that if anyone cares to hear it, but I've just made the decision to accept that path in the last two years. It took me over twenty years to get to the point that I could be comfortable saying that (I'm 33, btw). At least for the first contribution to this thread, I'd like to ask a few questions rather than defend a point of view =)

First, is there any way (in your esteemed opinions), that we can ever *know* what the truth to believe is or which path is the right one? Obviously, there is a decision to believe or not believe, and that evidence is on the table. If you choose to believe, however, how do you know which version is right?

Second, do you believe that the creator (under the assumption that there is one) is ominscient and omnipotent? How does that belief work in the construct of the battle between good and evil?

Third, would you be angry if someone who you considered deeply evil, Hitler for example, was in Heaven (or the positive afterlife of your choosing)?

Thanks for all of the awesome discussion, again!

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 4:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:

I was told once that if I believe in God I must also believe in Satan. I don't know why, but believing in a red man with horns and a tail and carrying a pitchfork, is beyond me. It's like believing in leprechauns or the tooth fairy to me.

Look at the mythology of Tolkien, one man with a limited number of years, and he came up with a whole world, and it's history.

Jesus- a very cool guy- said some good things about how we should treat eachother as we, ourselves would like to be treated. Then some other guys, fresh off of studying the whole Zeus-Hercules thing, get the idea to expand on Jesus' predilections, but in a more realistic way... no son of God thrashing Hydras; this one just does miracles.

Just find the seeds of truth buryied in the comic-book adventures.

(I fully expect that in a thousand years Bruce Lee will be thought of as some kind of Martial-God, who left Earth at age 32 to find a better challenger in the Heavens than he could here on this world. Stories grow like that.)

Chrisisall, with belief (Why do you always assume...?)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:

First, is there any way (in your esteemed opinions), that we can ever *know* what the truth to believe is or which path is the right one?

Try not to think of it in terms of 'right' and 'wrong', we're fluid beings, and so our thoughts will inevitably change and evolve. The path you choose now will lead to the one in your future, and like Herbal says, "It's all good" (Unless you kill in the name of your god...

)

Quote:

Second, do you believe that the creator (under the assumption that there is one) is ominscient and omnipotent? How does that belief work in the construct of the battle between good and evil?

You mean, can he create an object so heavy, he can't lift it?

Good, evil, hot, cold, all degrees of the same thing. Everything is a reflection of everything else. If we were created by a 'creator', then in my view, he popped us out and went on about his other buisness.

Quote:

Third, would you be angry if someone who you considered deeply evil, Hitler for example, was in Heaven (or the positive afterlife of your choosing)?

I cried when Vader saved Luke from the Emperor.
No, I would be happy to see all brought into the light. Drop away the Earthly/corporeal psychosis, and we're all the same- children of and through God.

Make any sense?

Wacky spiritual fun Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

To be intelletually responsible, I must hasten to add that the rules of predicate logic disallow the predication of existence. A number of philosophers, Aristotle and Kant among them, agreed in some form with the maxim that existence cannot be predicated of thing. This would jeopardize any argument which predicated existence to some particular.)

Wow.
I asked for it, I guess

My main argument really is this:
a) People feel the need to fully understand everything.
b) People cannot fully understand everything.
c) God is part of everything.
Therefore:
d) People cannot fully understand God.

Those that say they 'know', simply cannot. They are formulating their answers from their own understanding, or the imparted understanding of others.

So be at peace with not fully understanding.
But anyone saying "I know..." smacks of pride...

Chrisisall, who knows this...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

I'm sure I sound fairly crazy to others at times , myself -- well, maybe more than just "at times".

Cartoon, you're a very agreeable sort, and your belief seems true. The only time you sound crazy to me is when you wax political, but we'll save that for another thread...

Chrisisall, always startin' some felgercarb

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:
(although why I'm looking on a message board for a TV show, however great that show may be, is not entirely clear).

It is kind of ironic, isn't it?

Doesn't make any sense to me, either.

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:
I guess my question has to do with "Why?" If God created humankind, why did he create us with the capability to do such harm to one another?

I don't know the answer to that, Burn, and there's no reason my speculation would be any better than anyone else's. Nonetheless, going by what I've seen in the scriptures as a whole leaves me to believe that God is truly sorrowed by our sin and pain.

Jesus sorrowed over the city of Jerusalem just days before His crucifixion because He knew that the city would be destroyed in a few short decades (as He said, because it didn't recognize the time of His visitation). He was sorrowful because He wanted to see His people saved, but they persistently refused (as we all have throughout time).

Unfortunately, the thing we (as created beings) can't seem to grasp (or don't want to accept) is the fact that there are consequences to our actions -- temporal consequences as well as eternal consequences. Why God didn't simply just wipe out the earth entirely after the garden and start over, I have no clue. None of it makes any sense to me (and as I stated previously, apparantly the angels of heaven don't quite get it, either). But, He is God, and we are not. And I do trust Him even though none of it (including the abject hardship of my own life) makes the least bit of sense to me.

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:
If he loves us so, and wants us to follow him, why do we kill each other over the manner in which he should be worshipped? And if he is seeing this, why does he allow it to continue?

Well, because God's enemy (and ours) doesn't want to see people coming to the Lord to be saved. And once they're saved, the devil doesn't want them to be effective -- he wants to destroy their witness so others will look on them in derision (and thereby refuse their witness of the gospel, themselves).

The devil has been around longer than any human, and he's seen it all. He knows all our weaknesses, and strikes us each individually at our weakest places.

He also knows that mankind (in general) has a God-shaped emptiness in their hearts which can only be filled by God, and mankind, even when they don't realize it, are trying to jam other things (counterfeit things) into that emptiness (riches, possessions, entertainment, friends, sex, etc.) -- not that any of these things are wrong in themselves, but they were never meant to replace God.

The devil realizes that because of that emptiness, some people might actually stumble upon God, and he doesn't want that. So, because the devil is a liar (Jesus said so on several occasions), he throws counterfeit means of salvation at them -- and most people (either because they were "raised" to believe a certain way, or because they're too lazy to look into the scriptures for themselves and find where it may contradict what they've been hearing elsewhere), fall for the lie.

I did, myself, for more years than I'd like to admit. And it's very difficult to break away from a lifetime of thinking things go one way, when in actualility (according to the scriptures) they go another.

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:
Why create us with carnal desires that we need to repress in order to live more "holy" lives?

Because most carnal desires (food, friendship, sex, etc.) in and of themselves are not evil. But our sin nature has twisted them, and we desire them in a manner apart from the way in which God intended for us to enjoy them. And naturally (as I said above), the devil uses those desires to bait us. You can't bait a fish with something the fish doesn't want -- so the devil uses what we want to lure us deeper into the pit of sin. He tells us, "God won't care if you do it just this once." "It's not really going to hurt you -- everyone else is doing it." etc, etc...

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:
Does God just enjoy watching us struggle? Does he think in order to follow him and understand him that the journey must be difficult or it isn't worth travelling?

Not at all (see above about Jesus lamenting over Jerusalem's rejection of Him). Even when God cast the kingdom of Judah into Babylonian captivity for seventy years, He loved them and promised to return them to the land. Does a father enjoy disciplining his child? No. But they know that child will never be what they're supposed to be if they're indulged, openly rebellious, and allowed to go off into doing whatever they want to do, whenever the want to do it, without ever being held accountable for their actions.

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:
I was told once that if I believe in God I must also believe in Satan.

Well, we ignore the devil at our own peril (see above). He loves it when people don't believe he exists. How much easier is it for an enemy to overtake you when you're not even aware they're around. Just ask any general why they plan diversionary attacks or try to sneak in from an area where they're least expected. What we don't know can, and does hurt us.

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:
I don't know why, but believing in a red man with horns and a tail and carrying a pitchfork, is beyond me. It's like believing in leprechauns or the tooth fairy to me. I guess it's the same deal with Adam and Eve for me. Talking snakes? Huh? I didn't think I was supposed to take these things literally. But apparently I was wrong.

Well, I believe that "image" of the devil was something created in the Middle Ages. The scripture says that the devil is proud (it's the chief sin of both the devil and mankind, btw), and therefore, (from what I've heard) people in the Middle Ages felt they could mock his pride by portraying him as a buffoon -- and hence that "image" many today associate with the devil.

Biblically, the devil is nothing at all like that. Contrarily, the Bible describes Lucifer (his name before he rebelled against God) as the most beautiful of all the angels. (BTW, just as a side note, today when most people hear "angel" they picture "female-looking" beings. But, while the Bible mentions no gender for angels, it only names three of them -- and all three of them have masculine names: Gabriel, Michael and Lucifer.)

The talking serpent thing in the garden is a bit harder to understand (or know for certain). While God did use talking animals in scripture (the false prophet Balaam's donkey talked to him), I don't know if that thing in the garden was literal or metaphorical.

The general rule in interpreting scripture is (if you're not sure, and the ambiguity isn't clarified by other passages) to take the ambiguity literally (just to be on the safe side). Although, honestly, in this instance, I don't think it really matters one way or the other whether the devil appeared to Eve as an actual serpant, or not.

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:
God gave humans a chance by placing them in Eden and then said "Don't eat of the tree of knowledge." Then he gave them free will. Now God is all knowing, surely he knew what man would do. So why even bother with the whole set up? It seems like the reason we are born into the world as sinners, is because that's the way God wanted it.

I can't answer that. But, I believe (from reading the scriptures as a whole) that God had to know what was going to happen, and He allowed it. Why, I can't even begin to imagine. Like I said above, it doesn't make sense to me. God did allow it, but that doesn't mean we aren't accountable, because we all (myself included) still do choose to disobey. Maybe someday (in eternity) we'll understand it all and say, "Oh yeah, that makes sense. I don't see how I could've missed that before."

Until then, we have to take it on faith. As someone else here has already pointed out, if there was proof for everything, there would be no need for faith, and the Bible says that it's impossible to please God without faith.

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:
So if #1 is true, then I know that my questioning God's existence means I get to toil away here on Earth, and although I at least try to be a decent human being and caring to those around me, I don't get to spend eternity in His presence without pain, sorrow, or trouble. So I beat myself up over the issue, and try as I might, can't seem to make myself believe. So my family who are believers will go to Heaven when they die but I will not. Now my family loves me, will it not make them sad that they must spend eternity without me? But there's no sorrow in Heaven. So now I'm angry and confused by living in a universe that follows premise #1.

We don't toil because we question God's existence. It's a very popular fallacy to believe that if we receive salvation and serve the Lord that we will not toil. To the contrary, the scriptures teach us that things in this life will (not "may") get worse. For one thing, believers WILL be persecuted by unbelievers (Jesus did not mince words about this). For another thing, the devil doesn't have to worry about us when we're already his. Once we go over to the other side, he brings in the big guns (just ask me how my life has been lately).

And just to clarify -- the Bible says that we cannot earn our way to God. Salvation is by grace. It is a free gift, and not of works, that no man can boast. (Works should be the evidence that a person has truly been saved, but are not a means of obtaining salvation.)

I know some parts of Christendom have arguments over this, but don't take my word or theirs for it -- search the scriptures, yourself, and see what they say. After all, I'm not going to have to answer for you, nor is any "church". We all have to answer for ourselves. Therefore, it's obligatory that we search the scriptures for ourselves to see what it actually says.

I know this isn't easy, as the Bible seems to say one thing in one place and another thing in another place. That's why I recommend a good study in hermeneutics (the study of scriptures) before commencing -- which shows how to read the scripture as a whole. Taking a text here and text there will just confuse you. You have to read it and say -- "wait, why does it say A here, but B over there?" If you believe (as I do)(and as Jesus, Himself taught) that the scriptures are the inerrant word of God, then you'll think, "I must be missing something". And usually (but not always -- as there are a lot of obscure passages which make no sense to anyone), you'll find that they're actually saying the same thing, when taken in the context of the whole.

This is far too detailed a subject matter for me to go into here, but if you have any questions, I can point you toward some good studies in this field.

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:
With premise #2, I live my life in a morally "good" manner simply because it makes life a bit better here in the only existence that I know of. And I don't worry about the cosmic ramifications. And I'm a little bit happier which makes life for those around me a little bit better.

Living "morally" good may indeed make your life somewhat better (and those of the people around you) -- but, it is not the means to finding the Lord. And, as I said above, when we find Him, our lives will probably get much worse.

Quote:
Originally posted by BurnTheLand:
Anyway... I've rambled way too much. I didn't mean to offend or antagonize anyone, and I'm sorry for using "he" instead of "she", or "it", or "He" as the case may be... thanks for any response, I really do want to hear back.

And I apologize for such a lengthy response. I really feel quite inadequate to be properly addressing these things, but I wanted to respond as best as I could under the limited circumstances available in this forum. If I can help you with anything else, let me know, and I will privately go into as much detail as you'd like. If I can't answer a question, I'll do my best to find what I can to point you to the finding the answer, yourself.

The one thing you should always remember when listening to anything anyone has to say about the Bible (myself, included) is that we're not going to be accountable for what you do. You are. Therefore, always look it up yourself to make sure what you're hearing is true and makes sense. The Lord promised that if we earnestly seek Him with our whole hearts, He will be found. Don't take my word for any of this -- check it out, yourself. If you want help in finding it, I'll do my best to help you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The only time you sound crazy to me is when you wax political, but we'll save that for another thread...

Political?

Me?!?!?

You can't make a really good fruit salad without throwing in a few nuts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:00 AM

AMITON

Somehow, based off of what you have said in the past, Chris, I was able to fairly accurately know what you were going to have for answers =p So in that light, yeah, that all made sense to me =p I'm actually worried that explaining my reasoning behind asking the questions will kill some of the discourse, but maybe it'll inspire even more =p

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Try not to think of it in terms of 'right' and 'wrong', we're fluid beings, and so our thoughts will inevitably change and evolve. The path you choose now will lead to the one in your future, and like Herbal says, "It's all good" (Unless you kill in the name of your god...)

You might have picked up on this, Chris, but the reason I was asking is because of the fracturing of the Judeo-Christian factions. The question is almost entirely academic. Most of the organized western religous factions have the "do my thing or burn in hell" thing going, rather than the be groovy to one another and be uplifted thing. You being a buddhist, you're working from a serious advantage =p

There have been a lot of twentieth and twenty-first century discoveries of ancient documents and digs. All we can really do is hypothesize and interpret and cross-reference. I'm sure the truth is somewhere, but do we have any way to decisively figure out which truth (given certain assumptions, e.g. after I've picked the right direction, now we can say with certainty that this interpretation of this philosophy is the right one). Does that make any sense at all?

Quote:
Good, evil, hot, cold, all degrees of the same thing. Everything is a reflection of everything else. If we were created by a 'creator', then in my view, he popped us out and went on about his other buisness.

That is definitely a possibility. One that I consider from time to time academically, but I don't want to really believe deep down.

This question is actually a problem that I struggle with intellectually as a believer, though. I want to believe that the creator is all-knowing and all-powerful, like I was taught as a kid. That's most likely the focal point of my problem, but it's what I believe, admittedly because I want to. The problem arises that I can't understand how there is a battle between good and evil, or a battle of any sort for that matter, between an all-knowing, all powerful force and, well, anything at all. The battle would be over before it began.

Furthermore, this battle would be between an all-knowing, all-powerful creator and one of his creations. Erm...well. If the creator is all-knowing, then that includes the future (another possible source of idiocy in my perspective and another point that I hold onto in spite of the problems it causes). If the creator knew evil was going to arise from this or that being, the devil or otherwise, then why go down that path?? And if he did go down that path, he's all powerful... if the evil makes him unhappy and goes against his will, then it should be eradicated, shouldn't it? He's all-powerful, he doesn't like it, and it's in his creation. *Poof* it's done, right?

Those issues led me into a lot of reflection on free-will versus pre-destination. I think that could end up being a thread by itself with so much to say about it, but it led to the third question, which you answered thus:

Quote:
I cried when Vader saved Luke from the Emperor.
No, I would be happy to see all brought into the light. Drop away the Earthly/corporeal psychosis, and we're all the same- children of and through God.

Make any sense?

Wacky spiritual fun Chrisisall

I pretty much agree as far as I can here. If we're all children of the light and we all seek to be groovy with each other, then it should make us happy to see everyone make the journey. Hitler did some pretty messed up things for some pretty messed up reason, though. I'd venture to think that there are a *lot* of people would be pretty upset if someone like that can find grace for any reason.

The interesting point that it brings up to me, however, is the issue of what is evil? It starts at a much, much smaller scale, though. We, as humans, are spurred into action by emotion, and our greatest joys are experiened as a direct result of our most dire situations. People find a profound (often spiritual) personal revelation about how to live their lives when they're in danger of losing the one they have. Parents can do some (literally) miraculous things when their children are endangered. Is something truly evil if it begets just as significant a positive response? Is it evil if a child dies of leukemia if it inspires their sister to toil to find a cure that saves millions of other children?

Expanding that to the most extreme case that I could come up with, Hitler and the holocaust, as much as I hate to put a positive light on something so horrible, is it possible that something so aweful was allowed, or even *made* to happen so that all of humankind could collectively learn a lesson (such as "hi, this is your pilot speaking asking you to please keep a close eye on any leader with really dangerous ideas, even if they start small and in their own country."?). Would someone as universally damnable as Hitler possibly be redeemable for doing awful things resulting in the greater ultimate good?

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
If Christianity is not going to destroy us with war and intolerance it will have to be cleansed of the Earthly Church, which means it will have to be cleansed of the Bible.

Mighty strong words, pardner.
I happen to agree.

Two score and ten years ago, I threw a circular punch at my opponent in Karate class, and nailed him (we were padded), the teacher stopped us and informed me that "We don't use 'circular' strikes in this style." In that moment I understood what Bruce Lee was trying to say; organization corrupts, limits and controls the initial idea.

Independant Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:10 AM

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think it's because children are deemed more innocent, or less culpable, than adults and don't "deserve" to suffer.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

Yes, but that's exactly my point. Is the adult who led a really good life (as in, they were as decent a human being as you could ever see) but is still suffering and dying, deserve their suffering more than a child, just because they're older? In fact, couldn't you make the case that a person like this deserves their suffering less because they've struggled with their inherently evil nature all their life and still come out as a good person? Whereas the only reason the child is a good, innocent person is simply because they haven't been alive long enough to do something bad yet. That's the point I'm trying to make.

So, Chrisisall, my posts aren't invisible. Good to know. Anyway, I'm a little confused as to your reply. Are you saying that you don't think children deserve suffering less than others, but you simply brought up that point because you thought it would stir everybody up the most? If so, good call.

What is it, eighty replies now? Well, anyway, I'm of the opinion that without suffering, there is no joy. So I'll take the suffering as it comes and enjoy life in between.

Oh, and Cartoon, I can still kill you with my brain.

"I'm having one of those things - a headache with pictures."

"Of course I'm right. And if I'm not, may we all be horribly crushed from above somehow."

Like books? Go to this thread: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=14862
to find out how to buy mine!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
First, is there any way (in your esteemed opinions), that we can ever *know* what the truth to believe is or which path is the right one? Obviously, there is a decision to believe or not believe, and that evidence is on the table. If you choose to believe, however, how do you know which version is right?

Hi. Welcome to the discussion.

If you've seen my previous post to Burn, I recommend studying the Bible first and foremost. Naturally, I'd recommend a good translation (not a paraphrase -- which isn't a literal translation). None of us instinctively know how to study the Bible, so I recommend a brief study in hermeneutics, too.

Naturally, if you know Hebrew & Greek, all the better (I don't, and have to rely on very expensive interlinears, lexicons, and the like). The reason being -- we have good manuscript evidence that most of the Hebrew and Greek translations we have today (with only a few minor, non-critical variances) are accurate. Unfortunately, the scriptures were't written in English -- so no English translation will be as good (or relay as exactly) what the original language does.

I'd also recommend Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" (which is very affordable in soft-cover), which goes into some keen arguments about Christianity. I found it very interesting (although, I admit I was already a believer when I read it).

If you want solid evidence, though, I don't think it exists in a subjective form that will satisfy everyone. As I said previously (in the last response), God wants us to believe by faith, but of course, our faith doesn't have to be (or shouldn't be) without some factual basis.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
Second, do you believe that the creator (under the assumption that there is one) is ominscient and omnipotent? How does that belief work in the construct of the battle between good and evil?

Yes (the Bible supports that assertion).

Well, we have it (on God's authority) that He is those things and will (in His perfect time) eventually set things right. (If I misunderstood your question, or you want more detail, please request it privately. I already feel like I'm hogging this thread, and it's taking forever to load with my decrepid dial-up).

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
Third, would you be angry if someone who you considered deeply evil, Hitler for example, was in Heaven (or the positive afterlife of your choosing)?

Our first instinct is to be quite angry. I admit it, myself, that the thought of some child molester/serial killer getting in at the last minute (as Ted Bundy allegedly did) is quite disturbing. But, that's because we're seeing it from the eyes of someone who (quite frankly) is closer in nature to Hitler than we are to God.

I tried to explain this previously (our distance from God's holiness), but let me try another analogy (and I hate analogies)...

Let's say that we consider our own "moral" geographical location to be in Central Park, NYC.

Someone else we know may be located in Battery Park (about 5 miles south of us). Still others may be way down in Florida. We might argue that possibly Hitler would be somewhere around Buenos Aires (some conspiratorial nuts used to actually believe that)...

Anyhow, compared to the guy in Battery Park, Hitler's quite a ways away from us in our "moral" geographical positioning, right?

But then you throw God into the equation -- and where is God? Well, He's way off in another universe (not just another galaxy in our universe, but in a whole other universe altogether).

So, from our perspective, Hitler seems much worse than us (in Central Park). But, from God's perspective, Hitler and we are two peas of the same pod.

Hitler's punishment may be worse in hell than a more moralistic unbeliever, but either way, why go to hell in the first place, when there's already a ticket with your name on it waiting to be redeemed and take you to be with the Lord?

P.S. If this thread is to be continued, can it please be continued in a second part? My dial-up is killing me.

Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Oh, and Cartoon, I can still kill you with my brain.

Oh -- thanks.

I'll sleep a whole lot more comfortably tonight, knowing that!

(And she wonders why people ignore her posts...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:41 AM

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Oh -- thanks.

I'll sleep a whole lot more comfortably tonight, knowing that!

(And she wonders why people ignore her posts...)

Haha. My plan is coming to fruition.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Are you saying that you don't think children deserve suffering less than others, but you simply brought up that point because you thought it would stir everybody up the most?

Yep.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 7:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

To be intelletually responsible, I must hasten to add that the rules of predicate logic disallow the predication of existence. A number of philosophers, Aristotle and Kant among them, agreed in some form with the maxim that existence cannot be predicated of thing. This would jeopardize any argument which predicated existence to some particular.)

Wow.
I asked for it, I guess

My main argument really is this:
a) People feel the need to fully understand everything.
b) People cannot fully understand everything.
c) God is part of everything.
Therefore:
d) People cannot fully understand God.

Those that say they 'know', simply cannot. They are formulating their answers from their own understanding, or the imparted understanding of others.

So be at peace with not fully understanding.
But anyone saying "I know..." smacks of pride...

Chrisisall, who knows this...

Excellent point; given our limited human intellects, we are not capable of anything approaching comprehensive knowledge, even of the most basic of subjects. But if this argument is going to have maximal force, you're going to have to apply it as broadly as possible. For instance, say, to physics. If it is the case, as you asserted in premise "b" above, that people cannot fully understand everything, then your argument could be applied thusly:
a) People feel the need to fully understand everything.
b) People cannot fully understand everything.
c) Physics is part of everything.
Therefore:
d) People cannot fully understand physics.

Yet people continue to believe that although they do not fully understand physics, they can understand enough to use in everyday life (automobiles, can openers and electrical lights, for instance). Furthermore, the reality that physics isn't fully known doesn't throw doubt on the truth of the physics that is[/is] known. And further, while asserting full knowledge would certainly "smack of pride", asserting confidence in the veracity of what is, in fact, known (even if it is incomplete, as science will always be) certainly does not indicate pridefulness, but rather proper confidence it what is known, even if full knowledge has not been attained.

Your argument (if taken to apply to "everything") suggests that we can never understand anything fully (which I would agree to). But to advance from there to the conclusion that nothing can ever be said to be known seems unwarranted. If that were, in fact, the case, then we would be forced into the most radical kind of skepticism, even doubting the existence of persistent objects (after all, in this system, I con't "know" that there are persistent objects). I'd wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and be astonished that I looked the same as I did the previous day (if that is, I could get over the shock that the mirror was still in the bathroom, or that I still had a bathroom at all). Such skepticism flies in the face of common experience, and philosophers from Plato to Adler have rejected it as absurd. Surely you're not advocating that nothing at all can ever be known with certitude? You seem to be presupposing some distinction between God and other subjects (such that God cannot be known, while other things can) and I'm curious what that presupposition is.

My second objection to your argument has to do with the concept of "fully known". Your conclusion that God cannot be fully known does not entail that God cannot be known at all, which you seem to suggest in saying,

Quote:
Those that say they 'know', simply cannot.

This statement doesn't follow from your argument. What does follow is something like this: "Those that say they 'fully know', simply cannot", which, of course, I would agree with. But again, the admission that a subject isn't comprehensively known does not mean that cannot be known at all. For instance, I know that the brain plays some role in consciousness and cognition (because when you whack someone's brain out, they die), but I have absolutely no clue how it is that the brain makes those things possible. I don't "fully know". But that doesn't invalidate my other knowledge. Similarly, while it is certainly true that God cannot be "fully known", the mere lack of comprehensive knowledge does not invalidate all knowledge. This seems to presuppose that if the subject isn't known comprehensively, then it isn't known at all. Surely you're not suggesting that the only two alternatives are complete and utter ignorance of some subject and comprehensive encyclopedic knowledge of the same? Again, there seems to be a presupposition operating that makes this the case for God, and I'm curious to know what it is.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 8:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I have to go to work now, so I must be brief.
I have my own ideas on spirituality. I cannot prove them. They might be wrong. I may change them at some point. I'm okay with that.

You can't see, touch or coverse with a guy named God.
Therefore you can't prove or disprove his existence, period.(He said, as if it were important or final

)

Later, Causal.

Wage-slave Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 9:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I have to go to work now, so I must be brief.
I have my own ideas on spirituality. I cannot prove them. They might be wrong. I may change them at some point. I'm okay with that.

You can't see, touch or coverse with a guy named God.
Therefore you can't prove or disprove his existence, period.(He said, as if it were important or final)

Later, Causal.

Wage-slave Chrisisall

Cheers for work!

I agree with these points, with the following qualifications:

As regards seeing, touching, or conversing with God, you're right: this can't be done--IF by these you mean the conventional human understanding. I cannot see God as I could some physical object. This presents me no difficulty, though, because God isn't a physical object, so the inability to see Him as a physical object poses no real objection to His existence. Same deal with touching Him: not a physical object. And if by conversing you mean an audible-voice to audible-voice exchange, then no, I can't converse with Him either. But these presuppose a material monism when it comes to proof or disproof of something. I think that this is fairly limiting in terms of what counts as "proof". I can neither see nor touch my wife's love for me, but I see evidence of it in the way she treats me. Likewise, I can neither see nor touch God, but I take effects of God to be proof of His existence (I ascribe the material world to the work of God, I ascribe my own changed lifestyle to the work of God) (of course, I also acknowledge that there are counter-arguments to this, but for the sake of expediency, I won't go into a comprehensive defense). In short, while it is true that God isn't available for investigation in any tangible form, this neither neither disproves His existence nor does it mean that there is no proof of any kind.

As regards the statement that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, I agree with that as well--IF you mean that God's existence cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. But I believe that God's existence can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt--though I hasten to add that the same argument may not be convincing to everyone. There is something about God's character that doesn't want to be provable beyond the shadow of a doubt. Were that the case, no faith would be required--and just about every conception of God that I know of emphasizes faith. There is something about faith that is inherently pleasing to God; I've spent a good deal of time thinking about it, and would be happy to discuss it with you, but I don't want to hijack the board (plus, it's rather involved).

Just wanted to extend a kudos to all involved in this discussion. This is a prime example of the way things can work if everybody discusses things calmly and rationally. Bravo Zulu!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 1:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I can neither see nor touch electrons, but I can make them jump with a wave of my (magnetic) wand. Your wife's love is mainfest by the effect it has on her actions. I can't see temperature, but we can all measure it with a themrometer. Not trying to be a pr*ck, but the point is that God appears to have no consistent effect on the things that we CAN observe. And so when you say

Quote:
But I believe that God's existence can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt--though I hasten to add that the same argument may not be convincing to everyone

you can not bring any evidence- even indirect evidence- that we can all look at and say "Oh yeah". If you COULD prove God beyond a reasonable doubt, we wouldn't all be talking about it anymore.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

There is something about faith that is inherently pleasing to God; I've spent a good deal of time thinking about it, and would be happy to discuss it with you, but I don't want to hijack the board (plus, it's rather involved).

Please, start that thread!
I'm SURE you would get a positive response.

Don't make me do it; I start too many as it is

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 4:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you COULD prove God beyond a reasonable doubt,

that would be a short wait for a train that comes.
And that ain't how it happens, apparently.

ChrisisallMal-like

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I can neither see nor touch electrons, but I can make them jump with a wave of my (magnetic) wand. Your wife's love is mainfest by the effect it has on her actions. I can't see temperature, but we can all measure it with a themrometer. Not trying to be a pr*ck, but the point is that God appears to have no consistent effect on the things that we CAN observe. And so when you say
Quote:
But I believe that God's existence can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt--though I hasten to add that the same argument may not be convincing to everyone
you can not bring any evidence- even indirect evidence- that we can all look at and say "Oh yeah". If you COULD prove God beyond a reasonable doubt, we wouldn't all be talking about it anymore.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

So I started by being all pissed off, then stopped and saw this:

Quote:
...you can not bring any evidence- even indirect evidence- that we can all look at and say "Oh yeah".

And you know, you're absolutely right, there isn't any evidence that we can all agree to. But agreement isn't requisite for truth. If I propose, "death in the world proves there is no God", any number of people will disagree with that. But their disagreement has nothing to do with the truth value of that proposition. The truth value of that proposition is fixed and it it is independent of what anyone thinks about it. Similarly, the truth value of propositions in support of God's existence is fixed and independent of human judgments concerning those propositions. And disagreement in judgment in no way changes or invalidates the truth value (whatever it may be). I guess this is just a long and technical way to say that just because you don't accept something as evidence doesn't make it so.

This whole thing is an exercise in presuppositions, in any event. The people on one side presuppose certain things, and use them as evidence for God's existence and give arguments for that; but of course, these arguments can't be proven conclusively apart from the presuppositional axioms that form their foundations. The people on the other side presuppose certain conditions which would preclude God's existence, then argue against the existence of God on those bases; but again, these can't be proven conclusively either.

You're certainly right, Signym; there is no possible way to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that God exists. But be honest: you can't prove He doesn't, either.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Haha. My plan is coming to fruition.

Exactly what I wanted you to think.

Oh, and BTW, for those of you who weren't aware, this discussion has also been extended over into a "part 2" thread: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=18898 (for the sake of folks like myself who have dial-up, and don't have another few centuries to wait for this somewhat lengthy thread to load).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 10:07 PM