Some thoughts on Easter Sunday

[cewfa]

I've been thinking over the last couple of weeks about how I would define my religious stances, using the word religion for a lack of a better term. I've been reading this forum for a while now and I would like to thank whoever it was that said that Paul was one of the most egotistical people in the Bible, that helped me define my...ah religion even more. There was always something about Paul that didn't set well with me, and whoever said that helped me realize what it was.

I, personally, believe in Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins and will save me if I believe. In that respect I am a Christian (again, lack of a better word) but I would not call myself a Christian in the normal sense of the word. I think the Christian church uses Jesus to justify hate and I want no part of it, and I haven't been to church in months and have no intention of going back. I still fear God, and love Jesus, but will not have anything to do with an organized church.

At the same time, I feel like something is missing in my life. I'm not much of a partier and I don't really have much of a social life, which was something that church was giving me. I don't feel right about just going to church to maintain a social life and not wanting to contribute to them. I damn sure don't want to participate in the religious discussion, nor do I want to give them any of my hard earned money, and my experience has been that the only kind of social interaction you can get is if you are of a like mind and spew forth whatever that particular church's dogma is. I'm a pot stirrer. I want to have an intelligent discussion, not one where everyone is a robot to the group or section leader.

I think that is one of the problems with the Christian church is that they have a general lack of intelligence and an aversion to reality. Just because someone stands on the corner and preaches the word, doesn't mean that everyone is going to believe and "act right". They treat Jesus, not as if he is a savior, but as a magic solution to their perceived social ills, be it abortion, homosexuality, what have you, what have you. Give you an example of what I am talking about. While I don't believe in abortion and think that it is wrong, sometimes God allows a woman to have a miscarriage and a lot of times when a woman has her period she has fertilized eggs that didn't make it or develop right. Should we then bomb churches, because they represent God, who allowed a miscarriage? I think not. Should we then execute women who have a period? I think not. I don't mind people being against something, but be against something intelligently.

These are just some of my thoughts on this Easter Sunday, so take them for whatever they're worth. I hope everyone has a great day.

[Hobbs]

Just how do you define "church". There are many different denominations, the more sane of which do not preach hatred.

[HYHYBT]

Many of them, though, practice a form of love that is based in such a fundamental misunderstanding that it's harder to bear than outright hatred. Depending on where you live, it can be hard to find a church that's a good fit.

I believe it to be well worth the effort, though... but perhaps not now or for some years to come.

[Hobbs]

I'm not sure what you mean about love and a fundamental misunderstanding...

[HYHYBT]

It may not be relevant in this case, but it comes up in the homosexuality threads... borrowing an analogy I've seen them use before, many Christians, while they don't *hate* gay people, they insist on "curing" us or at least getting us to stop "sinning." The analogy I've heard is that if your neighbor's house is on fire, waking him up and getting him to leave is the loving thing to do. The problem, of course, is that when your house is *not* on fire, it's aggravating for people to continually yell at you that it is and you need to get out.

[Hobbs]

That's a dumb analogy. My priest woulda laughed at it.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

That's a dumb analogy. My priest woulda laughed at it.

All the funnier because it's freakin' true. Never underestimate the power of stupid/misguided people in large numbers...

[Fryk]

Absolutely Sit Integra. The problem with all large groups is that they all inevitably fall victim to...

The Fryk Theory of Collective Intelligence

The collective intellect of any given group of humans is inversely proprtionate to the size of the group.

[cewfa]

I define church as the collective group of people who claim to be Christians. Yes, I suppose this includes myself.

I love the "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality, considering that most of the things that are claimed to be sin are either not sin or none of their business.

[Hobbs]

Well, your definition is pretty close to the Church's definition of the term. Even Protestants are considered "Separated Brethren" from the Church, in this instance. But it seems you lump them all together as sharing the same beliefs, which just isn't so. For instance, the Church teaches tolerance towards other faiths and also in scientific research/discoveries (for instance, the Chruch has no problem with the theory of evolution). I truly don't see what's wrong with "Love the sinner; hate the sin."

[cewfa]

Nothing is wrong with the "love the sinner/hate the sin" mentality as long as they don't pry into things that are none of their business. Most people in my experience use that phrase to butt into someone else's business.

[Hobbs]

No offense, but you know sucky people.

[crashhelmet]

I'm agreeing with Hobbs through all of this. "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" doesn't mean pester and ridicule them to the point of anguish and sorrow. It means love them, support them, be the shoulder or ear that they need when times are tough for them.

The Bible teaches that sinning is falling from Grace to some varying degree. As "good Christians," we are not supposed to kick them when they're down. We are supposed to help pick them up and get them back on the right path again. This is where many of these "bad Christians" go wrong. They think that their anger and belittlement is "helpful" to the sinners by scaring them straight or forcing them into "proper" behavior. Even worse are the ones that spew hatred and condemnation.

The issue of sin is between the sinner and God. No one else. Our only involvement is to provide the support needed for the sinner to get through the ordeals causing and/or caused by their sins.

CH

[cewfa]

Yeah, I do know sucky people, but the church is made up of people, some sucky, some not.

Meh, I was just putting some thoughts to paper. Thanks for the feedback. :)

[Hobbs]

As a bit of an off-topic point; the only people unable to be forgiven for sin are the Fallen Angels. Unlike man, they were not given free will, and knew the truth of Grace, yet still defied God. That's why they can never be forgiven, yet man can.

[HYHYBT]

That's a dumb analogy. My priest woulda laughed at it.Well, as I said, it's not mine :) I borrowed it from the "well if you'd really accepted Jesus you'd have turned straight" crowd.

I truly don't see what's wrong with "Love the sinner; hate the sin."Nothing wrong with it, when used correctly. And the first two steps in using it correctly are making sure that what you are criticizing is, in fact, sinful, and being careful that your love toward others isn't really hatred in disguise.

The issue of sin is between the sinner and God. No one else.AMEN!!

[Fryk]

As a bit of an off-topic point; the only people unable to be forgiven for sin are the Fallen Angels. Unlike man, they were not given free will, and knew the truth of Grace, yet still defied God. That's why they can never be forgiven, yet man can.

Ok, but if they weren't given free will, how could they have defied God in the first place?

[Rapscallion]

Ok, but if they weren't given free will, how could they have defied God in the first place?

Actually, that's a bloody good point.

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

Ok, but if they weren't given free will, how could they have defied God in the first place?

Is this one of those "divine mysteries" I keep hearing about?

[Hobbs]

Is this one of those "divine mysteries" I keep hearing about?
No, by "free will" we mean being allowed to deny or accept God's grace. Since angels know the existence of God, serve Him and are in His presence, they don't have any reason to deny His divinity. When they sided with Lucifer/Satan/etc, it was the same as say...trying to install one of the Chiefs of Staff as President. Humans have free will because they are allowed to accept or deny God.

[DrFaroohk]

I never liked the "free will" idea. "Either believe in me or be DAMNED FOR ALL ETERNITY! But you have free will, its your choice."

To me that sounds like "Either have sex with me, or I'll blow your fucking head off. Don't worry, its not rape because I'm giving you a choice."

[Hobbs]

:rolleyes:Well, you can see it that way, but that's not what it's like at all:rolleyes:

[cewfa]

But, Hobbs, that is precisely how the Christian church works. God might give us free will, but the leaders and members of the church don't.

Thank God that God is really in charge.

[Fryk]

So free will=not being sure God exists or not? You said the reason angels don't have free will is because they already know God exists.

[crashhelmet]

So free will=not being sure God exists or not? You said the reason angels don't have free will is because they already know God exists.

Free Will is a matter of debate. Some verses in the Bible say that we have it, others say we are "predestined." I think it's a matter of semantics.

God gives us the Free Will in the right to make our own decisions, stemming all the way back to Adam and Eve (or even Lillith, depending on your faith). Those decisions we make are like a flowchart or "Choose your Own Adventure" story laid out for us. I believe the predestination comes in where God already has those next chapters written out, should we make those decisions.

Getting back to the original question though, God knows and understands that because of this "Free Will" he's given us, not everyone will choose to believe. Some will require more proof or evidence. Because of this understanding, we have the opportunity for Salvation. We have the choice. Believe and goto Heaven or deny and goto Hell.

The Angels couldn't hide behind not knowing for sure of His true existence. To make matters worse, they openly defied him and tried to overthrow him.

So, the "Free Will" that we have is the ability to make decisions, good or bad, and repent for them later. That's an option the Angels do not have.

CH

[Hobbs]

But, Hobbs, that is precisely how the Christian church works. God might give us free will, but the leaders and members of the church don't.

Thank God that God is really in charge.
Which Christian church are you talking about? Again, your inability to make distinction clouds the issue.

Thanks CH, that's a pretty good explanation.

[Fryk]

So, the "Free Will" that we have is the ability to make decisions, good or bad, and repent for them later. That's an option the Angels do not have.

CH

So then we're back to the angels not having the option to make decisions or choose. Then how did they rebel?

[Hobbs]

So then we're back to the angels not having the option to make decisions or choose. Then how did they rebel?
You're arguing semantics. Yes they have the physical ability to rebel, but they don't have the spiritual ability/justification. As I meant to explain in my analogy of replacing the President with a Chief of Staff; we have the ability (maybe) to do that, but regardless, even if we think we're right, it's still wrong because we're usurping lawful authority.


*By "we" I mean the hypothetical military coup.

[Ghel]

Getting back to the original question though, God knows and understands that because of this "Free Will" he's given us, not everyone will choose to believe. Some will require more proof or evidence. Because of this understanding, we have the opportunity for Salvation. We have the choice. Believe and goto Heaven or deny and goto Hell.
This bothers me, and here's why: there's about as much evidence for the existence of leprechauns as there is for the existence of the Christian God. It's insulting to tell someone that they will be punished for denying the existence of something that, as far as we can tell, doesn't exist.

Also, choosing to believe seems incorrect, to me. You might figure out what you believe. You might be swayed by evidence or arguments. But you can't choose to believe something that you don't agree with.

[Hobbs]

That's the reason why it's called faith and not fact.

But you can't choose to believe something that you don't agree with.

Well, duh. If you don't agree with it, of course you won't choose to believe it.

[cewfa]

What is there to make a distinction of? The Christian church is the body of believers who call themselves Christians. Or do you want me to name denominations?

[Hobbs]

What is there to make a distinction of? The Christian church is the body of believers who call themselves Christians. Or do you want me to name denominations?
I am saying that your bias is towards Christians as a whole, but Christians as a whole don't agree on the same things. Certain sects/denominations believe in what you say, but others do not. So to lump them all together would be unfair to the others. The way you word it (the Christian church) seems to imply the Roman Catholic faith (though when you refer to it, the 'c' in Church should be capitalized). So are you attacking the Roman Catholic Church, or some other group of Christians?

[IDrinkaRum]

I thought Lucifer rebelled because:

1. He wanted to create things, but only God can create.

2. God showed the Angels the glory and goodness of Jesus and it scared some Angels and they left because they were intimidated.

Also, all the Fallen Angels can be forgiven as long as they ask for forgiveness.

[Hobbs]

I thought Lucifer rebelled because:

1. He wanted to create things, but only God can create.

2. God showed the Angels the glory and goodness of Jesus and it scared some Angels and they left because they were intimidated.

Also, all the Fallen Angels can be forgiven as long as they ask for forgiveness.
In the Jewish tradition, the figure known as 'the Devil' was Satan (I forget if its a title or his actual name), and he acts more like...the prosecuter in a court of law. He brings up the case against man, as he doesn't see man as worthy of God's love. A lot of this is mysticism and Angelology etc, and isn't really backed by the faith. But the main consensus is, that due to his own vanity, Satan decided to rebel against God, feeling he could do better. A whole third of the Heavenly Host followed him in his rebellion, and he was cast into Perdition by his brother and former friend, the Archangel Michael.

[Ghel]

That's the reason why it's called faith and not fact.
A lot of this is mysticism and Angelology etc, and isn't really backed by the faith.
Since this is faith and not fact, then why are you (and so many others) trying to convince anybody that it's true? What does it mean that something is "backed by the faith"? Since there's insufficient evidence for the existence of God, angels, or devils, then why are you talking about them as if their existence was a given?

I'm not trying to be insulting or intentionally obtuse. I am trying to challange your faith, though. If your faith cannot stand up to a little prodding, a little honest inquiry, then perhaps there's something wrong with it.

[Hobbs]

Since this is faith and not fact, then why are you (and so many others) trying to convince anybody that it's true? What does it mean that something is "backed by the faith"? Since there's insufficient evidence for the existence of God, angels, or devils, then why are you talking about them as if their existence was a given?

I'm not trying to be insulting or intentionally obtuse. I am trying to challange your faith, though. If your faith cannot stand up to a little prodding, a little honest inquiry, then perhaps there's something wrong with it.
Again, I believe it's true. So I don't really care if you believe me or not. I was simply trying to give a little side addition to this, since Angelology/demonology are hobbies of mine.

"Backed by the faith" means exactly that. As for lack of evidence, I suggest the documentary "Exodus Decoded." It may explain it, it may not, but it does raise, in my opinion, compelling arguments. At least, it tries to explain a Biblical event by scientific means. Also look at the book "Act of God" by Graham Philips, a historian. Their claim that the Hkysos were in fact the ancient Hebrews is supported by the writings of Flavius Josephus in his book Contra Apion.

[Ghel]

I don't have access to either of those, but wikipedia has a good article on "Exodus Decoded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Decoded)" which includes a long list of criticisms. The best documentaries I've seen regarding the exodus described how the majority of events (not the plague of firstborns, but everything else IIRC) can be explained without resorting to "God did it."

But if you don't care whether anybody believes what you do, it's a moot point.

[smileyeagle1021]

I truly don't see what's wrong with "Love the sinner; hate the sin."

The problem is that things that are in no way evil or harmful have been labeled sin and good people are cast as sinners because a 2000 year old piece of fiction has a few versus saying that they're icky.
Love the sinner, hate the sin, implies that there is something wrong with the person that must be fixed, a disease to be cured if you will. And, frankly, this phrase is used mostly to describe homosexuality, which is NOT a disease nor should it be cured (because as we've already mentioned, it's NOT a disease).

:rolleyes:Well, you can see it that way, but that's not what it's like at all:rolleyes:

Then pray tell, what is it like?

Which Christian church are you talking about? Again, your inability to make distinction clouds the issue.


Shall we name names? OK, the Mormons have legislated their hatred into Utah state law, them and the Catholics, and Baptists and several smaller churches legislated their bias into California state law. In Maine even the Methodists, who claim to be an open and accepting faith, worked to overthrow equal rights. Sorry, saying "but look at that one church that isn't bigoted" does NOT negate the fact that the vast majority of churches are based on the teaching of "God hates fags and so should you."

I am saying that your bias is towards Christians as a whole, but Christians as a whole don't agree on the same things. Certain sects/denominations believe in what you say, but others do not. So to lump them all together would be unfair to the others.

Yet the majority of sects have no problem labeling me as a pedophile because there is a small number of gay people who do prefer children. Doesn't feel good does it? Guess what, if Christians can't take it they need to stop dishing it. As I've told my mother, it doesn't matter that you aren't a hateful bigot, by joining and supporting a church that supports bigotry you are performing a bigoted act. My own mother has funded the removal of my rights by being stupid enough to believe that her money donated to churches would go to good (part of why a condition of her continuing to borrow against my trust fund from my father is that she can make zero donations to any religious organization).


I'm not trying to be insulting or intentionally obtuse. I am trying to challange your faith, though. If your faith cannot stand up to a little prodding, a little honest inquiry, then perhaps there's something wrong with it.

Exactly the point I've made to my Mormon neighbors. Why are they so afraid of open availability of alcohol? Is your faith so week that you can't withstand the temptation to drink without the state forcing the issue by making it so difficult? Is your faith so week that you couldn't resist the temptation of smoking without the state charging the highest excise tax on cigarettes of any of the states in the region? Is your faith so week that you couldn't resist the temptation to view porn if it weren't nearly illegal to sell in the state? (That one we actually have an answer to compliments of the internet, and that answer is, yup, no spine whatsoever when it comes to porn). Is your faith so week that working with a gay person and seeing they aren't the vile creatures that your so called god says we are going to sway your from your belief?

Believe whatever the hell you want, but please stop forcing me to believe as well simply to make it easier for you.

[Hobbs]

Well, 'What it's like' is when we were referring to God's judgement. Now, in the true faith, all that Hell is, is a separation from God and divinity. That's all. Yes there are uses of hellfire and such in the Bible, but those are metaphors. For truly, if you don't believe, then you don't think the Bible is literal, do you?

The depiction of Hell as a place with fire didn't really appear until after Dante's Divine Comedy. Even there, fire is used only sparingly to punish the sinners. The bottom of Hell, where Satan resides, is a frozen lake; that part is more true to the traditional aspect of Hell. It's a place cut off from the Light of God. Judaism has a similar belief, although (to my knowledge) there is no separation between Heaven and Hell.

I saw a very good play a few weeks ago called the Laramie Project. Smiley, I would assume you know what it's about. The part that fascinated me was how quickly the local Catholic parish supported Matthew Shepard, and the priest even organized the vigil there. When Matthew died, he presided over the funeral mass. Now then, if Catholics are such hardline homophobics, would he have done so? I think not.

The Church teaches that all humans are God's children, that we are all brothers and sisters with the same Father. The term 'Catholic' is even defined as "Liberal, all-encompassing."

[AdminAssistant]

I saw a very good play a few weeks ago called the Laramie Project. Smiley, I would assume you know what it's about. The part that fascinated me was how quickly the local Catholic parish supported Matthew Shepard, and the priest even organized the vigil there. When Matthew died, he presided over the funeral mass. Now then, if Catholics are such hardline homophobics, would he have done so? I think not.

Then you, no doubt, also saw the scene where the Baptist minister and many other people in the town were quick to blame Matthew for his own death because 1) homosexuality is a sin, 2) he was HIV positive, and 3) he was a 'flamer' and pushed himself on everyone. Oh, and the killers weren't really bad people because one was Mormon and the other one was considering giving his soul to God.

Now, the Catholic priest of Laramie (Father Roger?) is a wonderful example of someone ignoring church doctrine and doing what's right. You also noticed that he said he didn't ask the Bishop's permission to hold a vigil for Matthew. He just did it.

[Hobbs]

Yes, I did see that. I also remember his father's statement in court when he said that Matthew was never alone at that fence because God was with him, and how the girl who found him decided God had wanted her to find him, because if she hadn't taken that route by chance, he wouldn't have been found for days. As for the other ministers, that's why I offered him[Father Roger?] as the "wonderful example..." as you so eloquently put it.

[smileyeagle1021]

Now then, if Catholics are such hardline homophobics, would he have done so? I think not.


So nice that they are so concerned for our welfare after we die, but so little concern for our rights while alive.


Now, the Catholic priest of Laramie (Father Roger?) is a wonderful example of someone ignoring church doctrine and doing what's right.

Exactly... as I've mentioned earlier, naming a few people who ignore church doctrine to do the right thing does not mean that the doctrine isn't inherently wrong.

[Fryk]

The depiction of Hell as a place with fire didn't really appear until after Dante's Divine Comedy.

Actually, gotta correct you there. The concept of Hell comes from the Hebrew tales of Gehenna, which is a lake of molten lava and fire.

[Hobbs]

So nice that they are so concerned for our welfare after we die, but so little concern for our rights while alive.



Exactly... as I've mentioned earlier, naming a few people who ignore church doctrine to do the right thing does not mean that the doctrine isn't inherently wrong.
The Catholic Church actually stands against hate speech and hate crimes. Hate to break it to ya.

[HYHYBT]

I just found this, and thought of this thread. From The Salt Lake Tribune, "Utah's next bishop could be gay priest"
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_14855408

[smileyeagle1021]

The Catholic Church actually stands against hate speech and hate crimes. Hate to break it to ya.

I will give credit where it is due, the Catholic church is one of the few anti-equality groups that not only promotes non-violence against us vile sinners but works to keep violence from happening. That said, the church still opposes equal rights. They still think that my love is somehow inferior to a heterosexual's just because I'm not heterosexual. They still think my integrity is less and that my worth as a human being, lover, and member of a family is less. So forgive me if the little credit I give is rather begrudgingly given.

[Hobbs]

That said, all Catholic parishes are different. There are those that support equal rights.

[Rapscallion]

Now, in the true faith,

The bit you believe in, right? Not what all those wishy-washy alternative believers who carry the same basic name as you, right?

[quote]That's all. Yes there are uses of hellfire and such in the Bible, but those are metaphors. For truly, if you don't believe, then you don't think the Bible is literal, do you?[quote]

Apparently there are quite a number of people who claim to believe who don't think it literal.

Are you one of them?

If you don't think everything said in the bible is literal, why believe any of it?

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

That said, all Catholic parishes are different. There are those that support equal rights.
Unfortunately, those parishes and priests who support equal rights are the exception, not the rule. If they follow the instructions coming from the vatican, they'll be encouraging gays to live a life of chastity.

[Hobbs]

The bit you believe in, right? Not what all those wishy-washy alternative believers who carry the same basic name as you, right?

[quote]That's all. Yes there are uses of hellfire and such in the Bible, but those are metaphors. For truly, if you don't believe, then you don't think the Bible is literal, do you?[quote]

Apparently there are quite a number of people who claim to believe who don't think it literal.

Are you one of them?

If you don't think everything said in the bible is literal, why believe any of it?

Rapscallion
The Church teaches that the Bible isn't the literal word of God, but is divinely inspired. There are parts we take literally, such as the Eucharist. Ironically, most literalists don't take that part literally and say it's a metaphor. The rule of thumb (my point of view, not the Church) is that, if it's not quoted (ie. what Jesus/God said) than it's not meant to be taken literally. So in that vein, the Beatitudes are real, but not necessarily the Parables.

[Rapscallion]

The Church teaches that the Bible isn't the literal word of God, but is divinely inspired. There are parts we take literally, such as the Eucharist. Ironically, most literalists don't take that part literally and say it's a metaphor. The rule of thumb (my point of view, not the Church) is that, if it's not quoted (ie. what Jesus/God said) than it's not meant to be taken literally. So in that vein, the Beatitudes are real, but not necessarily the Parables.

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that all the bible is literally correct. I consider that approach to be more honest. Your version is to pick and mix what you want to follow.

Rapscallion

[Hobbs]

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that all the bible is literally correct. I consider that approach to be more honest. Your version is to pick and mix what you want to follow.

Rapscallion
It's not like I seek your approval of what I do and do not believe. Meh.

JW are jut lazy and don't want to do research then. The Church spends considerable amounts of time in researching ancient scriptures, scrolls and manuscripts in order to get correct interpretations/translations.

[HYHYBT]

Simpler, yes, but not more honest.

[Ghel]

But if you believe that the things the Bible depicts God or Jesus saying as true, and the rest metaphorical, then the question remains: how do you know the Bible is an accurate transcription of what God or Jesus said? What reason do you have to believe that God and/or Jesus exist(ed)?

Please note: as far as I'm concerned, the answer to the former question is meaningless without a good answer to the latter question.

[Rapscallion]

JW are jut lazy and don't want to do research then. The Church spends considerable amounts of time in researching ancient scriptures, scrolls and manuscripts in order to get correct interpretations/translations.

Lazy? I'd say it takes more effort to follow the texts and rules completely. I'm pretty certain they also put in plenty of effort to back up their version of christianity, just as the cathloic faith does, though I have no intent of asking one to find out. Takes ages to get away if you're polite about it. Are they more accurate in their beliefs than the catholics? I don't know.

However, I still maintain that it's more honest to believe all aspects of a faith to be true rather than bits and pieces justified or discarded through sophistic arguments. I'll grant an exception on the parables, since from what I remember they were tales told to give out semi-hidden meanings, but the tales about who begat who, who was speaking to a burning bush, who parted the red sea, who ended up on a cross, who rose from the dead etc - all of that accepted is more honest than doing a pick-and-mix version.

Rapscallion

[Hobbs]

Lazy? I'd say it takes more effort to follow the texts and rules completely. I'm pretty certain they also put in plenty of effort to back up their version of christianity, just as the cathloic faith does, though I have no intent of asking one to find out. Takes ages to get away if you're polite about it. Are they more accurate in their beliefs than the catholics? I don't know.

However, I still maintain that it's more honest to believe all aspects of a faith to be true rather than bits and pieces justified or discarded through sophistic arguments. I'll grant an exception on the parables, since from what I remember they were tales told to give out semi-hidden meanings, but the tales about who begat who, who was speaking to a burning bush, who parted the red sea, who ended up on a cross, who rose from the dead etc - all of that accepted is more honest than doing a pick-and-mix version.

Rapscallion
All of that is accepted.

I've posted it in other threads here; "To my friends, no explanation is needed; to my enemies, no explanation will suffice."

[Ghel]

"To my friends, no explanation is needed; to my enemies, no explanation will suffice."
That's a great example of black and white thinking. Also called false dichotomy or excluded middle. We're not your enemies, here. We're just trying to get you to explain your beliefs/philosophy/position in a way that makes sense. You have yet to give a reason for believing the things that you do.

[Hobbs]

That's a great example of black and white thinking. Also called false dichotomy or excluded middle. We're not your enemies, here. We're just trying to get you to explain your beliefs/philosophy/position in a way that makes sense. You have yet to give a reason for believing the things that you do.
I have already given my "reason." You just continue to ignore it. It's a couple posts back. I'm tired of repeating myself.

You're not my enemy, but the attitude of my phrase sums y'all up. Nothing I will say will make you happy. No matter what I've said, I'll still be wrong to you.

[Ghel]

Do you mean the bit about the Bible being divinely inspired? Why do you believe that?

Again, the question remains: how do you know the Bible is an accurate transcription of what God or Jesus said? What reason do you have to believe that God and/or Jesus exist(ed)?

[Hobbs]

Do you mean the bit about the Bible being divinely inspired? Why do you believe that?

Again, the question remains: how do you know the Bible is an accurate transcription of what God or Jesus said? What reason do you have to believe that God and/or Jesus exist(ed)?
Asked and answered. I've told you this, in more than one thread, I think.

[AdminAssistant]

The sticky wicket here is that faith is belief in an absence of proof. Despite what some would say, there is no scientific evidence of the existence of a divine being. The reasons for belief and type of belief vary from person to person. Someone may feel that God has intervened in their life. Some have just been raised with it so long that they can't even imagine that it's not true.

I get at what you're saying, Ghel, and I'm becoming more of an atheist every day. But there's no scientific explanation for faith.

[Fryk]

To me, the problem is not faith itself. It's when people believe things that have been directly contradicted by evidence. That's not faith. It's stubbornness

[crashhelmet]

People like to throw in "Scientific Proof," or the lack there of, as an argument against faith and religion/spirituality. How accurate is science? How many research studies are performed with the full intention of proving a hypothesis to be correct? Tested and restested and skewed until the originator's theories all turn out to be correct or a prior study to be proven wrong?

Countless studies have been done over the years to find out whether or not milk is good or bad for you. Whether or not it helps give you strong bones or makes you fatter. Whether or not it will make you live longer or give you cancer. It's quite coincidental how often the studies with good results are sponsored by the Dairy/Agriculture industry.

At one time, it was "Scientific Fact" that you could cure psychological disorders with leeches and drilling holes in peoples heads.

It used to be "Scientific fact" that the solar system was geocentric.

Scientists hide behind the excuse that they're always learning and discovering more and more and that justifies their disproven "facts" of the past.

Has science ever proven that Jesus Christ did not exist or performed the miracles that He is said to have performed? Has science ever proven that the "Big Bang Theory" is the exact way the universe was created? Have they even considered that it could quite possibly be the manner in which God created the Heavens and the Earth? Has science ever proven that Adam and Eve never existed? Does the Bible ever say anywhere that Adam and Eve were homosapien?

The Bible has its own inconsistencies and hypocrisies. I'll admit that, but will say again that, like science, it has been written and rewritten countless times over by people fueling their own agendas.

So... How much "faith" does Science require?

CH

[Ghel]

Asked and answered. I've told you this, in more than one thread, I think.To paraphrase from memory, you have faith. You believe based on your own interpretation of the bible, using things that God or Jesus are quoted as saying as a guide. That seems an odd choice, since God demanded human sacrifice (both in the OT and of his own son) and Jesus proclaimed that anybody who doesn't believe will go to hell and suffer for eternity.

But there's no scientific explanation for faith.That's pretty much the point. There's no good reason to believe (none that's ever been explained to me), and without that, there's no reason to expect others to agree with the believer.

Countless studies have been done over the years to find out whether or not milk is good or bad for you. Whether or not it helps give you strong bones or makes you fatter. Whether or not it will make you live longer or give you cancer. It's quite coincidental how often the studies with good results are sponsored by the Dairy/Agriculture industry.
What you say may be true, but the great thing about science is that it's peer reviewed. Other scientists can, and often do, review not just the results, but also the processes used in scientific studies. The experiments can be repeated to determine whether the conclusions are justified. In this way, science is self-correcting.

You don't get that in religion. Nearly every religion has some tenet or dogma that is unquestionable, that must be taken on faith. In science, nothing is sacred. Anything can be questioned. If someone feels they have a better explanation for something, they can do the research or the experiment to try to falsify it.

At one time, it was "Scientific Fact" that you could cure psychological disorders with leeches and drilling holes in peoples heads.

It used to be "Scientific fact" that the solar system was geocentric.

Scientists hide behind the excuse that they're always learning and discovering more and more and that justifies their disproven "facts" of the past.
That's right. The earth was never flat, no matter how many people believed it. The earth was never the center of the universe, no matter how many people believed it.

Has science ever proven that Jesus Christ did not exist or performed the miracles that He is said to have performed?
You can't prove a negative. Can you prove that Jesus Christ did exist and did perform the miracles that are attributed to him?

Has science ever proven that the "Big Bang Theory" is the exact way the universe was created?
That is where all the evidence is leading.

Have they even considered that it could quite possibly be the manner in which God created the Heavens and the Earth?
Why complicate things by positing a God, when the universe can be explained quite well by the Big Bang?

[Hobbs]

To paraphrase from memory, you have faith. You believe based on your own interpretation of the bible, using things that God or Jesus are quoted as saying as a guide. That seems an odd choice, since God demanded human sacrifice (both in the OT and of his own son) and Jesus proclaimed that anybody who doesn't believe will go to hell and suffer for eternity.

God didn't actually make Abraham sacrifice his son. It was a test.

As for Jesus, he was God. In order to cleanse the world of sin, He suffered, like a sinner, and died for those sins. In the original Nicene Creed, there was a phrase, right after saying Jesus had died "...he descended into Hell, and on the third day rose, in accordance with Scripture..."

I've already said that Hell isn't about suffering. That's mostly a construct of medieval imaginations. Someone earlier mentioned Gehenna; that was merely a metaphor explaining what an undesirable place Hell is. All it truly is, in both Judaic and Christian forms, in a separation from God.

[crashhelmet]

To paraphrase from memory, you have faith. You believe based on your own interpretation of the bible, using things that God or Jesus are quoted as saying as a guide. That seems an odd choice, since God demanded human sacrifice (both in the OT and of his own son) and Jesus proclaimed that anybody who doesn't believe will go to hell and suffer for eternity.

Demanding a sacrifice and saying sinners should be put to death are two different things. But again, that was Old Testament. Sending Jesus to the world to be sacrificed to save us from our sins isn't demanding. I don't remember any part of the Bible where God spoke to the Romans and the Jewish Elders saying "You better crucify Him or I'll smite you!"


That's pretty much the point. There's no good reason to believe (none that's ever been explained to me), and without that, there's no reason to expect others to agree with the believer.

That's the funny thing about beliefs. They're beliefs. Whether or not you choose to believe them is up to you.


What you say may be true, but the great thing about science is that it's peer reviewed. Other scientists can, and often do, review not just the results, but also the processes used in scientific studies. The experiments can be repeated to determine whether the conclusions are justified. In this way, science is self-correcting.

But Science is treated as if it doesn't need self-correction because everything is fact. It's only a theory or a hypothesis until it's proven right or wrong. Unfortunately, it's often times proven right or wrong again. And again. And again. etc etc etc.


You don't get that in religion. Nearly every religion has some tenet or dogma that is unquestionable, that must be taken on faith. In science, nothing is sacred. Anything can be questioned. If someone feels they have a better explanation for something, they can do the research or the experiment to try to falsify it.

Nothing may be "sacred" but some things are still treated as such.


You can't prove a negative. Can you prove that Jesus Christ did exist and did perform the miracles that are attributed to him?


I've got 4 different cultures from His time that all say He did, have written books about Him, and only differ on whether or not they consider Him a prophet, the Messiah, or some carpenter stirring up trouble.


Why complicate things by positing a God, when the universe can be explained quite well by the Big Bang?

Where does it start? Everything in Science has a starting point. What caused the Big Bang? What caused the events that led up to whatever it was that caused the Big Bang?

While I may be Christian and have belief and Faith in God, I'm open minded enough to consider that Adam and Eve could've been Homo-Erectus or some other ancient species that Science believes we may have evolved from or that God's 6 days of creation were not exactly the same length that our days are.

Science is supposed to promote an open mind. Why is yours closed?

CH

[Ghel]

God didn't actually make Abraham sacrifice his son. It was a test.
But Abraham intended to go through with it, which means he thought that human sacrifice was something his God would ask of him.

This is not the only instance of human sacrifice in the OT. I'll have to look up where it is, but I can think of at least one other where they actually went through with the sacrifice.

As for Jesus, he was God. In order to cleanse the world of sin, He suffered, like a sinner, and died for those sins. In the original Nicene Creed, there was a phrase, right after saying Jesus had died "...he descended into Hell, and on the third day rose, in accordance with Scripture..."
Which means that God sacrificed himself to himself, took a masochistic 3-day vacation in Hell (which, by your definition, means he was separated from himself), knowing full well that when those three days were done, he would return to Heaven.

I've already said that Hell isn't about suffering. That's mostly a construct of medieval imaginations. Someone earlier mentioned Gehenna; that was merely a metaphor explaining what an undesirable place Hell is. All it truly is, in both Judaic and Christian forms, in a separation from God.
Yet Jesus said that anyone who doesn't believe in him will die and suffer in eternal hellfire. This is something that the Bible states is a direct quote, so by your earlier statements, you must believe it.

[Hobbs]

Give me the Bible verse then.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Wait, lemme get this:

Science is bad because some people try and abuse it?

Holy fucking ape shit! I never thought of that before! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!11!!one!

Really, science and religion are opposite sides to the same coin. Both are systems by which people define their beliefs and what compromises right and wrong. Science is based on evidence, religion is based on faith. Either can be abused by shitty people on an ego trip so it's the individuals duty to question their peers on either side. It just seems that the ego-trippy douche-bags are much more rife on the religion side, or at least that there's either little or no vocal opposition, or it's being crushed by those on top :rolleyes:

You've got to pick what makes the most sense to you. Science, Religion, Logic, or all or none of the above. In each case there's a right and wrong way of doing it, the question is: How predisposed are people in a specific area of their system to being assholes/abusing their power?

On this front, the Mormon assholes, Social Darwinist shits and Global Warming fucks can all eat shit and die, together in their respective hypocritical filth piles :D

Have a NICE day!

[Fryk]

I can help with the biblical reference, Ghel. The story you're thinking of is the story of Jephthah and his daughter. It's found in Judges chapter 11.

Jephthah was a military leader (to sum up) in those days, and was facing both the Philistines and the Ammonites. He struck this deal with god, beginning in Judges 11:30:
Jephthah vowed a vow to Yahweh, and said, If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand,

11:31 then it shall be, that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

11:32 So Jephthah passed over to the children of Ammon to fight against them; and Yahweh delivered them into his hand.

11:33 He struck them from Aroer until you come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and to Abelcheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

11:34 Jephthah came to Mizpah to his house; and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter.

11:35 It happened, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you are one of those who trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Yahweh, and I can't go back.

11:36 She said to him, My father, you have opened your mouth to Yahweh; do to me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth, because Yahweh has taken vengeance for you on your enemies, even on the children of Ammon.

11:37 She said to her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.

11:38 He said, Go. He sent her away for two months: and she departed, she and her companions, and mourned her virginity on the mountains.

11:39 It happened at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she was a virgin. It was a custom in Israel,

11:40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

So.... yeah, human sacrifice to God. God didn't precipitate it, sure, but he accepted it.

[Ghel]

Yes, that's the one I was thinking of. There's also these:

In Numbers 31:25-29, God instructs Moses to take their spoils of war (including captured slaves) and cut a bunch of them in half as an offering to the Lord.

In 2 Samuel 21, King David offers up 7 descendants of his predecessor, Saul, to be killed because God told him it would end a famine.

As for the eternal hellfire, Mark 9:43-44 quotes Jesus as saying " And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." He goes on to repeat the same advice about feet and eyes.

I suppose it's only fair for me to point out that even if the God described in the Bible existed, I would not worship him. If I had indisputable evidence of the existence of God, I would no longer be an atheist. But I would not be a Christian, either. The notion that God would punish anyone for the "sin" of not believing in him, or reward anyone for believing in him, despite the lack of evidence, is unforgivable.

[Hobbs]

As for King David, I'd refer you to the History Channel special "Battles of the Bible" or something similarly titled. It has one of my favorite war historians in it, describing David's ruthlessness in war.

Again, Jesus is using symbolic use of fire to describe the consumation of someone's soul in Hell. As for the actions of the OT, Jesus even said, "I am the way of the New and everlasting covenant..."

Technically, blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin, so you're even.

[HYHYBT]

But there's no scientific explanation for faith.
---End Quote---
That's pretty much the point. There's no good reason to believe
This here is a basic problem: for some people, these two statements are equivalent in all cases, and for others they are not.

Really, science and religion are opposite sides to the same coin. Both are systems by which people define their beliefs and what compromises right and wrong. Since when did science start lining off right from wrong? Science is essentially amoral. And no, that's not remotely the same thing as saying that religion is necessary for morality, only that science, as such, does not provide it.

[crashhelmet]

Wait, lemme get this:

Science is bad because some people try and abuse it?

Science isn't bad. It just can't be considered as "perfect" or indisputable as many make it out to be.

CH

[Ghel]

Science isn't bad. It just can't be considered as "perfect" or indisputable as many make it out to be.
I don't know if this is directed at me, but since I answered your earlier post...

Science is the best tool we have to understand the universe. It is self-correcting, but I would never say that it is perfect. Nor would I say that we should base our morals off science. Even Richard Dawkins said that evolution tells us what is, not what should be.

...David's ruthlessness in war.
I don't see how this applies. According to the passage, God specifically told David that it was Saul's fault that there was a famine. So David offered up all of Saul's male descendants to be killed, which God rewarded by ending the famine. It may have happened in wartime, but the reasoning had nothing to do with war.

You didn't respond to the other two depictions of human sacrifice that were mentioned.

Again, Jesus is using symbolic use of fire to describe the consumation of someone's soul in Hell.
But you said...
The rule of thumb (my point of view, not the Church) is that, if it's not quoted (ie. what Jesus/God said) than it's not meant to be taken literally.
If you're just going to say that everything that Jesus said that you don't agree with is symbolic, then why use the Bible as an authority at all? Why not use your own moral compass, which I consider to be vastly superior to the morals of the Bible, even if we don't always agree.

As for the actions of the OT, Jesus even said, "I am the way of the New and everlasting covenant..."
Jesus also said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Which just goes to show that you can find a verse to support any position.

Technically, blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin, so you're even.
How can I blaspheme something that, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist?

[crashhelmet]

I don't know if this is directed at me, but since I answered your earlier post...

Science is the best tool we have to understand the universe. It is self-correcting, but I would never say that it is perfect. Nor would I say that we should base our morals off science. Even Richard Dawkins said that evolution tells us what is, not what should be.


It's not necessarily directed at you, but to many people that will sit there and argue things based on the existence or lack of "scientific fact." They treat science as the trump card for everything much as some Christians treat the Bible as one.

We don't know everything. When it comes to the universe as a whole, we don't know much of anything, to be honest.

Renee Des Cartes studied, researched, thought, pondered, etc etc etc whatever you wanna call it in his search to find absolute certainty. His Demon Conjecture may have been right all along. Show me scientific fact that everything that I'm reading here and everything else that goes on in my life isn't just a figment of my imagination. How do I know that you exist and you;re not an "imaginary friend" my mind, or some other being, has created? It can't be proven 100% either way. Nothing in this world can.

I have elected to place my belief and Faith in God and Christianity. From what I've experienced in my "life," I see no better alternative. If science can answer the chicken vs egg question, I may change my view points.

CH

[Hobbs]

I don't know if this is directed at me, but since I answered your earlier post...

Science is the best tool we have to understand the universe. It is self-correcting, but I would never say that it is perfect. Nor would I say that we should base our morals off science. Even Richard Dawkins said that evolution tells us what is, not what should be.


I don't see how this applies. According to the passage, God specifically told David that it was Saul's fault that there was a famine. So David offered up all of Saul's male descendants to be killed, which God rewarded by ending the famine. It may have happened in wartime, but the reasoning had nothing to do with war.

You didn't respond to the other two depictions of human sacrifice that were mentioned.


But you said...

If you're just going to say that everything that Jesus said that you don't agree with is symbolic, then why use the Bible as an authority at all? Why not use your own moral compass, which I consider to be vastly superior to the morals of the Bible, even if we don't always agree.


Jesus also said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Which just goes to show that you can find a verse to support any position.


How can I blaspheme something that, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist?
What's a jot and/or tittle?

Blech, I can't believe you're using KJV.

My morals come from my religion. Plus, a rule of thumb isn't necessarily concrete. It's just a good starting point. You're being nit-picky. That's annoying.

Blaspheme means to reject.

[Ghel]

We don't know everything. When it comes to the universe as a whole, we don't know much of anything, to be honest.
And the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't know. Amazing, wonderful, and scary, isn't it?

Show me scientific fact that everything that I'm reading here and everything else that goes on in my life isn't just a figment of my imagination. How do I know that you exist and you;re not an "imaginary friend" my mind, or some other being, has created? It can't be proven 100% either way. Nothing in this world can.
But you can't go through life assuming that nothing is real. You have to trust your senses, to a certain degree, to give you information about the world around you. Otherwise, it leads to paranoia and schizophrenia.

...the chicken vs egg question...
I rather like the answer that evolution has given us: creatures were laying eggs long before chickens evolved.

What's a jot and/or tittle?
www.dictionary.com is a wonderful resource.

Blech, I can't believe you're using KJV.
It's free. If you know where I can get a copy of the NIV for free, I'll use it.

...a rule of thumb isn't necessarily concrete. It's just a good starting point.
My point was that you're making an appeal to the Bible as a source of your beliefs and morals. But then you're the one who's deciding which passages are literal and which are symbolic. That's not any different from developing your own set of beliefs and morals.

Blaspheme means to reject.
Actually, to blaspheme is to speak irreverently or impiously about a subject. I suppose that amounts to the same thing.

[HYHYBT]

Technically, blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin, so you're even.Yeah, but what exactly that means isn't so clear. Or, rather, many people think it IS clear, but they don't agree.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Actually Ghel there's a big difference between using the Bible as a guideline and making up one's morals independently. The Bible, like any other text should be critically analyzed and interpreted by it's readers same as any other text, that's not the problem. The problem stems from people who aren't interpreting or analyzing but instead quoting one-liners here and there as absolute law to back up their predisposed ideals.

Especially since so much of the bible is nothing more than jaw-wobbling by random people to say nothing of the disciples about what they think and not really what God told them, any reasonable person should compare said yakking with the core tenets of their religion and decide whether or not there's a conflict. That's not nitpicking, that's critical reading.

[Ghel]

If you ask 100 different Christians what the core tenets of Christianity are, you'll likely get 100 different answers. The reason is that the answers aren't in the Bible. The answers are in the morals and worldview that the individual has developed over the course of his or her life. If they read the Bible, they emphasize passages they agree with and de-emphasize or reinterpret passages that they don't agree with. That's why many non-believers call it the Big Book of Multiple Choice.

But many (probably most) Christians don't read the Bible. What they believe about God and Jesus, about the origin of the universe and about the afterlife comes from what they were told by preachers, friends, and relatives, who probably didn't read the Bible themselves.

[Hobbs]

I'm pretty sure my priest has read the Bible, as have the priests before him. And I know the Church does extensive research into old documents to come up with the best translation possible.

[AdminAssistant]

Ghel's statement wasn't about the clergy reading the Bible, but about all believers. And many, if not most, Christians I know have read very little of the Bible on their own time. They only know what the priest/preacher explains to them on Sunday morning.

[Hobbs]

On the contrary, Ghel stated "...from what they were told by preachers, friends, and relatives, who probably didn't read the Bible themselves."

Meaning the statement was about the clergy. I've taken philosophy and Scripture classes, so I have read it. And the explanations the priest gives during the Liturgy seems pretty spot-on to me.

[Ghel]

When I started reading the Bible in earnest, I was very disappointed by my priest's lack of biblical knowledge. He had no explanation for the contradictions and atrocities that I brought to his attention. Instead, he simply told me to pray, and God would give me the answer. You can guess how well that worked out.

[Hobbs]

Well, my priests are knowledgeable.

[Ghel]

Great. Do they have evidence for God outside the Bible?

[Hobbs]

Why should they?

[Fryk]

Because is would be nice to have if someone like Ghel asks them?

[Hobbs]

Because is would be nice to have if someone like Ghel asks them?
Bollocks to that. They don't have to placate people who ridicule them.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Wanting religion to validate itself scientifically is exactly the same as wanting science to validate itself religiously. Neither side need be beholden to the other, partly because there's no good reason, and partly because IMO the two systems are largely incompatible barring very specific compromise. (Such as, God works through science.)

[Nyoibo]

Why should they?

Because they demand proof of other peoples beliefs in science, they call on science to prove itself all the time, yet get defensive and refuse to prove the existence of god.

[Hobbs]

Because they demand proof of other peoples beliefs in science, they call on science to prove itself all the time, yet get defensive and refuse to prove the existence of god.
My priest is a meteorologist...I'm pretty sure he has proof of science. As do the other priests with scientific degrees.

[Ghel]

Bollocks to that. They don't have to placate people who ridicule them.
This isn't about ridiculing anyone. This is about honest inquiry. I've been trying for years to get somebody to explain to me why they believe, and why I should agree with them. "It's the religion I was raised with" is, at least, an honest answer, but not one that should convince anybody else to believe.

Wanting religion to validate itself scientifically is exactly the same as wanting science to validate itself religiously.
Not scientifically, necessarily, but logically. I'm just looking for an explanation of God that makes sense.

[Hobbs]

Haven't I already stated that I don't care if you believe or not?

You're arguments previously seem to say differently, where you ask for scientific proof. There's a quote by an Indian elder, I forget it specifically, but to paraphrase he says, "They told me about atoms being what we were made of; tiny things that no one could see with their eyes. I think I will continue to believe the Great Spirit created us; at least that makes sense."

[Ghel]

Haven't I already stated that I don't care if you believe or not?
Then why come on here of your own free will and try to correct others on what the church teaches? Why try to educate them about what you believe about angels and demons? Why teach us about your concept of Hell if you don't care whether we are going there?

You're arguments previously seem to say differently, where you ask for scientific proof.
If I ever used the word "proof" (besides when quoting someone else), I apologize. What I'm looking for is evidence. Verifiable, falsifiable evidence. Until that comes along, I will continue not believing in the god of the Bible.

There's a quote by an Indian elder, I forget it specifically, but to paraphrase he says, "They told me about atoms being what we were made of; tiny things that no one could see with their eyes. I think I will continue to believe the Great Spirit created us; at least that makes sense."
Maybe it makes sense to him, but he's still wrong. We are made of atoms. Every bit of matter in the known universe (except for certain sub-atomic particles) is made of atoms. That is something that can be easily verified using a variety of tests and equipment.

[Hobbs]

Then why come on here of your own free will and try to correct others on what the church teaches? Why try to educate them about what you believe about angels and demons? Why teach us about your concept of Hell if you don't care whether we are going there?

I've never tried to convert people here. You've asked me about my beliefs and religion, and I have answered. I don't see that as missionary work. I thought the angels and demons bit was an interesting sidenote to add. Again, you seemed interested, so I answered.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it makes sense to him, but he's still wrong. We are made of atoms. Every bit of matter in the known universe (except for certain sub-atomic particles) is made of atoms. That is something that can be easily verified using a variety of tests and equipment.

Just because he's wrong doesn't make you right. Just as you believe religious people don't have a right to convert you, you don't have a right to 'correct' indigenous people's beliefs.

[Fryk]

True, but the fact that we can use microscopes to SEE atoms does.

[HYHYBT]

What I'm looking for is evidence. Verifiable, falsifiable evidence.That there must be such evidence for things to be true, or at least for it to be important to believe things to be true even if they are, is ITSELF a claim with no verifiable, falsifiable evidence. Why should you continue to believe it?

And a question I tried to ask in another thread a while back, with rather unhelpful results*: if a miracle were to occur, what evidence would there be? If, for example, someone had just now come along and instantaneously and unexpectedly (and it sure would be unexpected!) turned water into wine, how could it possibly be proven? I add "unexpectedly" because of course there are lots of things you might do if you knew precisely what was going to happen where and when in advance.

*I say unhelpful, because the answer I got last time was to restrict which miracles are acceptable; I don't remember the list, but it would have excluded, for example, a human regrowing an entire limb over the course of a week because it wouldn't be instantaneous.

[smileyeagle1021]

Just because he's wrong doesn't make you right.

As a general principle I'd agree with you on this one... that said, in this case, in the debate about being whether we are made of atoms or not there is no question of "making sense" we have scientific proof. It may be argued that the Great Spirit created atoms, but doesn't remove the fact that atoms exist.\

This same line of thought can be expanded to Christianity as well. There is fossil records to prove that evolution happened. There is still gray areas for the specifics of how and when, but no question of it happening. You may argue that an all powerful God used evolution as a tool, but you can't just say that it didn't happen because God created.
Sexual orientation is another area where science has proven that orientation is a hardwired part of our psyche and it CANNOT be changed through mere will power. Covering your ears and saying "but the Bible says it's a sin and all one needs to overcome sin is have the will and ask God for help". Nope, doesn't work like that, we have verified evidence to the contrary.

I know you will find it hard to believe, I do believe in God... I don't think he is the God of the Bible. I know that there is no proof of there being a higher power. I still believe in a higher power though because there is nothing to contradict that belief. There is so much though in Christianity (and other religions, I don't mean to pick solely on Christianity, that is just the one that I am most familiar with) that has been dis-proven beyond most reasonable doubt.

[Ghel]

I've never tried to convert people here.
Maybe not, but you have stated as truth things for which you have no evidence, such as the existence of angels and demons.

I thought the angels and demons bit was an interesting sidenote to add. Again, you seemed interested, so I answered.
I assume you mean "you" in general, because I hadn't posted to this thread when you began mentioning angels. Again, you stated the bit about fallen angels as if it were fact, without even listing a reference, such as "according to the Catholic Church," or some such. Plus there's the problem of the logical fallacy involved in any being not having free will, but then being able to rebel against their master. So there's no reason anyone else has to agree with your mythology, and it's great fun to point out inconsistencies in stories posted to forums such as this one.

Just because he's wrong doesn't make you right.
On the subject of atoms, I'm right. But not because he's wrong, true.

Just as you believe religious people don't have a right to convert you, you don't have a right to 'correct' indigenous people's beliefs.
I don't have the right? It's called freedom of speech. Look it up.

Of course, freedom of speech is usually invoked when somebody's stating an opinion. In this case, however, I was stating a fact when I said that "Every bit of matter in the known universe is made of atoms." But nobody has the right not to have their feelings hurt.

In the hypothetical situation that an old "indigenous" man came up to me and told me what you quoted, this is probably the response I would have. Although, depending on the circumstances (and my mood at the time), I might just think, "He's old. Let him have his comforting delusion," and just smile and nod. However, if it was a public figure saying this, I might ridicule him on a site like this, the same way that many of us have. Sometimes making fun of stupid or willfully ignorant people is the best way to bring attention to the fractal wrongness of things that they have said.

I know you will find it hard to believe, I do believe in God... I don't think he is the God of the Bible. I know that there is no proof of there being a higher power.
This doesn't bother me at all. You want to know why? You don't state as fact things for which you have no evidence. Your belief is not the sort that would convince you to try to force your beliefs on others, or force others to behave as if they believed the same as you do. I still don't agree with you on the subject of god, but that's no reason we can't have a decent conversation.

[Hobbs]

All right, let's dumb down free will so we can get this cleared up. Free will is basically the ability to choose whether or not to believe. Angels can't choose whether or not to believe because they know God exists; they're His attendants, after all. To put this in another way...

American citizens have the right to believe the outrageous 'birther' conspiracy theory. Those in the military do not have that right, because our sacred oath is to serve the named president. Any military officer who starts to speak disparaging or derogatory remarks towards the Hon. Obama is punished.

[Ghel]

Hobbs, I disagree with both your definition and your example. Free will is the ability to choose your actions. Whether you can choose what you believe is a separate question.

In your set of beliefs, if angels know that God exists, and know his nature, then how and why could they rebel?

Those in the military do have the right to believe the "birther" nonsense. What they do not have in so great a degree as the average citizen is the right to express their agreement with that nonsense. Their superior officers have no control over what goes on in the privacy of their own minds.

[Fryk]

Hobbs is technically right about the Catholic doctrine of free will. However, it still doesn't make any sense when you try to apply it to angels. Free Will is the opposite of predestination, that we are all free to choose, and that God does not preordain anyone to hell.

HOWEVER, since according to Hobbs and others, angels don't have free will, that means that they would not free to choose salvation. In other words, they would have to be predestined to hell. In OTHER other words, that means God preordained demons.

[Hobbs]

Hobbs is technically right about the Catholic doctrine of free will. However, it still doesn't make any sense when you try to apply it to angels. Free Will is the opposite of predestination, that we are all free to choose, and that God does not preordain anyone to hell.

HOWEVER, since according to Hobbs and others, angels don't have free will, that means that they would not free to choose salvation. In other words, they would have to be predestined to hell. In OTHER other words, that means God preordained demons.
Fryk, what are you talking about? Angels aren't predestined for anything. They simply exist. The Fallen are only demons because they rebelled against God and sided with Lucifer. They don't have to choose salvation because angels already exist in Heaven.

[Fryk]

They don't exist in heaven, they exist in hell or on earth, that is the crux of the problem. And I am talking about the doctrine of Free Will, which speaks to whether or not an individual gets to choose its ultimate fate, as YOU said. If you don't get that choice, then you have been preordained to your ultimate fate.

It's one or the other.

[Ghel]

I think we're talking about the same definition of free will, just in varying degrees: being able to choose what you believe / choose your actions / choose your fate (whether you will go to heaven or hell, if you believe in those places).

Here's the kicker: if you choose to believe something you know to be false, that's hypocritical. The same if you choose to do something that isn't in line with your beliefs.

Fate, from my point of view, is a non-issue. Everyone's ultimate fate is the same: death. It's what you do with your life up to that point that makes all the difference. Anybody can have a positive influence on the world, if they choose. But if the Christian God and Heaven and Hell do exist, and God punishes those who lead good lives but didn't believe in him, then he is an evil tyrant in the extreme.

[Hobbs]

They don't exist in heaven, they exist in hell or on earth, that is the crux of the problem. And I am talking about the doctrine of Free Will, which speaks to whether or not an individual gets to choose its ultimate fate, as YOU said. If you don't get that choice, then you have been preordained to your ultimate fate.

It's one or the other.
Why are you saying Angels don't exist in Heaven. From what form of Scripture have you based this on? I'm sure that consensus is that angels exist in Heaven. They can't die either, so there's no 'afterlife' for them to go too, which is what Heaven and Hell is for us.

[Fryk]

Not angels, Hobbs. Demons. Sorry, I overpronouned :: )

[Hobbs]

Then in your case, angels became corrupted the moment they defied God and tried to overthrow him. It's like being sent to Leavenworth for trying to stage a coup.

[Ghel]

So do you think that angels/demons in Hell have it better or worse than humans? Since they know God exists (they don't have to take it on faith) and are thus being punished for rebelling rather than not believing.

[HYHYBT]

I don't generally worry over the exact natures of angels and demons, or Heaven and Hell; a strong preference for one over the other is enough. But as I understand it, they'd be better off in Hell than we would, because it was made for them and not for us.

[Hobbs]

Exactly. Hell didn't exist until the Angels rebelled and were cast into Perdition.

[Fryk]

So how is it that the actions of angels, who KNEW with verifyable proof that God exists, and the actions of humans, who have NO verifyable proof, are punished with the same severity? That seems extremely unfair to me.

[Hobbs]

For angels, it's a punishment because they are ethereal beings and are thus separated from God's light. Similarly, humans who don't accept God are separated from Him. In my opinion; God realizes you don't like Him, so why would he put you somewhere where you'd live with Him forever?

[Ghel]

What about people who have never heard of or have no concept of a god? Aborigines, infants, the severely retarded? They've never heard any of the various concepts of god. They can't accept something they've never heard of. They can't dislike him. Does he send them to hell? Or do they get a "Get Out of Hell Free" card?

[Fryk]

That's exactly my point, Ghel. AND, how does, "I don't know if God exists, I seek proof of this claim," equate to not liking him? And how does it lead to the same punishment as "I HATE GOD! I WISH TO OVERTHROW HIM AND RULE IN HIS PLACE!!!!!!!"?

[Hobbs]

Denying God=not liking him.

[Fryk]

See, that's faulty logic right there. How does denying someone=not liking them? One does not necessarily follow the other. And how does a lifetime of maybe 100 years, max, lead to a punishment period of infinity years?

[Rageaholic]

I have to chime in. The main problem I have with Christian thought is that we're supposed to put "god" above everything else we can see, feel, and touch. This to me is impossible because god expects us mere humans to gamble on faith. Unlike people, god isn't right there telling us what to do, we're suppposed to put our faith in some 2000 year old book that basically needs to be studied to be understood. It doesn't help that there's so many interprations of the bible.

So it's pretty obvious that we'd be confused at to who god even is. Yet because we don't really "know" who god is outside of books and a few personal accounts, it's hard to put him above everything we do know. And that's OUR fault that we don't know god? WTF?

[smileyeagle1021]

Denying God=not liking him.

So, I have to ask. If you deny God, that means you don't believe he exists. How can one hate something they don't believe exists?
I don't believe that the Tooth Fairy exists and would deny she exists... that doesn't mean that I hate the Tooth Fairy, I think that it does a lot of good as a way of comforting children. Still, despite that, doesn't mean that will believe she exists.

[Hobbs]

You've pretty much confessed you hate God, and despite your claim that you believe in a deity, that is not the Judeo-Christian God either, correct? Therefore, that's your answer.

[Fryk]

That doesn't answer the question. How can you hate something you don't believe exists?

[Ghel]

You can hate the idea of something. For example, you can hate a character in a book or movie. But that character can't be offended by your feelings toward him, because he doesn't exist.

Denying that the Christian God exists is on par with denying that invisible pink unicorns exist. There's every bit as much evidence for invisible pink unicorns as there is for the Christian God. Which is to say, none at all.

[Fryk]

Well, yes, Ghel. From your perspective, that's true. But I have to say, we are arguing on the merits of the Bible, which means, at least hypothatically presuming God's existence. That being said, however, it still makes the whole law unjust. Not unfair, UNJUST.

Hell, let's throw in hatred. If God knows someone hates him, and he is LOVING AND JUST, why wouldn't he try to find out why? Why would he not go to that person and say, as it does in the Bible, "Come, let us reason together"? But no. God says forget that. you say you hate me, I'm not going to even try to work things out between us (so much for that "relationship" evangelicals say God wants with humans). You hated me for 70 years, I'm going to punish you FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER!!!!!

That doesn't sound like a just and loving God. It sounds like a child having a temper tantrum.

[jackfaire]

I don't believe that the Tooth Fairy exists and would deny she exists...

*Starts clapping*

[Fryk]

*claps with jackfaire*


C'mon kids, everybody clap, or the Tooth Fairy dies!!!

[HYHYBT]

f God knows someone hates him, and he is LOVING AND JUST, why wouldn't he try to find out why?I'm not sure what you mean here... why would anyone "try to find out" something they already know?

[Fryk]

Oops! Good point, Omniscient, etc. I apologize. The point I was trying to make, though, was, why wouldn't a loving God try to reconcile with those humans that have a problem with him?
"Oh, but he sent his son to do that!"

Nice try, but since they don't believe in Jesus, how does that even remotely help? The only thing the easter story does, really is add another layer of required faith to the whole thing. It helped the Jews of around 30 CE, but the rest of the world just had to take their story at face value. Not one time in 2,00 years has God actually tried to speak with humanity directly, or even gave signs that he's there. And if you believe the Bible, it gets worse, because apparently before that, God could come down and show signs whenever he wanted: burning bush, cloud of fire, pillar of smoke, etc.

[Ghel]

If God is omniscient, then he knows what it would take to convince each person to believe in him. If he's omnipotent, then he has the power to convince each person to believe in him. So if any person doesn't believe in God, it must be that he doesn't want them to believe, or doesn't care. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Christian God actually exists.) If there's some "divine plan," then this must be part of it.

[smileyeagle1021]

You've pretty much confessed you hate God, and despite your claim that you believe in a deity, that is not the Judeo-Christian God either, correct? Therefore, that's your answer.

I never denied hating the Judeo-Christian God (or at least what He represents).
The question was, how does simply denying that something exists mean that you hate it?
We aren't talking about me here, we're talking about the argument that denying God is equal to hating God.

[Ghel]

On the other side of the philosophical coin, how does believing in a being automatically mean you like it or agree with it? I can believe that the President of the USA exists. That doesn't necessarily mean I like him or agree with him.