Religion, No Politics. Half the Things We Never Talk About.

[Chess]

For me the Bible is the book that has given us the concept of morals and taught us about respect and how we should live our lives in the correct way. I agree with IDR when he says we cannot just pick and choose parts of the Bible however I disagree that the Bible should be taken entirely in a literal perspective.

We know God did not create the world in 7 days (as we know them) however we do not know what was considered a day when God created the earth. We know the world was not populated by two Humans (Adam abd Eve) however instead Adam and Eve are simply symbols for Man and Woman. We know there was a great flood but we know the whole world was not flooded however to the author of that story may have imagined the whole world flooded as they did not know how far the world stretched.

As for homosexuality, yes it says it is wrong and incorrect, therefore due to this and my general feelings on the matter I do oppose homosexual marriages. However the Bible teaches me to love one another and do not judge others so for this reason I do not hold any hateful feelings towards them and will let God judge them. At the end of the day homosexuality is a sin as is when I fantasize about threesomes with my wife and my aupair, at the end of the day it is up to God to decide who can enter the big house.

My final comment I wil make is the main difference between Christianity and most if not all other religions is the fact that to go to "Heaven" as a Christian you simply have to believe in God/Jesus......where in the other religions you have a tick list of things you must do to obtain a pass to heaven.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

For me the Bible is the book that has given us the concept of morals and taught us about respect and how we should live our lives in the correct way. I agree with IDR when he says we cannot just pick and choose parts of the Bible however I disagree that the Bible should be taken entirely in a literal perspective.

We know God did not create the world in 7 days (as we know them) however we do not know what was considered a day when God created the earth. We know the world was not populated by two Humans (Adam abd Eve) however instead Adam and Eve are simply symbols for Man and Woman. We know there was a great flood but we know the whole world was not flooded however to the author of that story may have imagined the whole world flooded as they did not know how far the world stretched.

We literally "know" none of these things. This is the fundamental problem with religion — it purports to know things it cannot possibly have the answers to. This is also the fundamental reason why unbelievers cite reason and logic as reasons against believing in autonomous creators — everything we know of them has poured off the lips and hands of fallible men, ergo everything we know of them is fallible.

As for homosexuality, yes it says it is wrong and incorrect, therefore due to this and my general feelings on the matter I do oppose homosexual marriages. However the Bible teaches me to love one another and do not judge others so for this reason I do not hold any hateful feelings towards them and will let God judge them. At the end of the day homosexuality is a sin as is when I fantasize about threesomes with my wife and my aupair, at the end of the day it is up to God to decide who can enter the big house.

What sense does this make? You chose not to hold "hateful feelings" or to "judge" others, but just told everyone on this forum that you believe homosexuality is a sin and that God will judge them for it. Contradiction 101. Let's not sit here and pretend you actually believe what you just said without so much as a shred of judgement in your mind as to why. You had to weigh that decision internally to come to that conclusion, so logic dictates you have already judged them for who they are — why else believe it's a sin? The keyword there is believe, not sin. Believe – to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.

My final comment I wil make is the main difference between Christianity and most if not all other religions is the fact that to go to "Heaven" as a Christian you simply have to believe in God/Jesus......where in the other religions you have a tick list of things you must do to obtain a pass to heaven.

Wonderful — and this is a virtue, how? So I can go through life raping and murdering, but so long as I accept Jesus at the end, it's all OK? What a load of shit. I'm sure the families of my victims can rest easy knowing I found God at the end while they continue to visit the graves of the family I stole from them.

 

[Chess]

Originally Posted by It's Damn Real!
We literally "know" none of these things.

So the world as described in the Bible was created in 7 days, 2 Humans did populate the word and the entire world flooded? We know this is not true through science hence why I was saying that we should not take the Bible completely literally.

What sense does this make? You chose not to hold "hateful feelings" or to "judge" others, but just told everyone on this forum that you believe homosexuality is a sin and that God will judge them for it. Contradiction 101. Let's not sit here and pretend you actually believe what you just said without so much as a shred of judgement in your mind as to why. You had to weigh that decision internally to come to that conclusion, so logic dictates you have already judged them for who they are — why else believe it's a sin?

For me if it feels wrong.....no pun intended, then it's probably a sin

Fair enough, perhaps I did judge them to determine that it is a sin, however I now chose not to treat them any differently than any other person, no matter what race, creed or sexual orientation they are. For me this is a good message that is portrayed in the Bible and is a message that society today still tries to spread with difficulty. Non Christians judge as much if not more than Christians yet they always complain about Christians judging people.

Wonderful — and this is a virtue, how? So I can go through life raping and murdering, but so long as I accept Jesus at the end, it's all OK? What a load of shit. I'm sure the families of my victims can rest easy knowing I found God at the end while they continue to visit the graves of the family I stole from them.

I personally have a big dilemna with this myself as a death bed conversion could allow that person to go to heaven. It happened when Jesus was being crucified and the criminal being crucified with him truly believed he was God and God forgave him. As God sees all sin the same and it hurts him all the same. As much as humans like to score the level of wrong/sin/crime, God is not human and must see things differently. I believe God is infallable and is never wrong, therefore if He lets in a murderer turned believer then I must accept that. I do not believe too many deathbed conversions are real though, rather the fear in the possibility that God does exist.

Why do Non-Christians try so hard to disprove that God exists knowing that this will be impossible to prove? Believing in nothing or science is still a belief as much as believing in God. Much of science is theoritical and therefore unproven yet we believe it as those who speak it are wiser than us, much like God.

 

[Барбоса]

Much of science is theoritical and therefore unproven

Incorrect.

There is a big difference between the scientific meaning of theory and the normal meaning of the word.

There is nothing "theoretical" about the theories of evolution and relativity.

 

[Lowdown]

Chess and IDR bring up valid points. For non-believers, they want die-hard evidence to support beliefs or what has been documented as facts. Years ago I used to talk to Mormons (ordered the Book of Mormon) just looking for answers on religion and such. Now I know what I type might be contradictory, but I've stated that I do believe in God, but the things that have been written and prophecised are highly questionable. I do put faith in God, yet I can't explain the belief. I could say it was beaten into me at an early age, but I learned to question what I was taught as I got older. Most of the things we all do is considered a sin, usually simple pleasures like pre-marital sex, over-endulgence on vices and such. Something else I was raised to believe is that God gave us the free will to do as we choose, and that includes believing if He exists or not. I agree that in the murderer analogy that IDR used that bad people tend to find religion after they are faced with a severe punishment or imminent death. Where was all of this prior to committing the heinous acts? I'll even admit that I don't pray like I should; usually only in times of great distress. No one is perfect or an expert on the matter. Do Christians usually "turn the other cheek"? How about if that person's spouse is murdered, raped, etc? There's some kind of fine print to the words of the Bible.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

So the world as described in the Bible was created in 7 days, 2 Humans did populate the word and the entire world flooded? We know this is not true through science hence why I was saying that we should not take the Bible completely literally.

Yes, we know this is not true, because it's absurd. My point is, we don't' know any of the "truths" you are trying to insinuate in spite of this. Just because God didn't create the world in 7 days doesn't mean God created the world. Just because Adam and Eve didn't populate the earth didn't mean Adam and Eve existed.

Causation does not imply correlation.

For me if it feels wrong.....no pun intended, then it's probably a sin

Fair enough, perhaps I did judge them to determine that it is a sin, however I now chose not to treat them any differently than any other person, no matter what race, creed or sexual orientation they are. For me this is a good message that is portrayed in the Bible and is a message that society today still tries to spread with difficulty. Non Christians judge as much if not more than Christians yet they always complain about Christians judging people.

So how are you acting in accordance with the Bible? It says, very specifically, what to do with homosexuals:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."* (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)​

Or are you just going to fall back on the "it's not meant to be taken literally" cop out again?

In what way is this to be metaphorical? And in what way is that metaphor again, virtuous?

Non-Christians judging and/or complaining about Christians judging is about pointing out hypocrisy — as in the hypocrisy that Christians don't judge, when they're some of the most judgmental people on earth. Want modern proof of that? Chic-Fil-A.

I personally have a big dilemna with this myself as a death bed conversion could allow that person to go to heaven. It happened when Jesus was being crucified and the criminal being crucified with him truly believed he was God and God forgave him. As God sees all sin the same and it hurts him all the same. As much as humans like to score the level of wrong/sin/crime, God is not human and must see things differently. I believe God is infallable and is never wrong, therefore if He lets in a murderer turned believer then I must accept that. I do not believe too many deathbed conversions are real though, rather the fear in the possibility that God does exist.

To your first point:

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
- Gene Roddenberry

"Jesus' last words on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" hardly seem like the words of a man who planned it that way. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure there is something wrong here."
- Donald Morgan​

To your second:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]​

Why do Non-Christians try so hard to disprove that God exists knowing that this will be impossible to prove? Believing in nothing or science is still a belief as much as believing in God. Much of science is theoritical and therefore unproven yet we believe it as those who speak it are wiser than us, much like God.

Wrong. Dead wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

You are far too hung up on the rhetoric surrounding the term "theory".

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Chess and IDR bring up valid points. For non-believers, they want die-hard evidence to support beliefs or what has been documented as facts. Years ago I used to talk to Mormons (ordered the Book of Mormon) just looking for answers on religion and such. Now I know what I type might be contradictory, but I've stated that I do believe in God, but the things that have been written and prophecised are highly questionable. I do put faith in God, yet I can't explain the belief. I could say it was beaten into me at an early age, but I learned to question what I was taught as I got older. Most of the things we all do is considered a sin, usually simple pleasures like pre-marital sex, over-endulgence on vices and such. Something else I was raised to believe is that God gave us the free will to do as we choose, and that includes believing if He exists or not. I agree that in the murderer analogy that IDR used that bad people tend to find religion after they are faced with a severe punishment or imminent death. Where was all of this prior to committing the heinous acts? I'll even admit that I don't pray like I should; usually only in times of great distress. No one is perfect or an expert on the matter. Do Christians usually "turn the other cheek"? How about if that person's spouse is murdered, raped, etc? There's some kind of fine print to the words of the Bible.

Do you believe God is omniscient? If so, free will does not exist. This is basic logic.

 

[Lowdown]

Do you believe God is omniscient? If so, free will does not exist. This is basic logic.

I don't follow exactly. Keep in mind I am ignorant to many aspects of religion. I do believe God is omniscient. But what does that have to do with free will not existing? I just stated that that way how I was brought up. In no way am I stating that its a general rule or anything.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I don't follow exactly. Keep in mind I am ignorant to many aspects of religion. I do believe God is omniscient. But what does that have to do with free will not existing? I just stated that that way how I was brought up. In no way am I stating that its a general rule or anything.

It's a paradox.

Omniscience would mean God has unlimited knowledge, awareness and understanding. It means he knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen, so how do you have "free" will if he already knows what you'll pick?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. (Supposition of infallible foreknowledge as a subset of omniscience)
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. (Principle of the Necessity of the Past)
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. (1, 2)
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. (Definition of “infallibility&#8221
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. (Transfer of Necessity Principle)
6. So it is now-necessary that T. (3, 4, 5)
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then God cannot do otherwise. (Definition of “necessary&#8221
8. Therefore, God cannot do otherwise. (6, 7)
9. If God cannot do otherwise when God does an act, God does not act freely. (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
10. Therefore, when God does an act, God will not do it freely. (8, 9)
11. Therefore, an omniscient god cannot have free will. (1, 10)

Or you can use Dan Barker's more simplistic version:

1. God is defined as a personal being who knows everything.
2. Personal beings have free will.
3. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
4. A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty". It knows its choices in advance.
5. A being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will.
6. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
7. Therefore, a personal God does not exist.

 

[Slyfox696]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Why did I post that? Because.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Why did I post that? Because.

Because Epicurus had a fantastic beard, that is why you posted that

 

[Lowdown]

It's a paradox.

Omniscience would mean God has unlimited knowledge, awareness and understanding. It means he knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen, so how do you have "free" will if he already knows what you'll pick?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will



Or you can use Dan Barker's more simplistic version:

Just to be sure we're on the same page, are we talking about God having free will or us as humans? I originally was referring to the latter. However, I have always asked where exactly did God originate. Like was there another God or something like Him before that.

 

[Chess]

Originally Posted by It's Damn Real!
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."* (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Or are you just going to fall back on the "it's not meant to be taken literally" cop out again?

In what way is this to be metaphorical? And in what way is that metaphor again, virtuous?

At the time when it was written I guess this was the law of the land and therefore the author was expressing the norm of the time. Since then people have become more moderate and excepting and follow the more compassionate words of God. Generally The Old Testement is the more vengeful God who punishes the bad and talks about the past while the New Testement is more loving God who teaches us how we should act now and in the future. For me the New Testement is the message.

I am too high now to converse about the rest but random quotes from scholars will not change my beliefs. Even though I may not fully understand science (in fact I know shit all), my brother is a nuclear physicist at Oxford Uni and a much stronger believer in God than I am. That is enough for me to think that God can overcome the most scientific minds.

Each to their own..... and everyone enjoy your night!

 

[Slyfox696]

Because Epicurus had a fantastic beard, that is why you posted that

Who's Epicurus? Did he steal that quote from me?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Just to be sure we're on the same page, are we talking about God having free will or us as humans? I originally was referring to the latter. However, I have always asked where exactly did God originate. Like was there another God or something like Him before that.

Humans. Free will is associated with humans.

You can do a lot of research on this to get a better grasp of it. Just search for the "argument from free will" or "paradox of free will".

 

[It's Damn Real!]

At the time when it was written I guess this was the law of the land and therefore the author was expressing the norm of the time. Since then people have become more moderate and excepting and follow the more compassionate words of God. Generally The Old Testement is the more vengeful God who punishes the bad and talks about the past while the New Testement is more loving God who teaches us how we should act now and in the future. For me the New Testement is the message.

I am too high now to converse about the rest but random quotes from scholars will not change my beliefs. Even though I may not fully understand science (in fact I know shit all), my brother is a nuclear physicist at Oxford Uni and a much stronger believer in God than I am. That is enough for me to think that God can overcome the most scientific minds.

Each to their own..... and everyone enjoy your night!

So you have no interest in knowing the truth? Just what's convenient? Sure seems like it.

 

[Lowdown]

Humans. Free will is associated with humans.

You can do a lot of research on this to get a better grasp of it. Just search for the "argument from free will" or "paradox of free will".

Gotcha. Well I'm glad I'm not a Bible thumper. Do you believe that we have free will? I know how you feel about the ideals behind religion. We all make choices everyday. Some we might know the possible outcomes and others are up in the air. So in essence, if God is omniscient, even though we make our own decisions, the fact that in God's view our actions are predetermined, that takes away our free will?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Gotcha. Well I'm glad I'm not a Bible thumper. Do you believe that we have free will? I know how you feel about the ideals behind religion. We all make choices everyday. Some we might know the possible outcomes and others are up in the air. So in essence, if God is omniscient, even though we make our own decisions, the fact that in God's view our actions are predetermined, that takes away our free will?

No, because I don't believe in any gods, so why would I believe in free will?

But yes, if God knows what you are going to do, you never had a "choice" in the matter because you were never going to pick the "option".

 

[Tastycles]

No, because I don't believe in any gods, so why would I believe in free will?

How is that in anyway mutually exclusive? I don't like cricket, so why would I like tennis?

Once you start to strip away free will, you start to strip away responsibility. Given that the current most sophisticated quantum physics can't explain how a helium atom works, I think we've a long way to go before you can become reductionist about everything. Do I believe in free will? I'm not sure. Do I think it's in any way related to a greater moral being? No, probably not.

But yes, if God knows what you are going to do, you never had a "choice" in the matter because you were never going to pick the "option".

An omnipresent God would know what decision you made by free will, because he is present in all time and space. Therefore he knows the decision you make, because you have already made it in the fourth dimension. That doesn't mean he controlled it, it just means he knows what it is, because he exists in all time. Of course, Epicurius didn't know about General Relativity, which didn't allow this conclusion.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Yes, because I don't believe in any gods, so I believe in free will. Bitch.

Fixed.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

How is that in anyway mutually exclusive? I don't like cricket, so why would I like tennis?

Once you start to strip away free will, you start to strip away responsibility. Given that the current most sophisticated quantum physics can't explain how a helium atom works, I think we've a long way to go before you can become reductionist about everything. Do I believe in free will? I'm not sure. Do I think it's in any way related to a greater moral being? No, probably not.

When I talk about believing in free will, I am talking about the type associated with religion or dogma.

Do I believe that I act at my own discretion? Yes, to a point. I believe I act, for the most part, at my own discretion, and that that discretion is governed by the laws we, as a society, implement based on an inherent moral compass. Altrusim. I believe this because it's demonstrable.

An omnipresent God would know what decision you made by free will, because he is present in all time and space. Therefore he knows the decision you make, because you have already made it in the fourth dimension. That doesn't mean he controlled it, it just means he knows what it is, because he exists in all time. Of course, Epicurius didn't know about General Relativity, which didn't allow this conclusion.

And you know this, because? The fourth dimension is a cop out because it allows you to state something exists despite not having an ounce of empirical evidence to point to it. Russell's teapot. The burden of proof is on you to prove that God exists in order to support the argument that he/she/it lives in a dimension you can't point to.

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

 

[Tastycles]

When I talk about believing in free will, I am talking about the type associated with religion or dogma.

Do I believe that I act at my own discretion? Yes, to a point. I believe I act, for the most part, at my own discretion, and that that discretion is governed by the laws we, as a society, implement based on an inherent moral compass. Altrusim. I believe this because it's demonstrable.

So you do believe in free will? Because if a God is influencing you, that's not free will. What you've described is free will. And how laws governed by a society are any different to those governed by a religion are pretty similar.

And you know this, because? The fourth dimension is a cop out because it allows you to state something exists despite not having an ounce of empirical evidence to point to it. Russell's teapot. The burden of proof is on you to prove that God exists in order to support the argument that he/she/it lives in a dimension you can't point to.

The fourth dimension is time, as is clear if you have the vaguest understanding of what my post actually says. There's quite a lot of empirical evidence that proves the existence of time, if you'd like me to point you to some, notice that you haven't read the next sentence. And now you have.

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

Why 2 an axiom? It's pretty fucking clear from, say, every single religious text ever written that Gods are different to people, so three doesn't really follow even if two does.

Look, I'm not religious (see earlier post), but I don't see how this follows at all. It's the definition of a straw man argument.

 

[Барбоса]

An omnipresent God would know what decision you made by free will, because he is present in all time and space. Therefore he knows the decision you make, because you have already made it in the fourth dimension. That doesn't mean he controlled it, it just means he knows what it is, because he exists in all time.

But as the supreme creator of everything, He is the reason behind every choice you are faced with and as the architect of those choices as well as the One who knows what decision you are going to make before the choice has even been presented, regardless of dimensions, does the hypothetical existence of God not demand some level of predeterminism?

(That is about as philosophical as I have ever gotten - it was an unpleasant experience)

 

[Tastycles]

But as the supreme creator of everything, He is the reason behind every choice you are faced with and as the architect of those choices as well as the One who knows what decision you are going to make before the choice has even been presented, regardless of dimensions, does the hypothetical existence of God not demand some level of predeterminism?

(That is about as philosophical as I have ever gotten - it was an unpleasant experience)

Not at all. God being the supreme creator of everything does not mean that he is the necessary controller of everything - I created a random number generator in GCSE Electronics, it doesn't mean I know what number it is going to come next.

God could have created free will, and the way that human morality is shaped, especially in the punishments of the Old Testament, would suggest that he did do this. Questions of God and free will aren't easily settled.

The argument then is, could God create something he couldn't control, but even this doesn't kill free will. An omnipotent God needn't interfere, even if he can. Free will is therefore reducible to the point at which God could influence things but chooses not to.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

So you do believe in free will? Because if a God is influencing you, that's not free will. What you've described is free will. And how laws governed by a society are any different to those governed by a religion are pretty similar.

I believe in self governance and the concept of inherent morality (altrusim) and it's affect on a society. Not a one of them requires a deity.

The fourth dimension is time, as is clear if you have the vaguest understanding of what my post actually says. There's quite a lot of empirical evidence that proves the existence of time, if you'd like me to point you to some, notice that you haven't read the next sentence. And now you have.

Yes, there's quite a lot of empirical evidence that proves the existence of time. None of it, however, proves the existence of God, so when you inject that into the model, it's equally as irrelevant. It doesn't' matter what dimension you put him/her/it in — it's no different than me telling you that pixies exist, or that unicorns exist, or that Leprechauns exist. The onus is on me to prove it in whatever dimension would allow me to, not on you to disprove it as I'm the one making the claim.

Not at all. God being the supreme creator of everything does not mean that he is the necessary controller of everything - I created a random number generator in GCSE Electronics, it doesn't mean I know what number it is going to come next.

God could have created free will, and the way that human morality is shaped, especially in the punishments of the Old Testament, would suggest that he did do this. Questions of God and free will aren't easily settled.

The argument then is, could God create something he couldn't control, but even this doesn't kill free will. An omnipotent God needn't interfere, even if he can. Free will is therefore reducible to the point at which God could influence things but chooses not to.

In which case, he's malevolent. We've been over this with Epicurus earlier.