Religion

[MasterWeavile898]

Firstly, since when is this the abortion thread? I was simply utilizing the same example that was utilized towards me (And that sounds perfectly beautiful, thank you very much)

 

Also, HLN, your argument is a lesser of two evils argument, which disagrees with your point saying it isn't harmful at all (Unless I'm entirely misunderstanding your point, which is entirely possible, she still a bit out of sorts)

 

If there was a law stating that personal belief had to be kept out of lawmaking, would you all vote for it? (That's not feasible, but you know) Because it's your belief that personal beliefs should be kept out of lawmaking in the first place

 

And there can't be exceptions. There is no "Your belief needs to stay out unless it isn't harmful to others" Because what is and isn't harmful is an opinion

 

Anywhales, I am officially done with this argument and will not be replying to responses to it any longer. You all may believe as you like, as long as you don't restrict my rights to restrict your rights (Actually, do restrict my rights, like I said, I make decisions based upon the above question) And honestly, I have no cares for your opinions. As long as you realize that you're still making choices based on your opinions and beliefs, whether religious or not, I don't care what those beliefs are

 

@Backup

Or maybe we're all in one of the others' minds. Who's to say we're not figments of someone's imagination? That everything we do while we're not interacting with that person never actually happens, and we only remember it because it allows for that interaction (And we don't even really remember it, it's only actually there if it's relevant)

 

This entire website could just be in TJ's head and none of us could actually exist (Though I highly doubt that, a human mind is unlikely to sustain quite this level of cognition for this number of people)

 

Nothing can ever truly be proven, only disproven

 

Oh, and just in case anyone was wondering, I do actually believe in my existence, I just can't prove it

[Likewise]

Nothing can ever truly be proven, only disproven

False. 2 + 2 = 4. We can prove this. Say you have two apples. Now add two more apples. You can count the number of apples and observe that the number has increased to four. It's very simple.

 

While some may agree that it's philosophically correct to say nothing can ever be truly proven, to start with this assumption makes any and all inquiries to the nature of reality pointless. We have to start somewhere. In order to make a coherent argument, we have to assume that we exist. We have to assume our senses are mostly correct. If you can't do that then you have no where to go empirically. You are intellectually dead, at a stand still.

[Kiran]

Or maybe we're all in one of the others' minds. Who's to say we're not figments of someone's imagination? That everything we do while we're not interacting with that person never actually happens, and we only remember it because it allows for that interaction (And we don't even really remember it, it's only actually there if it's relevant)

 

Possible, but I still know that I, as a series of thoughts, exist in some form. I can't prove that anyone else exists, but I know that I exist.

 

((Sorry, this is getting off topic. Do we need a philosophy thread?))

[LadyFoxfire]

To prove your own existence... that's an odd one. Like I've heard some military drill sergeants say "pain is your friend; it lets you know you're still alive". If that's anything at all to go by, I suffer from migraines, therefore I exist?

 

I think a philosophy thread is in order. It would certainly prove interesting.

Edited February 24, 2014 by LadyFoxfire

[edwardelricfreak]

Well, there's already this thread, but it's not really the same thing. Maybe an "existence" thread or something would be okay? Maybe something having to do with perception/the mind.

 

I do think that abortion and existence (of self/other people) is getting slightly off topic. This thread is about Religion, specifically, not just any belief what-so-ever. I can see some laws-based-on-belief being on topic, since some have to do with specific religious beliefs, but not really existence? Unless you're talking about the existence of god(s), etc.

 

Maybe they are okay? Sometimes existence ties into religion.

 

I don't know any more.

[MasterWeavile898]

(I think there is one laying around here somewhere, IDK religion and philosophy go hand in hand)

 

Well, you believe you exist, but there is actually absolutely no way you can prove it. Though I concede that you can prove your existence to the point of being a strain of thoughts. But your existence is not a fact, it is but a belief

Edited February 24, 2014 by MasterWeavile898

[High Lord November]

Firstly, since when is this the abortion thread? I was simply utilizing the same example that was utilized towards me (And that sounds perfectly beautiful, thank you very much)

 

Also, HLN, your argument is a lesser of two evils argument, which disagrees with your point saying it isn't harmful at all (Unless I'm entirely misunderstanding your point, which is entirely possible, she still a bit out of sorts)

 

If there was a law stating that personal belief had to be kept out of lawmaking, would you all vote for it? (That's not feasible, but you know) Because it's your belief that personal beliefs should be kept out of lawmaking in the first place

 

And there can't be exceptions. There is no "Your belief needs to stay out unless it isn't harmful to others" Because what is and isn't harmful is an opinion

 

Anywhales, I am officially done with this argument and will not be replying to responses to it any longer. You all may believe as you like, as long as you don't restrict my rights to restrict your rights (Actually, do restrict my rights, like I said, I make decisions based upon the above question) And honestly, I have no cares for your opinions. As long as you realize that you're still making choices based on your opinions and beliefs, whether religious or not, I don't care what those beliefs are

 

@Backup

Or maybe we're all in one of the others' minds. Who's to say we're not figments of someone's imagination? That everything we do while we're not interacting with that person never actually happens, and we only remember it because it allows for that interaction (And we don't even really remember it, it's only actually there if it's relevant)

 

This entire website could just be in TJ's head and none of us could actually exist (Though I highly doubt that, a human mind is unlikely to sustain quite this level of cognition for this number of people)

 

Nothing can ever truly be proven, only disproven

 

Oh, and just in case anyone was wondering, I do actually believe in my existence, I just can't prove it

I was simply using the abortion argument to show the line between personal unsupported (i.e. religious) belief and forcing that on others, since it applied and you mentioned it.

 

I don't get where this "lesser of two evils" is coming in. I don't even know what you were responding to in regards to that.

 

Basically, when taking into account religious beliefs, you need to be aware that they are more unsupported and more personal than other ones, and should be kept personal. That's why there's a separation of church and state. The opinions that should be discussed are those with basing in real-life, and apply to everyone, regardless of religion.

 

And I find the line of thought you're following is pointless. What propose does it serve? Where is it going to lead? We can, to the best of our ability, prove something. We have to assume we exist in order to move forward. Opinions can be supported by trials, experiments, and evidence.

[KageSora]

Firstly, since when is this the abortion thread?

 

It's just a very handy choice to demonstrate the idea of creating laws based on religious belief, since the overwhelming majority of people who would vote to have such a law made happen to also be religious (specifically, some type of Christian).

 

All voting is, in some way, based on belief. However, there is a difference between voting somewhat based on belief (especially the belief that rights should minimally be restricted and really only where it begins to infringe on the rights of others) and voting in a way that will then force other people to abide by religious beliefs that belong to a religion that they don't follow.

[AlternatingMutt]

I knew for sure that there would be some philosophy related argument here. As soon as someone mentions God's word people would start to have a fight like kids with snowballs, but it's hateful.

 

I personally myself believe in the theist God, but not much of religion. My beliefs is like a combination of God and science. I believe that God created the Big Bang and kinda like programed all the particles to shape and form into matter such as planets, land masses, stars, living things, etc.. Thus, making those evolve for millions of years. He sits in Heaven awaiting his creations to die and spend time there in harmony. I do believe in reincarnation too, which makes me undecided about what happens when we die. Do our souls spend internal life in peace and happiness, or do we forget everything about our previous life and be born as a different life? No one knows until they die, but there has to be something after. I can't imagine nothingness after we die.

 

What's surprising is that I wasn't raised in a religious family. This all came to me from experience.

 

I find it offensive when people say "lol u dumbo religon iznt reel nu exceptons". No one knows what's real and what isn't religious-wise. It will be proven when you die, but you're dead so you can't record it.

 

I'm only here to drop this off and go. I will not reply to anyone who attempts to drag me into this argument unless they completely miss my point. I have no time and motivation to debate about religion, because I know nothing religious related can't be proven at this point. And it will probably will never be proven by the alive man for as long as mankind is alive.

Edited February 24, 2014 by AlternatingMutt

[KageSora]

I knew for sure that there would be some philosophy related argument here. As soon as someone mentions God's word people would start to have a fight like kids with snowballs, but it's hateful.

Just to point out, but a debate in which sides are disagreeing with each other does not automatically mean that they're fighting.

 

It's entirely possible to discuss and debate philosophy and religion without fighting about it. There are a lot of great things to be had from such discussions--plenty of people are able to get a better understanding of their own faith by explaining it to others, or doing deeper study of it in response to questions posed to them by those who don't share it, or who share a similar but somewhat differing view.

[edwardelricfreak]

I find it offensive when people say "lol u dumbo religon iznt reel nu exceptons".

But religion IS real. The debate is where a god or gods are real or not, not religion. c:

[Likewise]

No one knows until they die, but there has to be something after. I can't imagine nothingness after we die.

As an atheist who does not believe in the soul, I find it easiest to imagine that being dead is exactly what it is was like before I was born. Or to imagine a dreamless sleep. It's a bit frightening for creatures like us, who are used to existing, to imagine suddenly not. But as far as I can tell that's how it's going to be.

 

Always look on the bright side of life. Never hesitate to tell the ones you love how you feel. Try to be generous and do right by others. Do what makes you happy. Really, it's not so bad.

 

But religion IS real. The debate is where a god or gods are real or not, not religion. c:

 

Yeah, I don't think anyone here is debating that. One idea I've always found interesting is that a god or gods might exist, but we may not know about them because they don't care to be known. I think that's the deist idea of god. The god concept is independent of religion.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Likewise

[KageSora]

It's a bit frightening for creatures like us, who are used to existing, to imagine suddenly not. But as far as I can tell that's how it's going to be.

Personally, I don't find the idea of oblivion to be frightening. It's a bit comforting, actually. Sure there's nothing good in oblivion, but there's no pain or sadness, either. There isn't awareness. It's simply... Nothing. It's not possible to be aware of the passage of time, time itself no longer exists.

[Naruhina_94]

Nothing isn't better or worse than anything. Nothing is just... nothing. (Arya Stark)

I would prefer an oblivion.

[Awdz]

Found this on Reddit a while back, saved it 'cause it fits my feelings as well

The reasons I left the faith are twofold, mostly.

Growing up, I was subject to the stereotypical "God is good and forgiving" line that is tantamount to modern day apologia.

I was taught Creationism, and some of the evidence was really convincing, to be honest. It made me question some of the evolutionary teachings I had heard in school, and I had to truly re-evaluate what I believed.

Then, at some point, it just clicked. It doesn't matter if you think God is real, it matters if you think God is worth following and supporting.

As I read through scripture, I was confronted with story after story that demonstrated, to me, the behaviour of an all-powerful kindergartener, not a loving deity.

I realized that in the case of the Garden, assuming it's true, we were set up to fail.

We were held accountable, as a species, for believing a lie. Humans, according to scripture, had never been subject to deception before. Literally, before the serpent, 100% of what Adam and Eve had heard was true. There was no reason to doubt the serpent, because skepticism comes with knowledge.

Then there was the fact that humans were punished, for "sinning."

I had two problems with that.

If they hadn't eaten from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," then by definition they didn't know right from wrong. It's irreconcilable. And punishing someone for a crime they didn't understand isn't gracious.

If Eve, by eating the fruit, introduced Original Sin into the world, then there's a whole mess of other problems. For instance, that means that the serpent lying and tempting wasn't a sin. If the serpent lying and tempting wasn't a sin, then Lucifer rebelling against God in the first place wasn't a sin. If rebelling against God wasn't a sin, then questioning and doubting God wasn't a sin. And if questioning and doubting God wasn't a sin, then salvation is unnecessary.

Then there's the image of God as a father figure. I like to make an analogy in this case.

If you had a two year old kid, then there's a pretty good chance that they don't fully understand right and wrong yet. That's a pretty good comparison for Adam and Eve, being as they hadn't yet eaten from the tree of knowledge.

Now, as a responsible parent, you tell the kid not to touch the stove, which is on. You tell them that touching it will burn them, and it will hurt. You step out to make a call, and leave the stove on. This is a fair comparison for leaving the tree in the garden unattended.

Enter me. I'll be the serpent in this one. I go to your kid, and tell them that touching the stove won't actually hurt. You were mistaken. I say to touch the stove. You know what the kid does? They touch the stove. They are inclined to believe me.

Here's the part where humanity surpassed God in grace. You know what you do when your kid burns themselves? You bandage them. You kiss their boo-boo. You explain that there are people out there who you mustn't believe, and tell them to learn from the experience.

You know what you don't do? You don't kick them out. You don't cut off their college fund, or subject them to the horrors of working in the adult world. You don't curse them.

You yell at me. I'm the one responsible for your child's injuries, not the child.

If God were a parent worth having, he would have done the same. Instead, he did everything on the "don't" list, times a hundred.

That was hard for me to accept.

But there's more.

The Tower of Babel.

This was really one of the final straws for me.

In the passage, God says:

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

As a parent, you're preparing your child to succeed without you. It's the point. You want them to be self-sufficient. It's the measuring stick of a parent, how their child fares without them. That's not what happens here.

God is made insecure by humans capabilities. So he cheats. He breaks down their ability to communicate. Petty. It's tantamount to changing the answers on your kids homework because they no longer need your help with it.

That would make you a bad parent, so why is it "good" if the Almighty does it?

Then there's the salvation story.

According to this source, the number of people who have existed is 107,602,707,791. That's mind-boggling.

Now, I'm going to be very generous here. Let's assume that half of everyone went to heaven. That means, by default, that an equal half went to hell. That's over fifty billion souls, burning eternally.

And for what? Free will?

I ask you this: is free will worth it? I can only speak for myself, but if giving up my ability to make independent decisions meant that just one person would be spared that torment, I'd do it in a heart-beat.

And lets be honest here. God doesn't really want free will anyway. The Tower of Babel demonstrates that unequivocally. When we "choose" something that's displeasing, he intervenes and cheats.

That means that fifty billion people are burning for the illusion of choice, so that his "praises" are a little more convincing.

He created, and doomed, a sentient species just to get an ego boost. How could I justify following someone who seemed so needy and petty?

I can't.

Then there's the Egyptian story.

One man, the Pharaoh, speaks for an entire people. God, when he doesn't get what he wants, kills all the firstborn of a people who didn't make the decision.

Let that sink in for a moment.

You wouldn't support a guerrilla fighter who massacred children to get what they wanted, so how could you support a god that did the same thing?

Then there's the gap between the Fall and Jesus.

Being conservative here, going off Creationism, lets say it's roughly 4,000 years. That's four thousand years worth of people who were doomed to burn for the misfortune of being born outside of the Jewish people.

The Jews, by the way, are another evidence against a gracious God.

He chose one people, and favored them. He intervened in war and such, causing countless deaths against other people. He helped them take land, and encouraged them to kill the children of their enemies.

How gracious is that? It's like a child, playing army. He chooses one side, and stacks the deck against all others.

Not all-loving, that.

Then there's the shear inefficiency of spreading the Gospel via humans. What about people in Africa who died the day after Jesus was crucified?

What was their sin? Being born in the wrong place? Not having internet?

Assuming God is all-powerful, there's no excuse for taking 4,000 years to rectify the issue, nor is there an excuse for allowing such rectification to take so long, given that it's human souls on the line.

In short, there's no way I could ever respect God as an equal to humanity, much less revere him as our superior. Simply put, we're better than him.

And there's no way I could dedicate my life to someone or something so temperamental, selfish, needy, lazy, infanticidal, and generally unloving as the Christian God.

As a Christian, I find that to be an extremely biased misrepresentation of Christianity, though to be fair, it does say the person was taught Creationism.

 

In my faith, I see this world as a sort of training ground/classroom for our real (next) life. In the same way that a child cannot write a novel without first learning their ABC's, I believe we are here to learn about choices and consequences so that in the next life we can use our free will for something much more.

 

We do not really know what happens to those who choose not to love God, or even to those who do. We are taught there is a place in heaven with God for those who love God, but what does that really mean? All I have is a clear sense that it is much, much better with God, but no real details/facts.

 

How is a young student supposed to understand the methods teachers employ to help them learn? In some cases, they are lucky just to figure out the material presented. Lord knows there are many concepts I have had a hard time wrapping my brain around, even when presented clearly.

 

In short, from our limited, ignorant perspective, I do not think we can possibly have enough information to presume to judge God. But, since God gave us free will, you have the choice to do so if you really want to.

 

Edit: Got the christian god's name wrong. :/

Well, nice of you to try to be considerate, but I know God as "God," "Jesus," or "Lord."

 

To insist Christians should use "Yahweh," is like telling my son to use my legal name when referring to me. The name "Mom" is not only one he relates more readily with me, it connotates a much, much closer relationship with me than any use of my legal name will. So, yeah, as a Christian, I prefer to use "God."

Edited February 25, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins

[BlitzDrake]

In short, from our limited, ignorant perspective, I do not think we can possibly have enough information to presume to judge God.  But, since God gave us free will, you have the choice to do so if you really want to.

Ah the free-will argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

It is also written that I was given free will with which to choose if I will go to hell or not. How can you possibly deem something free when you must fear consequences? That completely conflicts with the definition of free. If I were to hold a gun to your head and say “you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you.” Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter? Of course not. Free means to give or receive something without an expectation of return. The whole free will concept is self-defeating.

Edited February 25, 2014 by BlightWyvern

[Awdz]

Ah the free-will argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

   It is also written that I was given free will with which to choose if I will go to hell or not.  How can you possibly deem something free when you must fear consequences?  That completely conflicts with the definition of free.  If I were to hold a gun to your head and say “you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you.”  Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter?  Of course not.  Free means to give or receive something without an expectation of return.  The whole free will concept is self-defeating.

I never said we require free will to be happy, only that God created us with free will. I also said we are here to learn the consequences of our choices; the better use of our free will is in the next life. And fear of the consequences may help us to make healthier choices.

 

I disagree that free means to give or receive without expectation of return. In this context, free means possible, not prevented.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins

[BlitzDrake]

Yes but you claim god gives people free will.

Excuses don't fly. The Christian proposes that a supremely powerful being exists who wants us to set things right, and therefore doesn't want us to get things even more wrong. This is an intelligible hypothesis, which predicts there should be no more confusion about which religion or doctrine is true than there is about the fundamentals of medicine, engineering, physics, chemistry, or even meteorology. It should be indisputably clear what God wants us to do, and what he doesn't want us to do. Any disputes that might still arise about that would be as easily and decisively resolved as any dispute between two doctors, chemists, or engineers as to the right course to follow in curing a patient, identifying a chemical, or designing a bridge. Yet this is not what we observe. Instead, we observe exactly the opposite: unresolvable disagreement and confusion. That is clearly a failed prediction. A failed prediction means a false theory. Therefore, Christianity is false.

 

Typically, Christians try to make excuses for God that protect our free will. Either the human will is more powerful than the will of God, and therefore can actually block his words from being heard despite all his best and mighty efforts, or God cares more about our free choice not to hear him than about saving our souls, and so God himself "chooses" to be silent. Of course, there is no independent evidence of either this remarkable human power to thwart God, or this peculiar desire in God, and so this is a completely "ad hoc" theory: something just "made up" out of thin air in order to rescue the actual theory that continually fails to fit the evidence. But for reasons you can't just "claim" they are true. Truth is not invented. It can only be discovered. Otherwise, Christianity is just a hypothesis that has yet to find sufficient confirmation in actual evidence.

Be that as it may. Though "maybe, therefore probably" is not a logical way to arrive at any belief, let's assume the Christian can somehow "prove" (with objective evidence everyone can agree is relevant and true) that we have this power or God has this desire. Even on that presumption, there are unsolvable problems with this "additional" hypothesis. Right from the start, it fails to explain why believers disagree. The fact that believers can't agree on the content of God's message or desires also refutes the theory that he wants us to be clear on these things. This failed prediction cannot be explained away by any appeal to free will--for these people have chosen to hear God, and not only to hear him, but to accept Jesus Christ as the shepherd of their very soul. So no one can claim these people chose not to hear God

 

Also, if the bible is the “holy” book of God but man wrote it, and man is not holy, therefore doesn’t that make the bible desecrated by being written/published by man? Each “rewrote” copy is altered more and more, and with that comes changes that may alter things almost completely. These could have been altered by mistranslations, man wanting to use this for their own political gain, etc.

 

[Awdz]

Yes but you claim god gives people free will.

Excuses don't fly. The Christian proposes that a supremely powerful being exists who wants us to set things right, and therefore doesn't want us to get things even more wrong. This is an intelligible hypothesis, which predicts there should be no more confusion about which religion or doctrine is true than there is about the fundamentals of medicine, engineering, physics, chemistry, or even meteorology. It should be indisputably clear what God wants us to do, and what he doesn't want us to do. Any disputes that might still arise about that would be as easily and decisively resolved as any dispute between two doctors, chemists, or engineers as to the right course to follow in curing a patient, identifying a chemical, or designing a bridge. Yet this is not what we observe. Instead, we observe exactly the opposite: unresolvable disagreement and confusion. That is clearly a failed prediction. A failed prediction means a false theory. Therefore, Christianity is false.

 

Typically, Christians try to make excuses for God that protect our free will. Either the human will is more powerful than the will of God, and therefore can actually block his words from being heard despite all his best and mighty efforts, or God cares more about our free choice not to hear him than about saving our souls, and so God himself "chooses" to be silent. Of course, there is no independent evidence of either this remarkable human power to thwart God, or this peculiar desire in God, and so this is a completely "ad hoc" theory: something just "made up" out of thin air in order to rescue the actual theory that continually fails to fit the evidence. But for reasons you can't just "claim" they are true. Truth is not invented. It can only be discovered. Otherwise, Christianity is just a hypothesis that has yet to find sufficient confirmation in actual evidence.

Be that as it may. Though "maybe, therefore probably" is not a logical way to arrive at any belief, let's assume the Christian can somehow "prove" (with objective evidence everyone can agree is relevant and true) that we have this power or God has this desire. Even on that presumption, there are unsolvable problems with this "additional" hypothesis. Right from the start, it fails to explain why believers disagree. The fact that believers can't agree on the content of God's message or desires also refutes the theory that he wants us to be clear on these things. This failed prediction cannot be explained away by any appeal to free will--for these people have chosen to hear God, and not only to hear him, but to accept Jesus Christ as the shepherd of their very soul. So no one can claim these people chose not to hear God

 

Also, if the bible is the “holy” book of God but man wrote it, and man is not holy, therefore doesn’t that make the bible desecrated by being written/published by man? Each “rewrote” copy is altered more and more, and with that comes changes that may alter things almost completely. These could have been altered by mistranslations, man wanting to use this for their own political gain, etc.

By "The Christian," you are stereotyping. Please clarify which Christian you mean, because if you are referring to me, you are not accurate.

 

"Supremely powerful being" does not need us to "set things right" - God can do that. I do not know why God created us with free will, but I understand the need to teach us of the consequences of our choices before we can move to the next stage of our development/learning (in my belief, the next stage is in our next life).

 

Stating what "should" be implies you know exactly what God's intent and goals are with regard to humanity. Somehow I doubt that is the case.

 

As for why believers disagree? Ask ten people to describe an event they all witnessed simultaneously, and you will get ten very different descriptions. Each person's relationship with God is specific to them, so of course it will be different for different people.

 

I have said before that I do not take literal translations of the Bible as accurate. The stories/teachings/etc. must be studied in context to be understood properly, with the intent known. Classic example: In the Old Testament, the law says a man who rapes a virgin must take her for his wife. Today we would consider it horrifying to force a woman to be wife to a rapist. Back then, a deflowered woman was considered unfit for marriage; the law was intended to hold the man responsible for his action (he could not divorce her) and have him support her for the rest of her life. Today, instead of forcing the marriage, the convicted rapist pays in different ways.

 

You are correct that interpretations of the scripture and how they are applied are subject to error and misuse. Thus, the need to study them as best we are able and in relationship with God (prayer has many reasons, this is one of them). I do prefer the NRSV, as it had a large team of folks studying/translating to minimize subjective errors.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins

[Kiran]

In my faith, I see this world as a sort of training ground/classroom for our real (next) life. In the same way that a child cannot write a novel without first learning their ABC's, I believe we are here to learn about choices and consequences so that in the next life we can use our free will for something much more.

The world seems to me to be nothing like a classroom. In a classroom, you at least try to make things fair for the students. The real world is ridiculously unfair. We've got people who were born into wealth yet don't work for anything alongside orphans who starve to death at the age of eight after a life of hardship. So many horrible things happen to people, and they can't control those things. Why would disease exist in a 'classroom'? How is killing someone with an insect-spread disease teaching them about consequences or choices?

[BlitzDrake]

By "The Christian," you are stereotyping.  Please clarify which Christian you mean, because if you are referring to me, you are not accurate.

 

"Supremely powerful being" does not need us to "set things right" - God can do that.  I do not know why God created us with free will, but I understand the need to teach us of the consequences of our choices before we can move to the next stage of our development/learning (in my belief, the next stage is in our next life).

 

Stating what "should" be implies you know exactly what God's intent and goals are with regard to humanity.  Somehow I doubt that is the case.

 

As for why believers disagree?  Ask ten people to describe an event they all witnessed simultaneously, and you will get ten very different descriptions.  Each person's relationship with God is specific to them, so of course it will be different for different people.

 

I have said before that I do not take literal translations of the Bible as accurate.  The stories/teachings/etc. must be studied in context to be understood properly, with the intent known.  Classic example:  In the Old Testament, the law says a man who rapes a virgin must take her for his wife.  Today we would consider it horrifying to force a woman to be wife to a rapist.  Back then, a deflowered woman was considered unfit for marriage; the law was intended to hold the man responsible for his action (he could not divorce her) and have him support her for the rest of her life.  Today, instead of forcing the marriage, the convicted rapist pays in different ways.

 

You are correct that interpretations of the scripture and how they are applied are subject to error and misuse.  Thus, the need to study them as best we are able and in relationship with God (prayer has many reasons, this is one of them).

In general, yes, I'm stereotyping the majority, or rather, from the experiences I have been given from such. No I do not believe everyone follows the exact mindset, there are exceptions.

 

So why hasn't he?

Shouldn't morals and understanding repercussions of our actions not stem solely from religion? I know many atheists families and the like that are just as good and just as "christians" I also know there are many that are not.

 

I merely am attempting to piece together the occurrences/actions in a logical manner.

 

And isn't that something that god SHOULD NOT want? People to disagree about what his message is? ) that we have this power or God has this desire to "fix" what "we" screwed up. To bring "his" people back to "him". Even on that presumption, there are unsolvable problems with this "additional" hypothesis. Right from the start, it fails to explain why believers disagree. The fact that believers can't agree on the content of God's message or desires also refutes the theory that he wants us to be clear on these things. Shouldn't god WANT people to come back to him, shouldn't he, for those that are not his followers and those that are, to agree, ALL of them, on the context of what he want?

 

So just how literal and when should we take the bible literal? Dr. Craig and other apologists often want parts of it to be taken very literally indeed (e.g., the discovery of the empty tomb on Easter morning by women followers of Jesus). Apologists cannot take scripture literally when it is ideologically convenient but as myth, allegory, or symbol when it is not. We need a consistent and independently justified set of interpretive principles. However, even if we do take the horrific passages as myth or metaphor, their spirit is still cruel and vindictive, and they still merit the censure so eloquently expressed by Paine.

 

*If anything is read out of context it taken very wrong if read without the other parts.

Edited February 25, 2014 by BlightWyvern

[Awdz]

The world seems to me to be nothing like a classroom. In a classroom, you at least try to make things fair for the students. The real world is ridiculously unfair. We've got people who were born into wealth yet don't work for anything alongside orphans who starve to death at the age of eight after a life of hardship. So many horrible things happen to people, and they can't control those things. Why would disease exist in a 'classroom'? How is killing someone with an insect-spread disease teaching them about consequences or choices?

In public schools, there is a mix of students from different backgrounds and home environments. Not all are ready to learn from the same methods or at the same rate.

 

That said, I have no idea why people come into this world where/how they do, or why they are subjected to different things. Part of my faith is trusting that God, being omniscient of more than just this world, knows the best way to teach us. So I am sorry, but I cannot answer the questions you ask, because I do not know.

[BlitzDrake]

In public schools, there is a mix of students from different backgrounds and home environments. Not all are ready to learn from the same methods or at the same rate.

Or maybe some don't want the lessons their teacher is giving so they go to look for lessons that suit them better or they feel compelled to take over the current ones.

[Awdz]

In general, yes, I'm stereotyping the majority, or rather, from the experiences I have been given from such. No I do not believe everyone follows the exact mindset, there are exceptions.

 

So why hasn't he?

If a teacher simply reads to a child, but never has them try to read for themselves, how well will that child learn to read?

 

Shouldn't morals and understanding repercussions of our actions not stem solely from religion? I know many atheists families and the like that are just as good and just as "christians" I also know there are many that are not.

 

I merely am attempting to piece together the occurrences/actions in a logical manner.

I think the best choices are easier to come to from a healthy relationship with God. Does a child make better cookies playing in a mud puddle or with Mom guiding the child through a recipe?

 

And isn't that something that god SHOULD NOT want? People to disagree about what his message is? ) that we have this power or God has this desire to "fix" what "we" screwed up. To bring "his" people back to "him". Even on that presumption, there are unsolvable problems with this "additional" hypothesis. Right from the start, it fails to explain why believers disagree. The fact that believers can't agree on the content of God's message or desires also refutes the theory that he wants us to be clear on these things. Shouldn't god WANT people to come back to him, shouldn't he, for those that are not his followers and those that are, to agree,  ALL of them, on the context of what he want?

Actually, I think people disagreeing on what God wants is healthy on a variety of levels.

- First, for the individual relationship to be known - do all children give their parents the same thing for a gift or receive only identical things as gifts from them? Each person is unique and thus develops a unique relationship with God.

- Second, to understand how to resolve/accept differences in approach. Some people pray silently, some pray through song, some pray like they are reciting. None of those approaches are wrong, just different.

- Third, to force us to take a look at our own relationship with God and see where we can improve it.

 

I could come up with more if I think about it longer, but the main thrust of my faith is that God wants each of us to have a healthy relationship (individual and community) with God.

 

So just how literal and when should we take the bible literal? Dr. Craig and other apologists often want parts of it to be taken very literally indeed (e.g., the discovery of the empty tomb on Easter morning by women followers of Jesus). Apologists cannot take scripture literally when it is ideologically convenient but as myth, allegory, or symbol when it is not. We need a consistent and independently justified set of interpretive principles. However, even if we do take the horrific passages as myth or metaphor, their spirit is still cruel and vindictive, and they still merit the censure so eloquently expressed by Paine.

 

*If anything is read out of context it taken very wrong if read without the other parts.

Things cited as facts and historically supported (e.g., the temple was destroyed and Israelites taken captive), I would take as fact. Things told as stories intended to teach a lesson (e.g., Jesus's parables), I would look at the context very closely to try to understand what the true message is. Where it gets hazy for me, is where the apparent directions do not match what I understand of God (e.g., slaughter of natives to take their land vs. God's love for all). I kind of chalk that up to not knowing what happens after folks die, to their eternal soul, and trusting that God takes appropriate care of them from the omniscient perspective (which I lack).

Edited February 25, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins

[BlitzDrake]

If a teacher simply reads to a child, but never has them try to read, how well will that child learn?

 

 

Actually, I think people disagreeing on what God wants is healthy on a variety of levels.

- First, for the individual relationship to be known - do all children give their parents the same thing for a gift or receive only identical things as gifts from them?  Each person is unique and thus develops a unique relationship with God.

- Second, to understand how to resolve/accept differences in approach.  Some people pray silently, some pray through song, some pray like they are reciting.  None of those approaches are wrong, just different.

- Third, to force us to take a look at our own relationship with God and see where we can improve it.

I could come up with more if I think about it longer, but the main thrust of my faith is that God wants each of us to have a healthy relationship (individual and community) with God.

 

Things cited as facts and historically supported (e.g., the temple was destroyed and Israelite taken captive), I would take as fact.  Things told as stories intended to teach a lesson (e.g., Jesus's parables), I would look at the context very closely to try to understand what the true message is.  Where it gets hazy for me, is where the apparent directions do not match what I understand of God (slaughter of natives to take their land vs. God's love for all).  I kind of chalk that up to not knowing what happens after folks die, to their eternal soul, and trusting that God takes appropriate care of them from the omniscient perspective (which I lack).

Or maybe said teacher does not give an explanation to the story other than "the story says this" and fails to elaborate otherwise. You just have to have faith though! God has given someone a mind to use and now it’s being asked to be closed when it comes to religion? One has to understand what one is thinking, thinking critically not a bad thing. Usually this is said (You just need to have faith) when someone is stumped, it is more of a cop out. Or to put it more simply, they actually mean: “there’s no answer for that, I just believe it because I like it or it makes me feel good”.

 

Never said that everyone relationship with god was the same. I know everyone grew up with a story of how they came to the faith.

So, again, why doesn't god give a clear cut way to him rather than "playing with" the lives of those that didn't have anyone to preach to them about god for?

So then this goes back to people and their free will, them giving the choice to come to god or not.

 

According to this source, the number of people who have existed is 107,602,707,791. That's mind-boggling.

Now, I'm going to be very generous here. Let's assume that half of everyone went to heaven. That means, by default, that an equal half went to hell. That's over fifty billion souls, burning eternally.

And for what? Free will?

I ask you this: is free will worth it? I can only speak for myself, but if giving up my ability to make independent decisions meant that just one person would be spared that torment, I'd do it in a heart-beat.

And lets be honest here. God doesn't really want free will anyway. The Tower of Babel demonstrates that unequivocally. When we "choose" something that's displeasing, he intervenes and cheats.

That means that fifty billion people are burning for the illusion of choice, so that his "praises" are a little more convincing.

He created, and doomed, a sentient species just to get an ego boost. How could I justify following someone who seemed so needy and petty?

Then there's the shear inefficiency of spreading the Gospel via humans. What about people in Africa who died the day after Jesus was crucified?

What was their sin? Being born in the wrong place? Not having internet?

Edited February 25, 2014 by BlightWyvern