What is your religion?

[Chuckrock]

Boy, I would have to agree with Aldin, it does move way fast. I think it may be an issue of explanation. Everything seems to have to be explained. If that's the case, there is NO supernatural, it's all explainable and therefore controllable.

[jaques]

I wonder if we could split off the creation/evolution debate into its own thread. There doesn't seem to be any real discussion of religion going on in that part of the conversation (as interesting as it may be), and I think it might be easier for all involved to follow the weave of the dialogue if we were having two separate dialogues on two separate threads, instead of mixing them both here.

[jaques]

According to my faith, they are equally wrong in God's eyes. Neither one is the way to heaven, as that can only be obtained through accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. Have you ever heard of the saying, you cannot earn your way into heaven? That is what it is talking about. Again, this is according to the doctorine of my faith and as unpopular as it is to say, I do stand by it.


You said earlier that God sees into a person's heart and makes his judgment based on that, not upon what the person claims to believe.

Is it possible that a person might be consciously skeptical of or outright opposed to the Christian faith, and yet also hold in his or her heart a worldview that embodies what God really meant by the words in the Bible?

For instance, suppose that a person of deep moral character started off as a Christian, and was so alienated by the unChristian behavior of some of his fellow Christians that he became skeptical and turned to atheism or agnosticism. But in his heart, what changed this person from an active believer to a "nonbeliever" was not anything to do with his relationship with God, but his mortal, fallible tendency to be affected by the material actions of his co-religionists in the church.

Could it not be argued, and would God not perceive, that in his heart, this person remained a true Christian, living according to the values of forgiveness and peace and charity, while only in the rational part of his mind he would be categorized as a nonbeliever?

[theats]

If one abandons his beleifs, that God is the creator, et cetera... Then He was never truly saved. If you TRULY believe, then you would never back down from your beliefs.

The man in the above claim would not enter heaven,a s he didn't TRULY believe in a personal God.

[Dictatorbilbo]

I promised myself I wouldn't come back here... Oh well...

What about someone who performed all of the actions that would normally indicate a God-fearing Christian (going to church, helping the homeless, becoming a priest/nun, going on missions), but really, deep down, didn't believe in God?

[theats]

I promised myself I wouldn't come back here... Oh well...

What about someone who performed all of the actions that would normally indicate a God-fearing Christian (going to church, helping the homeless, becoming a priest/nun, going on missions), but really, deep down, didn't believe in God?

That is what we call hypocrites. One who hides behind a mask. They have a place in hell.

[Dictatorbilbo]

I promised myself I wouldn't come back here... Oh well...

What about someone who performed all of the actions that would normally indicate a God-fearing Christian (going to church, helping the homeless, becoming a priest/nun, going on missions), but really, deep down, didn't believe in God?

That is what we call hypocrites. One who hides behind a mask. They have a place in hell.

So that person is no better off than a nonbeliever who did none of that?

[theats]

I promised myself I wouldn't come back here... Oh well...

What about someone who performed all of the actions that would normally indicate a God-fearing Christian (going to church, helping the homeless, becoming a priest/nun, going on missions), but really, deep down, didn't believe in God?

That is what we call hypocrites. One who hides behind a mask. They have a place in hell.

So that person is no better off than a nonbeliever who did none of that?

ther is no in between. just heaven and hell. Please direct me as to where "purgatory" is mentioned in the bible.

[Dictatorbilbo]

What is your opinion regarding Mother Teresa?

[theats]

What is your opinion regarding Mother Teresa?

My opinion is that she was a great christian women, and just as all christians, they go through points in their spiritual journey were they do question their faith, but in the end, she won out. She lived her life to what I believe is the best she could have.

[Grishnakh]

.....If you TRULY believe, then you would never back down from your beliefs.....

This sums up the Christian point of view very nicely, thanks for stating it theats. And this is why I'm bowing out of this conversation after my brief appearance. There is no real point in continuing it. Good luck everyone.

[Revdyer]

Sorry, theats, but I must disagree with the whole thrust of your recent postings. God loves us, no matter what. God saves us, no matter what. God is not a murderer, especially not in the eternal sense. Otherwise, this God is small, selfish, and stupid; and that is not a God that lifts from me any praise at all. Or, if you would listen to the Scriptural references, "God is love." And, "In God there is no darkness at all." For God to condemn and destroy people is darkness. It is not in my God.

[theats]

Sorry, theats, but I must disagree with the whole thrust of your recent postings. God loves us, no matter what. God saves us, no matter what. God is not a murderer, especially not in the eternal sense. Otherwise, this God is small, selfish, and stupid; and that is not a God that lifts from me any praise at all. Or, if you would listen to the Scriptural references, "God is love." And, "In God there is no darkness at all." For God to condemn and destroy people is darkness. It is not in my God.

I was only asserting that Hypocrites do not h ave a place in heaven, nor do those that speak against God. One Key factor though, is Grace. By God's grace all can be wiped clean. Does that sound a bit better, rev?

[Revdyer]

Sorry, theats, but I must disagree with the whole thrust of your recent postings. God loves us, no matter what. God saves us, no matter what. God is not a murderer, especially not in the eternal sense. Otherwise, this God is small, selfish, and stupid; and that is not a God that lifts from me any praise at all. Or, if you would listen to the Scriptural references, "God is love." And, "In God there is no darkness at all." For God to condemn and destroy people is darkness. It is not in my God.

I was only asserting that Hypocrites do not h ave a place in heaven, nor do those that speak against God. One Key factor though, is Grace. By God's grace all can be wiped clean. Does that sound a bit better, rev?A bit, yes. Motes and beams...we all have the problem.

[theats]

Motes and beams...

Pardon?

[Revdyer]

You know that story in the New Testament about the woman that they caught right in the act of adultery and how they brought her to Jesus to see if he'd say to kill her as the law said to do? Look at who gave her forgiveness (when Jesus prompted them) first and who gave forgiveness last.

Oh...and there's that story Jesus told about how to remove splinters from other people's eyes...motes and beams.

[theats]

You know that story in the New Testament about the woman that they caught right in the act of adultery and how they brought her to Jesus to see if he'd say to kill her as the law said to do? Look at who gave her forgiveness (when Jesus prompted them) first and who gave forgiveness last.

Oh...and there's that story Jesus told about how to remove splinters from other people's eyes...motes and beams.

Oh, I go got it. Didn't know what a mote was, and, recently coming of a halo spree, my mind jumped to laser beams.

As far as when the woman was brought to jesus, I would like to use this in comparison to now. The pharisees only attempted to trick Jesus up, that is the only reason that they always asked him questions. Also, someone made a point on how we should be more knowledgable on our faith. It does pay to know about the bible, but its the application of the knowledge thats important, not the wealth of it.

[jaques]

its the application of the knowledge thats important, not the wealth of it.

I'm glad you've made it your mission to prove this point, Theats. :wink:

(Okay, that was pretty evil, but I couldn't resist.) :twisted:

[theats]

its the application of the knowledge thats important, not the wealth of it.

I'm glad you've made it your mission to prove this point, Theats. :wink:

(Okay, that was pretty evil, but I couldn't resist.) :twisted:

Are you attempting to insult my intellect? :lol:

This is quite possibly the most grammatically correct post that I have made on this website thus far.

[jaques]

its the application of the knowledge thats important, not the wealth of it.

I'm glad you've made it your mission to prove this point, Theats. :wink:

(Okay, that was pretty evil, but I couldn't resist.) :twisted:

Are you attempting to insult my intellect? :lol:

This is quite possibly the most grammatically correct post that I have made on this website thus far.

No, I was not attempting to insult it. :twisted:

Just kidding. You're right about one thing -- both of those sentences were pretty well constructed. Glad to see you're up to it. :)

[Dictatorbilbo]

One thing I don't understand is why a God would want belief so badly...

[Bloody the Marro Stinger]

One thing I don't understand is why a God would want belief so badly...
God has no power if people don't believe in him...

[Jotun]

I honestly just do not understand what creationists are wanting to see.
The same thing that Darwin wanted to see. If its not a big deal, why did he mention it as a problem? (I'm reading your link. I'll respond after I've read it.)

Kent Hovind was quite a creep. He got his Phd and M.A. from Patriot Bible University, a diploma mill. ...These people are con artists in every way.
See, this is where we have a problem. Why do you continually do this? Jerry Falwell, Kent Hovind, etc. etc. It's logical fallacy. You try to discredit ideas by listing off "creeps." I'll bet there are some atheists out there who have dodged taxes. I guess that means all atheists are dishonest. Also, your claim that Hovind is one of the "leading" creationist thinkers is, to put it bluntly, deceitful. There are many creationists who disagree with his claims.

As you paint believers and their views with the broad "Kent Hovind brush" what do you to say about Francis Collins, who believes in evolution, and led the Human Genome Project, which successfully mapped the genome? He was an atheist who now believes in God because of science. Another con man?
Not every believer is young earth, tax evading, science hater.
Just something to consider.

Kent Hovind has lots of movies out and some books. I don't think it is deceitful to say that Hovind is a leading creationist thinker. He does creationism seminars, releases many creationist movies and even participates in mildly high profile debates with people like Michael Shermer, among other things. He was even on the Ali G Show as a creationist expert. Maybe instead of leading creationist thinker I should have said "very visible creationist spokesman." At least Answers in Genesis was smart enough to distance themselves from him.

The Kent Hovind point was made for two reason: 1) The guy is a con man who made a lot of money off discrediting science, and 2) I believe that many groups oppose evolution because it is a great way to make money. People are willing to pour money into groups like Answers in Genesis and The Discovery Institute because they are searching for a scientific basis for their beliefs. These are not groups that are doing science. They are blatantly lying in some cases. Michael Behe's main point about ID has been disproved, yet he still keeps pushing these points. Maybe it's like Bill O'Reilly. Surely he can't believe everything he says, but he has even pointed out that it's entertainment. These people are giving their supporters exactly what they want, "evidence" that evolution is wrong. Yet they choose to do that without entering the field of science and having their bs theories put to the test.

A great many scientists are religious. Do the ID supporters really think that they are being discriminated against because they can't get a single paper published? Many of those scientists would probably LOVE to find evidence of a creator, but they realize that any evidence has to pass through the scientific method. The other group would probably also love to find the similar evidence. Any evidence of a God would be perhaps the greatest scientific discovery of all time, but it's just not there.

These institutes are pulling in all kinds of cash, and all they have to do is just keep masquerading unscientific ideas as having some credence in the scientific community. It is not in their financial interest to admit to being wrong. In science though it is. Money follows religion (and of course other things). If science labs actually verified some sort of religious claim like intelligent design, they would get loads of money pouring in to support their research. Unfortunately for them they have a standard of ethics that these religious groups do not have. Even though they do receive grant money, many scientists complain of not having enough funding.

[Jotun]

I wonder if we could split off the creation/evolution debate into its own thread. There doesn't seem to be any real discussion of religion going on in that part of the conversation (as interesting as it may be), and I think it might be easier for all involved to follow the weave of the dialogue if we were having two separate dialogues on two separate threads, instead of mixing them both here.

Jaques, I agree at times that when two aspects of this religion thread are popular that the thread gets a little bulky, but I would feel a little slighted if the threads were split up. I believe that discussing the relation between science and religion is just as appropriate here as a discussion about different interpretations of a holy text. It is faith vs proof, the fundamental conflict that defines religion.

[Renquist]

I promised myself I wouldn't come back here... Oh well...

What about someone who performed all of the actions that would normally indicate a God-fearing Christian (going to church, helping the homeless, becoming a priest/nun, going on missions), but really, deep down, didn't believe in God?

That is what we call hypocrites. One who hides behind a mask. They have a place in hell.

So that person is no better off than a nonbeliever who did none of that?

ther is no in between. just heaven and hell. Please direct me as to where "purgatory" is mentioned in the bible.

That's an awfully narrow statement IMO. I hope that your take on your faith isn't all so black and white Theats. If God's doctrine were to be so 'strict then there would be little hope for the bulk of us.

I see mention herein of God looking into a man's heart. Then I hear that doesn't matter to a non-believer, as he's looking to see whether you are a true believer or not, a devout follower and have lived your life accordingly.

Now, it is possible to follow Jesus' example, live your life by that example, and not follow a religious dogma, correct? A man following such a pure example, even if he were to attain it; is still condemned in the end?

God sounds terribly vengeful for all his forgiveness. Something akin to the school yard bully not beating you up as long as you give him your lunch money.

[Chimpy]

I just read an interesting little tidbit on religion and happiness.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010672

Thought it was worth sharing.

[Renquist]

I'd argue that delusion shouldn't be considered happiness. This isn't an all inclusive statement, but I've met quite a few over-zealous people when it comes to their faith.

Is that a bad thing? Maybe not. It urks me all the same.

[Tiberius]

I guess that depends what we call delusion and being sure of your future. I for one am happy and content with what I have. One of the christian teachings is to learn to be content with what you have (that is not to say that you should not strive to better or improve yourself or your situation). I dont think I am over-zealous in my faith, but I am pretty content and happy, and I do look forward to the future. I like to think of it as an attitude of trust that God knows what he is doing. If things are falling around me, can I trust God in those moments to take care of me and my family and can I give control over to God and trust that he will have the best interests of my family at heart? Those are matters of faith and trust, not necessarily delusion. But then someone who isnt christian can certainly claim that I am a crackpot with delusions about God. I guess it is how you look at it.

[Renquist]

You know Tiberius, I must say I admire your ability to give your opinion and yet offer up objective observations at the same time. Perhaps if I'd spoken with more people such as yourself I would have had less crisis of faith.

I suppose my doubt began when my aunt told me as a child that I was going to hell for being catholic.

[Tiberius]

Thank you for the compliment, Renquist, it has been a pleasure discussing these things with you as well.

Wow, that is pretty harsh. But I have seen just as many catholics and other denominations "pass judgement" on people as well, and I am sure I have in my time. I think it was RevDyer who brought up the verse about the plank in your own eye versus the splinter in your neighbor's eye. This is telling us to refrain from judging one another and saying things like, I know you are going to hell because of x y and z. It is telling us to get our own life in order before we try and "help" someone else become more righteous and of course since we are not perfect beings, it is really coming out and saying keep your trap shut for things that are none of your business. Now this applies to people on the street as well as someone in the church you see is sinning, and you have the desire to run over to them and say, you have sinned and are going to hell sinner! Basically, the short of it, we are not to be the judge, God is.

However, inter church discipline still has to happen to people who continue in a lifestyle of sin (see that as different than falling into sin once in a while). There are rules or guidelines provided in the bible on how to confront someone if you see they are doing something that obviously God wouldnt like (for example, killing kittens with a baseball bat, I think we can all agree, that killing kittens is not a good thing). If I go to you and tell you in private, look, I know you are doing this, understand, God doesnt like it, you need to repent and stop it. If they dont repent and stop killing the kittens (or insert other sin here) then you are to go to an elder with another witness and approach this person as a group and again appeal to them to stop. Then finally, if they still persist with the kitten killing, take it before the entire church congregation and as a last resort stop fellowship with the person. Kind of harsh but that is the last resort to someone who will not even say they are sorry for killing kittens.

Ummm...okay, not exactly the same thing as telling someone they are going to hell, but I wanted to get the difference between judging your neighbor and interchurch discipline out there.

[Renquist]

Now that's an extreme example of course and not to be taken literally, but allow me to toy with this for a moment.

If you were to kill kittens, it's due to one of two things:

1. You want/are compelled to regardless of circumstance.

2. You want/are compelled to because you unaware of the circumstance.

Now here's the thing. We've already established that, in the case of the second; ignorance does not allow exemption. Unless that individual had the heart, mind and spirit of a child - the innocence of a child perhaps.

But in the case of the first, you could kill kittens because you want whilst being aware that you will be forgiven should you be earnest and ask for it. Seems odd that God forgives sins and simply not mistakes. Sins implies some degree of knowing better - it's easy to apologize once you've done the deed and extracted your measure of pleasure.

I know that you have to ask from the heart, but that seems a terribly complex thing for people once we question whether someone is truly remorseful. I know that God is the only being fit to judge, but what of the difference of asking penance due to remorse and guilt; or asking due to the pangs of guilt brought about by fear for one's mortal soul.

I would argue that feeling truly bad from knowing that you have done wrong is noble. I would suggest that feeling bad due to fear of being punished is hardly noble - it is simply self preservation and egotistical.

Can someone perhaps shed light on this conundrum and the precise logistics of God's forgiveness?

I also am of the opinion that if someone is truly remorseful - that the guilt of having done wrong haunts them and they in turn am earnest in making right, then that is what truly matters. Is God required to enter into this equation? Do we need to specifically ask God for forgiveness, or simply go about making amends?

I would hope that doing the right thing, that being driven by our conscious to do better, to repent and be judged by our own morales would matter a great deal more than feeling like crap, asking for God's forgiveness and then having a nice day.

[Tiberius]

Now that's an extreme example of course and not to be taken literally, but allow me to toy with this for a moment.

If you were to kill kittens, it's due to one of two things:

1. You want/are compelled to regardless of circumstance.

2. You want/are compelled to because you unaware of the circumstance.

Now here's the thing. We've already established that, in the case of the second; ignorance does not allow exemption. Unless that individual had the heart, mind and spirit of a child - the innocence of a child perhaps.

But in the case of the first, you could kill kittens because you want whilst being aware that you will be forgiven should you be earnest and ask for it. Seems odd that God forgives sins and simply not mistakes. Sins implies some degree of knowing better - it's easy to apologize once you've done the deed and extracted your measure of pleasure.

I know that you have to ask from the heart, but that seems a terribly complex thing for people once we question whether someone is truly remorseful. I know that God is the only being fit to judge, but what of the difference of asking penance due to remorse and guilt; or asking due to the pangs of guilt brought about by fear for one's mortal soul.

I would argue that feeling truly bad from knowing that you have done wrong is noble. I would suggest that feeling bad due to fear of being punished is hardly noble - it is simply self preservation and egotistical.

Can someone perhaps shed light on this conundrum and the precise logistics of God's forgiveness?

I also am of the opinion that if someone is truly remorseful - that the guilt of having done wrong haunts them and they in turn am earnest in making right, then that is what truly matters. Is God required to enter into this equation? Do we need to specifically ask God for forgiveness, or simply go about making amends?

I would hope that doing the right thing, that being driven by our conscious to do better, to repent and be judged by our own morales would matter a great deal more than feeling like crap, asking for God's forgiveness and then having a nice day.

Good questions, I will take a shot at some of them:

The concept of using the, I will be forgiven for anything I do, in order to justify doing bad things, well again, as we discussed a few pages ago, God will judge the heart and provide true justice at the appropriate time. Meaning he knows if you are playing this game and that you are not truely sorry, not truely repentant and obviously not a follower of Christ if you are exhibiting that kind of attitude, as it flies in the face of alot of what Christ taught, and the examples he set.

Now the more complicated thing of can you be forgiven by being remorseful because you are afraid for your immortal soul versus, being truely remorseful. I think your attitude on it is pretty correct, if you are truely remorseful because of what you did was wrong, then I would say God would be more forgiving of that person versus the one who was sorry because they "got caught and are now in trouble". They are not truely remorseful, they are only remorseful of getting caught.

Now you ask is God required to come into the forgiveness equation. Well in a Christian world view, yes, because only God can forgive sins. If this was not the case, why ask for forgiveness at all, other than to get forgiveness from the person who you wronged, or to make yourself feel better? Those are good practices, but if we are talking from a christian view and "to get into heaven", God has to be in the picture. If God isnt a concern for you, then you are probably doing the best that can be done for a person under thier own power. Did I understand your questions correctly? Or did I misconstrue them somehow?

[Ugly-Caco]

And yep...I admit that I am going to believe creationism no matter what evidence there is, just like others who believe the opposite no matter what evidence there is.
wow :shock:

Willful acknowledgement that you ignore evidence that contradicts your position. Wait... thats not shocking at all actually - that's exactly what is required to be a creationist. :D

At least I acknowledge. How about you acknowledging that you ignore evidence that contradicts your position? ... thats not shocking at all actually - that's exactly what is required to be an athiest, macro-evolutionist. Missing Link is called Missing Link for a reason. You have no evidence --as of now-- for the crunch (shrinking of the Universe) as much I dont have outside evidence --as of now-- to verify the attainment of a glorified body (please dont post a photo of some body builder or a hot bikini model as you quote me hahaha) when Christ returns or after the white throne judgement.

If all knees will bow and all tongues will confess that Jesus is Lord in the future, then I can say "I told you so!"
But if there is no life after death, then you can say to me "I told you sss..." ...wait a minute :? . I mean if we'll be just energy orbs after death then your energy orb can say to me "I told you so!"

Im telling you, man...let's just all high five and answer the poll! :lol:

[Onion Knight]

These institutes are pulling in all kinds of cash, and all they have to do is just keep masquerading unscientific ideas as having some credence in the scientific community.
No need to keep on the Kent Hovind thing. For the love of Pete!
Do we agree that, though Francis Collins may have a girly first name, he is familiar with the scientific method? Yes? Good. He, with agreed adequate knowledge of how science works, has concluded that there is a God. Can we move forward? This "anyone who believes in God in the science community is a con-man" argument is absolutely ridiculous.

standby...

[Onion Knight]

[quote="Jotun"There not being any evidence of transitional fossils is just not true. Transitionals and Observed Speciation. (http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm)
[/quote]

The link offered some missing links. One of the quotes was that Ambulocetus was one of the best examples of existing missing links. PBS did an evolution show between pledge drives mentioning this.
This article comments. (Ambulocetus is about halfway down, just under Pakicetus. The whole article is a good read. I don't know about the author's history regarding tax evasion, however.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

If one abandons his beleifs, that God is the creator, et cetera... Then He was never truly saved. If you TRULY believe, then you would never back down from your beliefs.

The man in the above claim would not enter heaven,a s he didn't TRULY believe in a personal God.
So how do you identify a "True Christian?"

ETA - This type of statement is a horrible insult to plenty of people whose deconversion was an extremely painful and difficult process.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

At least I acknowledge. How about you acknowledging that you ignore evidence that contradicts your position?
Um - no.

Missing Link is called Missing Link for a reason.
Its only missing because you creationists keep looking for a pig from a banana.

You have no evidence --as of now-- for the crunch (shrinking of the Universe)
Nothing to do with either atheism OR evolution and nothing I have ever claimed - so this one is out of left field for me.


...let's just all high five...
Oh... yeah.. HIGH FIVE! :D

[Nukatha]

Well, I'm not ready to start debating again, but I might as well make the statement:

I am a Lutheran, specifically of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

-BiC (Lets see if anyone figures out what this means...)

[Renquist]

Now that's an extreme example of course and not to be taken literally, but allow me to toy with this for a moment.

If you were to kill kittens, it's due to one of two things:

1. You want/are compelled to regardless of circumstance.

2. You want/are compelled to because you unaware of the circumstance.

Now here's the thing. We've already established that, in the case of the second; ignorance does not allow exemption. Unless that individual had the heart, mind and spirit of a child - the innocence of a child perhaps.

But in the case of the first, you could kill kittens because you want whilst being aware that you will be forgiven should you be earnest and ask for it. Seems odd that God forgives sins and simply not mistakes. Sins implies some degree of knowing better - it's easy to apologize once you've done the deed and extracted your measure of pleasure.

I know that you have to ask from the heart, but that seems a terribly complex thing for people once we question whether someone is truly remorseful. I know that God is the only being fit to judge, but what of the difference of asking penance due to remorse and guilt; or asking due to the pangs of guilt brought about by fear for one's mortal soul.

I would argue that feeling truly bad from knowing that you have done wrong is noble. I would suggest that feeling bad due to fear of being punished is hardly noble - it is simply self preservation and egotistical.

Can someone perhaps shed light on this conundrum and the precise logistics of God's forgiveness?

I also am of the opinion that if someone is truly remorseful - that the guilt of having done wrong haunts them and they in turn am earnest in making right, then that is what truly matters. Is God required to enter into this equation? Do we need to specifically ask God for forgiveness, or simply go about making amends?

I would hope that doing the right thing, that being driven by our conscious to do better, to repent and be judged by our own morales would matter a great deal more than feeling like crap, asking for God's forgiveness and then having a nice day.

Good questions, I will take a shot at some of them:

The concept of using the, I will be forgiven for anything I do, in order to justify doing bad things, well again, as we discussed a few pages ago, God will judge the heart and provide true justice at the appropriate time. Meaning he knows if you are playing this game and that you are not truely sorry, not truely repentant and obviously not a follower of Christ if you are exhibiting that kind of attitude, as it flies in the face of alot of what Christ taught, and the examples he set.

Now the more complicated thing of can you be forgiven by being remorseful because you are afraid for your immortal soul versus, being truely remorseful. I think your attitude on it is pretty correct, if you are truely remorseful because of what you did was wrong, then I would say God would be more forgiving of that person versus the one who was sorry because they "got caught and are now in trouble". They are not truely remorseful, they are only remorseful of getting caught.

Now you ask is God required to come into the forgiveness equation. Well in a Christian world view, yes, because only God can forgive sins. If this was not the case, why ask for forgiveness at all, other than to get forgiveness from the person who you wronged, or to make yourself feel better? Those are good practices, but if we are talking from a christian view and "to get into heaven", God has to be in the picture. If God isnt a concern for you, then you are probably doing the best that can be done for a person under thier own power. Did I understand your questions correctly? Or did I misconstrue them somehow?

You did just fine Tiberius. I apologize if I'm being repetitive but please allow it as perhaps my curiosity is not sated as yet.

A couple more question then.

We've established that false remorse out of fear of consequence is not worthy of forgiveness. By the same token and comments earlier, it can be said that joining a faith out of fear for our immortal soul is not a pure motive either then, and not quite good enough a reason to follow God.

What I mean to say is - being devout and going to church and what not because you simply don't want to go to hell won't help you.

You should do these things out of love for God correct? It at least appears to make sense given the precedent given so far.

Now, I know that many religions welcome those who fear for their salvation. I know many of those people may never enjoy their faith because they may never feel that undying love for God. They may be the spitting example of the devout faithful but perhaps that isn't enough because ultimately, they are being selfish? That is their motive at heart after all. Seems harsh.

Now, if a man were to refuse to choose a denomination but pledge himself to God - follow his example and know love for him in his heart, to follow Jesus' words and try to be like him, to be the very whole example of as close to righteous as a mortal can be - is he admitted to heaven? How important a role does swearing into a denomination become? It has to be the right one of course, so rather than gamble someone could simply refuse to risk and follow the words of deceivers and liars and commit himself to God and only God. Is that wrong?

If someone were born in blessed ignorance - a man in the wilderness, to never know of religion and such institutions, to never be taught of right or wrong, to live his life as is needed, kill to eat and know affection from his animal companions.... an almost veritable Adam alone in the world, grown but perhaps with the innocence of a child.... would he be denied God's grace? He may have sinned but would not know what that was, and we've established that ignorance does not equal exemption. Seems harsh to try someone so blissfully ignorant of such dilemmas of faith.

Here's my most personal statement thus far Tiberius, as I gave this quite some thought at work last night and spoke with a religious co-worker of mine.

I can believe in sasquatch. I cannot know he exists unless I directly experience his existence, I can simply have faith, the choice to believe, the hope and perhaps wishful thoughts that he is there. I cannot know though without that experience. I can only choose to believe.

The same could be said for God. Unless you have experienced God directly, you cannot know that he is there. You can only choose to believe the notion. I believe this is called faith - obstinance in the face of adversity.

So, my questions might raise some doubt on the muddled masses of followers, given that it is probably a minority amongst them that has actually experienced God, is assuredly filled with love for him, and is pure of motive and therefore have a true shot at salvation. All others would be judged as having false motives - to not know God, to not love God, or to simply be in it to protect their soul.

Which brings me to my gripe - why does God pick and choose who should be given such a gift, such a blessing to know that he is real, to have him appear or intervene in their life and have them know he is real?

Why is it others are not worthy - that they can dedicate their lives to him and never really know him? Do we have to ask for such a sign? Doesn't that seem egotistical? Arrogant almost? Does God discriminate?

I'm still left with other issues - if someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you? With so many professing the purity of their faith, why choose one to follow? Again, it seems foolhardy to gamble one's salvation.

Given that many people follow the bible and it's teachings (yes I know that this is a topic of great debate,), and that holy scripture is 2000+ years old, was written by man and is a collaboration of many incidents experienced by many different people.... shouldn't we consider God as a being himself? How many things change in that allotment of time alone? Perhaps resigning ourself to an antiquated ideal of God is foolish. Perhaps God, in his unending love for us all will not blame the unfaithful unless they reject him wholly, perhaps he will see the faults and frailties of man and understand that perhaps religion itself has failed us all. Perhaps the naysayers and aggressors of religious conflict will be held responsible, and that those poor souls lost in the deluge of lies, that could find that one undeniable truth for all their trying are simply not to blame.

What if, simply; I spend my life looking for God, wanting to know him and his love and never find him? Am I to be punished for that?

In the absence of God himself, is loving all his creation enough?

[HSisforcoolkids]

I just skimmed back over the thread, most of which I missed over the weekend. I would like to say that it is not that I do not believe that evolution occurs; rather it is that I don't believe that evolution occurs as stated in textbooks, the National Geographic, other popular media, etc.

We can see some evolution occur through documentation. We see that dogs have different breeds, many of which were done purposefully by humans to complete certain tasks. We even see evolution with human-i.e. tall parents are more likely to give birth to tall children. Furthermore, I can buy into ideas like the following: many people in England have fair skin because that skin tone was sought after by men in centuries past, thus producing more pale people through genetics.

What I can't buy into is the idea that monkeys somehow evolved into people. (A side note-Though I cannot confirm this at this time, I've heard a few times that human DNA, as far as we know, is most similar to that of the Peking Duck out of all other animals, not an ape.) I can't buy the idea that rabbits and cats were at some point the same animal. We don't have enough evidence to support saying things like that definitively.

Here are two specific things (among many) that hold me back from believing in evolution as popularly stated: the feather and the eye.

The feather-fossil records show that feathers from millions of years ago are pretty much the same as feathers are now. Feathers are very intricate, so you would think that if evolution happened then we would have found some trace of a primitive feather on an animal of past. But no, the feather seems to hold the same intricate design throughout our fossil records. Where are the primitive feathers? Or did perfect feathers that aided flight suddenly sprout randomly on an offspring? That would not fit with the theory of evolution as I understand it.

The eye-the eye is also a very intricate body part. I've heard theories that at some point a living organism must have developed a sensor that sensed light which was benficial to the animal. Then over generations and generations it developed into the eye as we know it today. The biggest problem I have with this is why don't we have any records of animals of the past who have eyes somewhere other than conveniently on the front of their face (correct me if there are animals or records of animals like this). If evolution is an infinite series of random mutations which sometimes yield beneficial results for a species, how come we have found no records of a species with an eye somewhere not on the front of their face? Where are the remains of individual animals with randomly mutated eyes on their limbs or other part of the body? It doesn't have to be the eye-it can be any body part-it just seems as though all the remains of the individual animals that we find were the same or very similar to all the remains of that particular animal's species.

Where are all of the fossils of individual animals that developed something that was not beneficial to them? There are people now who develop things not beneficial to them-i.e. physical and mental disabilities, but can we definitively relate that back to genetics? Often, it seems that those things have more to do with birth defects because of the chemicals or lack thereof in the mother during pregnancy.

EDIT-One further thought-I am not opposed to people believing that evolution exists. If evolutionists gathered enough support for me to believe in evolution, I would believe that God created and pushed evolution. I have two big problems with the way evolution is treated. The first is that it is taught as a proven fact in public schools, and it is anything but proven. The second problem is how often atheists use evolution in an attempt to disprove God. I don't see how evolution can disprove God. It may disprove a 6,000 year old earth or a 7 day creation (neither of which I and many of my Christian friends believe in anyways), but evolution does not disprove the existence of God or some other creative force.

[Renquist]

I have to agree that darwinism requires it's own thread at this point. No offence of course.

In response to your post though IMO - both religion and darwinism are fantastic in their assumptions. None more so than the rest. Both depend on conjecture and hypothesis. For all the evidence of either, man still fills in the gaps with whatever we feel sounds correct.

Me, I'll stick with simple duality and acceptance.

[HSisforcoolkids]

I have to agree that darwinism requires it's own thread at this point. No offence of course.


No offense taken. But I do think it's ok for threads like this to have different things going on in it. I like to read your questions and people's responses to them, and I also like discussing evolution vs. creation with folks. I think both discussions (and other discussions of religion) should be welcome here, much like people of different belief systems should feel welcome to discuss here.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

So DMG & Jotun (and potentially other naturalists), doesn't that mean that the absence of supernatural explanations is part of your assumptions rather than part of your conclusions?
Maybe - but only because there have been so many previous conclusions that agree. So which came first? the conclusions or the assumptions?

~Aldin, who thinks this thread may move far too fast for him since he's talking about something from four pages ago
Moving pretty quick for me too. Couple pages a day it seems.

[Revdyer]

Maybe - but only because there have been so many previous conclusions that agree. So which came first? the conclusions or the assumptions?


Chickens...no, eggs...no, chickens! Definitely chickens. Unless it was eggs.

God still loves you, though, no matter what you conclude. So do I.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

I don't see how evolution can disprove God. It may disprove a 6,000 year old earth or a 7 day creation (neither of which I and many of my Christian friends believe in anyways), but evolution does not disprove the existence of God or some other creative force.
Evolution for me - like you just said - only disproves young earth ideas. I think we all agree that God cannot be proven/disproven by currently available evidence. Has anyone here actually tried to disprove God with evolution??

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

Maybe - but only because there have been so many previous conclusions that agree. So which came first? the conclusions or the assumptions?


Chickens...no, eggs...no, chickens! Definitely chickens. Unless it was eggs.

God still loves you, though, no matter what you conclude. So do I.
:D

[Revdyer]

Maybe - but only because there have been so many previous conclusions that agree. So which came first? the conclusions or the assumptions?


Chickens...no, eggs...no, chickens! Definitely chickens. Unless it was eggs.

God still loves you, though, no matter what you conclude. So do I.
:D
Smile all you want, Monkeyboy...God does still love you! And so do I. See you soon! (Dear Lord...don't let the Elders take this out of context!)

[HSisforcoolkids]

Smile all you want, Monkeyboy...God does still love you! And so do I. See you soon! (Dear Lord...don't let the Elders take this out of context!)

:rofl: Hahaha. I assume the Elders don't actually check up on your posting. If they do, I revoke my emoticon and "Hahaha."

[Revdyer]

Smile all you want, Monkeyboy...God does still love you! And so do I. See you soon! (Dear Lord...don't let the Elders take this out of context!)

:rofl: Hahaha. I assume the Elders don't actually check up on your posting. If they do, I revoke my emoticon and "Hahaha."
They do...
Have you never heard the phrase, "Every Sunday might be your last?"
'Tis not poetry. So, we preachers try to make sure that if we are going to be ridden out of town on a rail, it is for a good reason; or, at least, for our friends.

I mean, seriously, we toss these ideas and such around here for fun; but for me, it, literally, means my pay check, pension, retirement,, insurance, mortgage, future, day by day, week by week. I'm glad God is not nearly as picky as we church folks.

[HSisforcoolkids]

:rofl: Hahaha. I assume the Elders don't actually check up on your posting. If they do, I revoke my emoticon and "Hahaha."
They do...
Have you never heard the phrase, "Every Sunday might be your last?"
'Tis not poetry. So, we preachers try to make sure that if we are going to be ridden out of town on a rail, it is for a good reason; or, at least, for our friends.

I mean, seriously, we toss these ideas and such around here for fun; but for me, it, literally, means my pay check, pension, retirement,, insurance, mortgage, future, day by day, week by week. I'm glad God is not nearly as picky as we church folks.

Sorry to hear that Rev (emoticon and hahaha revoked and replaced with :roll: ). I personally think it's crazy that we in the church often cannot trust our leaders. I've never heard that saying about each Sunday being your last, but I certainly understand where it is coming from. I'm only a lowly youth pastor so no one really checks up on me (so far, except for one mom who was unenthused with my theology). At my state (still green and with next to no benefits), I would probably choose to leave if people wanted that much power over me, but I understand you live in a much different situation. I whole-heartedly agree with your last sentence, and thank God all the time that He seeks after us wherever we stand and no matter what we have done.

I believe that what a pastor writes on an online forum about a board game should be the least of any church's worries. :2cents:

[Revdyer]

I understand, HSisforcoolkids. It is a mixed bag. I've got some folks in my church (youth and adult) who have been turned on to HeroScape as a good clean recreation in a world where such is all too rare. I've got others who believe that I should not be spending even my own free time on such a frivolous, if not sinful past-time.

I have found that it is, generally, not the great doctrines or issues of the world or the faith that conflict our churches, but what color the carpet should be and how fast the hymns are sung.

It must make God weep.

Coming out of three and a half years of chemotherapy (praise God, successfully) it just makes me tired.

Blessings on your ministry...never be less accepting of sinners than the Lord.

[HSisforcoolkids]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Rev. Recently when my dad was visiting he asked me about Heroscape, "Isn't this stuff evil?" I couldn't help but chuckle.

I too view HS as a clean form of recreation. In college, HS was something that my alcoholic roommate would occassionally put his bottle down to play. Often he played drunk, but simetimes he would put the beer down so he could think better. I am grateful for those times when he acted like his old self again. I have friends still in college who are using HS to reach out to people who are on the fringes of the school's social system. These are a couple of examples off the top of my head of how HS has been used in postive ways.

[Bannister]

EDIT-One further thought-I am not opposed to people believing that evolution exists. If evolutionists gathered enough support for me to believe in evolution, I would believe that God created and pushed evolution. I have two big problems with the way evolution is treated. The first is that it is taught as a proven fact in public schools, and it is anything but proven. The second problem is how often atheists use evolution in an attempt to disprove God. I don't see how evolution can disprove God. It may disprove a 6,000 year old earth or a 7 day creation (neither of which I and many of my Christian friends believe in anyways), but evolution does not disprove the existence of God or some other creative force.

1. Evolution should be taught in Science classes because it is the prodominent scientific theory at this time. If a new theory comes along that better explains the progress of life on this planet it will be replaced. As for now however, there is no better explanation.

2. Evolution doesn't do diddly squat to either prove or disprove a creator. It mearly maps out the process by which life on this planet has gone from simple organisms to more complex organisms.

Bannister

[Nukatha]

Bannister, it is good to start debating again. Perhaps you may know be better by the name I went by temporarily at the 'hq, BiC,



1. Evolution should be taught in Science classes because it is the prodominent scientific theory at this time. If a new theory comes along that better explains the progress of life on this planet it will be replaced. As for now however, there is no better explanation.

2. Evolution doesn't do diddly squat to either prove or disprove a creator. It mearly maps out the process by which life on this planet has gone from simple organisms to more complex organisms.

Bannister

1. Well, as much as I believe that evolution is complete bull, I must admit that it is the only way to even attempt to keep the idea of intelligent design out of the picture. I for one think that public schools should at least teach the idea of intelligent design, and although the only idea that I consider fact is that the Trinity of the Holy Bible created all, at least exposing them to a few options wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I must also say that as a Lutheran, I would much rather have creation be the only thing taught, but the world simply could not accept such a change in any sense. Baby-steps are good, and although leaps can take you farther, you might fall on the way down.

2. evolution does not do diddly squat to disprove a creator, you are correct. But I must add that it is not physically possible to map out how life has progressed. Too many natural disasters occur to keep the world in the uniform order that some people expect, then seeing the layers jarred by change, they think it was like that the whole time. I also ask you this, if evolution is supposed to map out how simple turned to complex, why is it that so much is going from complex to simple, both physically and mentally.

Languages are degraded even as we speak, people rarely using the larger words that were once common. The same could be said of computer languages. Although the computer still reads it in 0's and 1's, humans can now read a psuedo-human language full of clauses such as 'if' 'then' 'while' and 'do'.

People always seek to get others to do work for them rather than doing it thhemselves.

Anyways, creatures that are specifically designed to live in only one area with physical and mental abilities that allow it to appear as a super creatue from any where else, become extinct when another more versatile creature comes in that does not excell in living there. (for an example, look at the guam kingfisher or the dodo bird.)

Yeah, I need to brush up a bit on my debating skills, haven't done this in a while.

See ya! (well, read ya, but whatever...)

[Dictatorbilbo]

I don't quite see how what Nukatha just said proves/justifies anything at all... :? You can't prove anything through analogy...

[theats]

to answer a past question on what BiC is:
Brother in Christ?
Born in Christ?
Bakes in Chili?

[Bannister]

Bannister, it is good to start debating again. Perhaps you may know be better by the name I went by temporarily at the 'hq, BiC,



1. Evolution should be taught in Science classes because it is the prodominent scientific theory at this time. If a new theory comes along that better explains the progress of life on this planet it will be replaced. As for now however, there is no better explanation.

2. Evolution doesn't do diddly squat to either prove or disprove a creator. It mearly maps out the process by which life on this planet has gone from simple organisms to more complex organisms.

Bannister

1. Well, as much as I believe that evolution is complete bull, I must admit that it is the only way to even attempt to keep the idea of intelligent design out of the picture. I for one think that public schools should at least teach the idea of intelligent design, and although the only idea that I consider fact is that the Trinity of the Holy Bible created all, at least exposing them to a few options wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I must also say that as a Lutheran, I would much rather have creation be the only thing taught, but the world simply could not accept such a change in any sense. Baby-steps are good, and although leaps can take you farther, you might fall on the way down.

2. evolution does not do diddly squat to disprove a creator, you are correct. But I must add that it is not physically possible to map out how life has progressed. Too many natural disasters occur to keep the world in the uniform order that some people expect, then seeing the layers jarred by change, they think it was like that the whole time. I also ask you this, if evolution is supposed to map out how simple turned to complex, why is it that so much is going from complex to simple, both physically and mentally.

Languages are degraded even as we speak, people rarely using the larger words that were once common. The same could be said of computer languages. Although the computer still reads it in 0's and 1's, humans can now read a psuedo-human language full of clauses such as 'if' 'then' 'while' and 'do'.

People always seek to get others to do work for them rather than doing it thhemselves.

Anyways, creatures that are specifically designed to live in only one area with physical and mental abilities that allow it to appear as a super creatue from any where else, become extinct when another more versatile creature comes in that does not excell in living there. (for an example, look at the guam kingfisher or the dodo bird.)

Yeah, I need to brush up a bit on my debating skills, haven't done this in a while.

See ya! (well, read ya, but whatever...)

Welcome to the Debate Nukatha / BiC. :D

1. Intelligent Design should not be allowed withing 100 miles of a science class. Why? It isn't science. What supporting evidence does the Intelligent Design Theory have? The ID guys seem to spend most of their efforts trying to discredit the supporting evidence for evolution and not actually coming up with anything which would support their ideas. Their main stance is that the universe / life as we know it is too complex to have happened the way the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution tell us it did. This is simply arguing that we don't understand it so it must be God. Through out human history we have had the idea of assigning responsibilty for the unknown to different deities. The idea of ID is just another example of this.

Just so we are all clear as to what we are comparing:


intelligent design
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

evo·lu·tion
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

2. http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html I must admit also that I am not fully following your arguments. It would seem that you are arguing for a young earth. If this isn't the case I apologize.

The Intelligent Design theory has the exact same opportunities as the Theory of Evolution to prove its points through scientific research. The main problem is that there is no experiment or observation that can be made to prove that Brahma does or does not exist. When ever someone like myself tries to point out that there is no scientific evidence for a creator creationists are quick to point out that God is outside the boundries of science and human observation. I find it telling when some of the very same people then claim that Intelligent Design is a real science. If you admit that the heart of your argument is beyond scientific verification than how can you also claim that your theory is scientific?

I would find it ridiculous for an evolutionist to demand that evolution be given equal time inside churches, synagogues and temples across our country. I find it equal ridiculous to request for religion to be taught as a science.

Bannister

[jaques]

Please, guys, the whole tone of the religion discussion and the depth of its philosophical approach is utterly different from that being used in the Creation/Evolution debate. I'm not saying either one is better or worse, just that they're two completely distinct conversations at this point, and I would deeply appreciate being able to follow them separately.

I beseech you all to join the fray here ...

http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=12835

... and let the religion thread continue forward with its contemplative dialogue.

Pretty please?

[jaques]

These institutes are pulling in all kinds of cash, and all they have to do is just keep masquerading unscientific ideas as having some credence in the scientific community.
No need to keep on the Kent Hovind thing. For the love of Pete!
Do we agree that, though Francis Collins may have a girly first name, he is familiar with the scientific method? Yes? Good. He, with agreed adequate knowledge of how science works, has concluded that there is a God. Can we move forward? This "anyone who believes in God in the science community is a con-man" argument is absolutely ridiculous.

standby...

My reply can be found here (http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=396924#427237).


What I can't buy into is the idea that monkeys somehow evolved into people. (A side note-Though I cannot confirm this at this time, I've heard a few times that human DNA, as far as we know, is most similar to that of the Peking Duck out of all other animals, not an ape.) I can't buy the idea that rabbits and cats were at some point the same animal. We don't have enough evidence to support saying things like that definitively.


My reply can be found here (http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=396924#427237).

[Renquist]

That should slow the thread to a realistic pace Jacques.

Now, may I plead some of our more religiously informed members to answer some of my questions? Tiberius has been extremely helpful, but I would appreciate other's insights as well at this point.

That, and I just don't want to wait for Tiberius to show up heh.

[Tiberius]

You did just fine Tiberius. I apologize if I'm being repetitive but please allow it as perhaps my curiosity is not sated as yet.

A couple more question then.

We've established that false remorse out of fear of consequence is not worthy of forgiveness. By the same token and comments earlier, it can be said that joining a faith out of fear for our immortal soul is not a pure motive either then, and not quite good enough a reason to follow God.

What I mean to say is - being devout and going to church and what not because you simply don't want to go to hell won't help you.

You should do these things out of love for God correct? It at least appears to make sense given the precedent given so far.

I would agree with the above statements. You should be a Christian because you love God. Now I am sure there are people with the mixture of both love and fear. Being a Christian means more than just going to church, it means having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, i.e., the love stuff.

Now, I know that many religions welcome those who fear for their salvation. I know many of those people may never enjoy their faith because they may never feel that undying love for God. They may be the spitting example of the devout faithful but perhaps that isn't enough because ultimately, they are being selfish? That is their motive at heart after all. Seems harsh.

Not sure if this extreme is a realistic example. It is true in theory but as I stated above, normally people have both, the love and the fear. Fear is a great motivator, and it is selfish, and most churches do welcome these people (probably because they might not be able to tell what is really in their heart) but even if they could tell, they would still welcome them, as they should, because that relationship and love might develop. Churches should not refuse anyone into their services and functions in my opinion. Jesus came to save the lost, not pat the righteous people on the back. If someone is there because they are afraid for their soul, and that is the only reason, they simply don’t understand the relationship aspect of it yet. I don’t think God is going to reject anyone who is legitimately seeking Him.

Now, if a man were to refuse to choose a denomination but pledge himself to God - follow his example and know love for him in his heart, to follow Jesus' words and try to be like him, to be the very whole example of as close to righteous as a mortal can be - is he admitted to heaven? How important a role does swearing into a denomination become? It has to be the right one of course, so rather than gamble someone could simply refuse to risk and follow the words of deceivers and liars and commit himself to God and only God. Is that wrong?

I don’t think it is wrong at all. God wants people to love him, and to some people, the church itself becomes a god that can take the relationship with God’s place. In fact I encourage people to focus on their relationship with God, then after they have a strong quiet time, prayer life, reading the bible, etc, get involved with a local church and serve. The church is important in the following respect: 1) you can surround yourself with other Christians who will support you and help you when you fall, 2) fellowship and an outlet with good influences, 3) a chance to serve your community and fellow man, most churches have ministries that will have a positive impact on the community. My church in particular has a clothes closet and food pantry where we supply these needs to the poor in our area. Another good thing about a church is a place to be spiritually fed by a minister, small group bible studies, corporate prayer, and all that other good stuff, where you can get with other Christians and worship and praise God. Denomination should have nothing to do with it, the relationship with God should be the focus, and the church should be there to supplement that and help you grow in your faith.

If someone were born in blessed ignorance - a man in the wilderness, to never know of religion and such institutions, to never be taught of right or wrong, to live his life as is needed, kill to eat and know affection from his animal companions.... an almost veritable Adam alone in the world, grown but perhaps with the innocence of a child.... would he be denied God's grace? He may have sinned but would not know what that was, and we've established that ignorance does not equal exemption. Seems harsh to try someone so blissfully ignorant of such dilemmas of faith.

Good question and one that is debated within the church itself, as it is one of those things that is God’s call and I really don’t know as I am not God. Sounds like a cop out answer, but I don’t think that that person, no matter how isolated, will be rejected by God, they will be given a chance of salvation, perhaps a different chance than you or I have, but a chance just the same. I guess it comes down to this person recognizing the presence of God. I will tell you about a biblical character named Malchizadek (see Genesis 14:18-20), who was a King and a priest of the Most High God. This guy was not part of the Isrealites, or part of Moses’s group, or a jew, he was independently following God apart from any structured religion. How did he know about God if God was only with the isrealites at the time? This guy shows up after a battle being fought by Moses and the isrealites and after the fight, Moses gives his tithe of 10% of the spoils to Malchizadek. Later in the bible, in the book of Hebrews 7: 13-17, Jesus is described as a high priest in the order of Malchizadek. Meaning, again, he didn’t belong to any structured religion, he was kind of his own entity, but that didn’t stop him from following God’s will, having a relationship with God, etc. Does that make sense?

In addition, throughout the bible, there are many references to nature itself declaring God’s glory. If this individual is as close to nature as you describe, and has been seen by various anthropologists and some missionaries, tribes can develop their own religions that have a lot of the symbolism and same “rules and commandments” that Christianity has at its core. They recognize that there is a God out there and understand what is right and wrong, and I believe that God would give special dominion to people to do what is “right” and have never been exposed to the truth of Christianity (i.e., never had an opportunity to hear the word or about Jesus or go to a church). That is of course my opinion.

Here's my most personal statement thus far Tiberius, as I gave this quite some thought at work last night and spoke with a religious co-worker of mine.

I can believe in sasquatch. I cannot know he exists unless I directly experience his existence, I can simply have faith, the choice to believe, the hope and perhaps wishful thoughts that he is there. I cannot know though without that experience. I can only choose to believe.

The same could be said for God. Unless you have experienced God directly, you cannot know that he is there. You can only choose to believe the notion. I believe this is called faith - obstinance in the face of adversity.

So, my questions might raise some doubt on the muddled masses of followers, given that it is probably a minority amongst them that has actually experienced God, is assuredly filled with love for him, and is pure of motive and therefore have a true shot at salvation. All others would be judged as having false motives - to not know God, to not love God, or to simply be in it to protect their soul.

Which brings me to my gripe - why does God pick and choose who should be given such a gift, such a blessing to know that he is real, to have him appear or intervene in their life and have them know he is real?

Why is it others are not worthy - that they can dedicate their lives to him and never really know him? Do we have to ask for such a sign? Doesn't that seem egotistical? Arrogant almost? Does God discriminate?

I am not sure that is accurate, at least to my beliefs. It is us that must seek God, understand, God really doesn’t “need” us. What ever his plans are, whatever his will is, it will be accomplished whether I decide to help out or not, whether I decide to be a part of it or not. God has never “appeared to me” in any physical sense, though I have had a vivid dream once that I attribute to a warning in my own life by the holy spirit or God trying to tell me something, warning me of the current path I was traveling (as in bad stuff I was doing in my own life). But that is besides the point, and we might be getting into the predestination vs free will debate here, by me saying, that it is your choice Renquist when confronted with all this stuff to pursue it or not. God wants you to, but isn’t going to force your hand. He has appearantly sent me to do my best with your questions, but ultimately, what you take away from this conversation is your own choice. True motives or not, you have to start somewhere, all believers did. Some of the biggest believers today, started as atheists trying to prove the bible false, like Lee Stroebel (the author of a case for Christ, and a Case for the Creator).

The bible tells us to seek and we will find. Knock and the door will be opened for you. That may sound easy but it isn’t because we have to get to a point in our own lives where we will actually accept God if we did find him, there is a lot of soul searching involved and a lot of realizing that no matter how good of lives we are leading, we are sinners and fall short of God’s standards, that we need the sacrifice of Jesus to cover our sins in God’s eyes.

I'm still left with other issues - if someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you? With so many professing the purity of their faith, why choose one to follow? Again, it seems foolhardy to gamble one's salvation.

Given that many people follow the bible and it's teachings (yes I know that this is a topic of great debate,), and that holy scripture is 2000+ years old, was written by man and is a collaboration of many incidents experienced by many different people.... shouldn't we consider God as a being himself? How many things change in that allotment of time alone? Perhaps resigning ourself to an antiquated ideal of God is foolish. Perhaps God, in his unending love for us all will not blame the unfaithful unless they reject him wholly, perhaps he will see the faults and frailties of man and understand that perhaps religion itself has failed us all. Perhaps the naysayers and aggressors of religious conflict will be held responsible, and that those poor souls lost in the deluge of lies, that could find that one undeniable truth for all their trying are simply not to blame.

What if, simply; I spend my life looking for God, wanting to know him and his love and never find him? Am I to be punished for that?

In the absence of God himself, is loving all his creation enough?

If was asked to jump off a cliff, I would need to know why I was jumping. In absence of that, if jumping off a cliff was proven to me through God’s written word to be God’s will, and it was God himself telling me to jump off a cliff, I don’t see how I could say no. But the point is that I would not jump without checking up on the source to see if it was legitimately from God. The bible is a great resource in checking what sources are full of it and which are not. There are tons of stuff in there about false teachers and what to be aware of when dealing with them.

Good question though on “how can I know what to believe?” and that is the age old question, and I say, don’t take my word for it. Read the bible if you never have, do some research into it, check historical texts and studies regarding biblical accuracy.

I am not sure what you mean by “shouldn’t we consider God as a being himself?” Or did I address that with my discussion on a relationship with God? If you could expand on that point, I would be appreciative.

Onto one of my favorite topics, timeliness of God and does God and His principles change over time? No they don’t. The way things are done might change, but the core principles change the same. What was sin then, is still sin today, God doesn’t change his attitude on those things. I like to think of God as outside the time stream. Time is no obstacle to God and he doesn’t see it the same way we do. God doesn’t change from one generation to the next. At least not in any way that I believe.

I don’t think that you will be punished if you spend your life looking for God and are truly seeking Him. I think you will find him, but I cant say when because I don’t know.

Is loving creation enough? No, I think I discussed that above with Nature itself declaring God’s glory. That is what we would call idolatry. Sun worship, moon worship, ocean worship, whatever. God wants you to love the creator.

[Tiberius]

Sorry man, it took me a long time to write all that up. I dont like to just shoot from the hip, I needed to pray and do a little research with some of those points.

[Renquist]

As far as considering God a being - what I meant by that statement is that God should be considered a being like any other, with a consciousness, with a thought process, with logic and rationale, with emotion and motive. We are also made in his image and these are traits, that we, as humans possess.

So my assertion is that God, as such a being, regardless of his divinity, is subject to change in terms of what he feels, wants and how he chooses to act. We cannot deny God that opinion, as it is not our place to know God that well and to second guess him and his motives. In all his glory, we cannot possibly hope to know him so well that we can dictate what God will and will not do. It is his right, as God and creator, to pretty much do as he pleases, correct?

As far as loving creation, I think there is a difference between loving creation and loving HIS creation. Loving creation is loving life, something that should be considered admirable.

Loving creation though not knowing God, in the absence of God but still recognizing that it is HIS creation, is something removed form the above statement. This honors God and all of his accomplishments, this shows the love, the nurturing and the compassion of Christ - surely this too should be something admired and nurtured.

I thoroughly enjoy this discussion Tiberius and appreciate without end the fact that you are going to such an extent answer my queries.

Until and if it is ever time for me to know God, I will continue to honor all creation and life. I will continue to accept existence, to know that duality is the substance that brings our world balance, to watch that balance and act accordingly to help maintain the frail balance of nature as it should be.

I won't wait on or resign myself to a divine entity acting on my part, to make things right and help heal the world. I will believe that regardless of what happens when all is said and done, that perhaps if I have acted in a manner that would make God himself proud, then perhaps I shall be given a measure of forgiveness. Perhaps, should God make himself known to me upon my passing, it is then I will know him, it is then I will cry and laugh, and it is then that I will hope that he is proud of me and my actions though I was lacking in guidance. Perhaps - just slightly, he will recognize that I tried in earnest to be as holy as a single man can be.

If all else fails, if I can know that I have been appreciated, loved and honored by the many beings that share this existence with me; then perhaps that will bring me comfort enough.

[Tiberius]

I enjoyed our discussion as well Renquist, it is good sometimes to have to really dictate what you beleive to someone if no other reason than to get it out there on paper and make sure you understand what you beleive and why. I truely hope you find that comfort that you seek.

[theats]

There is something that Jesus said that I would both Like, and Not like to see.

Jesus said that if no one were to proclaim that Jesus is lord and worship God, then even the rocks would cry out at his glory.

It would be a sad day when we are not allowed to worship god, or when NO ONE worships God, but it would be one wake up call to hear a rock cry out. I know, "rocks don't have vocal cords", but God can do whatever he wants to , and He has never told a lie to date.

[Renquist]

I'll be around and butting in when the mood takes me. I've found this thread invigorating.

[HSisforcoolkids]

Jesus said that if no one were to proclaim that Jesus is lord and worship God, then even the rocks would cry out at his glory.


I think that Jesus is speaking metaphorically here. Nature is a testament to God's goodness and glory. :2cents:

[Bannister]

Jesus said that if no one were to proclaim that Jesus is lord and worship God, then even the rocks would cry out at his glory.


I think that Jesus is speaking metaphorically here. Nature is a testament to God's goodness and glory. :2cents:

Has anyone ever written up a bible study guide showing what is meant to be taken as a metaphor and what is meant to be taken as literal and why?

Bannister

PS This is a serious inquiry.

[HSisforcoolkids]

Has anyone ever written up a bible study guide showing what is meant to be taken as a metaphor and what is meant to be taken as literal and why?

Bannister

PS This is a serious inquiry.

I've never seen one, but one could exist. I think that would be an interesting study guide, though it would have to be taken as the writer(s) ideas. All commentaries have that "problem" though. I think most good Bible commentaries would give hints as to whether something is meant literally or not, even if they don't say so explicitly. I really enjoy reading commentaries-they give me a glimpse into another person's thoughts about Scripture. Sometimes I agree, other times I don't, but it's great to hear what others think. My favorite commentary (and I haven't read all that much of it), is a commentary on the Torah by a rabbi. It gives great insights on the Bible that I never would have had otherwise.

One reason I think Luke 19:40 is not meant literally is because Jesus seems to be quoting Habukkuk 2:11. At least according to the commentary at the bottom of my Study Bible.

[bunjee]

There are many courses at many colleges and universities that are called something close to "Reading the Bible as Literature" The problem is finding one that doesn't have the actual intent to either trash the bible or convert you.

[HSisforcoolkids]

There are many courses at many colleges and universities that are called something close to "Reading the Bible as Literature" The problem is finding one that doesn't have the actual intent to either trash the bible or convert you.

I agree on the italicized part. I've heard of many religion professors who try to persuade people to turn away from their beliefs. I've never heard first hand of someone persuading a student to be a Christian, but I don't doubt that happens often.

The four religion professors I had never tried to convert anyone or to disuade them from faith, and even my ethics professor was careful to preface everything he said with things like, "For a Christian..." or "From a Christian point of view..." It's important for us to be objective when we're learning about religion, especially in an academic setting.

[Bannister]

In High School, on the first day of lessons in which we were to begin discussing the Theory of evolution, our elderly teacher spent the entire class telling us why she didn't believe any of what she was going to teach us. She wanted us to know that she had to teach this subject because she was required to but that if we wanted the truth we should open up or Bible. She said that God was responsible for the heavens, the earth and all life and the Earth was only about 6,000 years old. She said that we should all accept Jesus Christ as our savior and if any of us wanted to know what the Bible said about anything we studied then we could see her after the lessons.

At the time I was a card carrying Christian, but even so I found this odd.

Bannister

[HSisforcoolkids]

That's crazy Bannister. IMO, it would be acceptable for a teach to say, "I personally don't agree with this, but this class is not the place to say why or to get into that..." I agree that your teacher took it way over the top, and stories like that one give creationists (not to mention Christians in general) a bad name.

Also, where can I get a Christian card?

[Bannister]

Well, if they haven't given you one yet I don't want to give to much away. But it all starts with the secret handshake and a couple of rituals involving goats and fermented guava.





What? No one else???

I knew that whole thing smelled fishy.

Bannister

[HSisforcoolkids]

Oh THAT card. We used a bald eagle and Tommy Hilfiger cologne, but I'm sure our handshakes are similar.

[Jonathan]

Jesus said that if no one were to proclaim that Jesus is lord and worship God, then even the rocks would cry out at his glory.


I think that Jesus is speaking metaphorically here. Nature is a testament to God's goodness and glory. :2cents:

Has anyone ever written up a bible study guide showing what is meant to be taken as a metaphor and what is meant to be taken as literal and why?

Bannister

PS This is a serious inquiry.

Most concordances go into this, and study guides on specific books as well. Many times the format of the writing can help you determine the context, and in many cases we need to look to the historical context to fully discern what was meant by a passage (as words and phrases have different meanings in different cultures/time periods).

In the case of the rocks example, I don't think it matters :D

[NecroBlade]

http://humor.beecy.net/funny-kids/letters-to-god/letter-to-god-03.jpg

[Penitus]

Tonight (wed)

"The God Delusion" Debate
7:00 pm
The Alys Stephens Center
Birmingham, Alabama

Remaining true to our goal of engaging secular culture on critical issues in a thoughtful, respectful manner, Fixed Point Foundation will sponsor a debate on what is arguably the most critical question of our time: the existence of God. The decision one makes regarding this question has implications that reverberate throughout eternity to be sure, but it also affects temporal existence from government policy to the individual. Historically, man’s belief in the transcendent has served as a restraint on his conduct and provided hope for his future. Now, it is argued, “God is dead”, and man can do very well without him.

The debate will feature Professor Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society and Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford.

Check out a stream of the debate here:
http://www.mbn.org/GenMoody/default.asp?SectionID=B88C6A4C3C0E4547BF914EFEC1765B68

[Jotun]

Did anyone listen to the Dawkins-Lennox debate? I was rooting for Dawkins, but I will have to concede that he seemed a bit outnumbered in the first half. Calling it a debate really tests the limits of that term. The format was: moderator reads an excerpt from The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins explains the excerpt, then Lennox had five minutes to try to prove Dawkins wrong. Then Dawkins had no opportunity to provide a rebuttal.

In the second half, Dawkins starts to flourish as the format fell apart. His closing argument was the highlight for me as he points out that despite all of Lennox's talk about science and reason in the end it was just about Jesus and the resurrection. Seems as if Lennox was a little disingenuous but perhaps that's going a step too far.

I will be restarting the science/religion thread here if it's still possible to save it. Splitting it up has caused this discussion to lose momentum.

[Jotun]

For those who didn't read the other thread, I've pasted a definition so we can finally put an end to the whole "Evolution is just a theory, not a fact."

Definition of Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Examples) from Wikipedia:

Theory
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis. This common usage of theory leads to the common but misguided statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory."

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

Essential criteria
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:

* is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
* is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

Non-essential criteria
Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if it:

* is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
* is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of these extra criteria.

Theories do not have to be perfectly accurate to be scientifically useful. The predictions made by Classical mechanics are known to be inaccurate, but they are sufficiently good approximations in most circumstances that they are still very useful and widely used in place of more accurate but mathematically difficult theories.

[Nukatha]

A would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory.

Evolution (species splitting/becoming so different from ancestors that it is unbreedable, that's my definition today. Genentic defects that affect the reproductive organs don't count, considering how there won't be a next generation...) certainly makes predictions, but they can't be observed as predicted.


I am Lutheran, and I must also admit, Creation is also not observable.

Based on the definition of Theory, both are invalid lol.

You can try to use fossils for both, (and as I believe all fossils point toward creation, but you can ignore this part since I am trying not to be biased at least momemtarily), but that's only looking into the past, not viewing what is happenening now. The fact that evolution cannot be seen removes its chance of being a theory. It would take complete documentation of a species changing into another species to be complete 'hard evidence' for it. That hasn't happened, and based on the predictions, it'll take a few million years lol.

Anyways, if creatures do not change over that time, Creation is definitely the better contender, (I believe this now, but hey, many people don't). If the extreme predicted change does occur (and it won't) then evolution would be the more likely candidate.

I must ask about the origin of life though. Spontaneous generation (the thought that creatures randomly appeared, for example, meat spontaneously grows maggots) has been proved wrong for a few centuries.

If bugs cannot randomly appear (even though they are supposed to have more entropy than small creatures such as bacteria based on Law 2 of Thermodyamics) then why the heck should bacteria/virii be able to have spontaneously generated millions of years ago?

[Renquist]

Sorry Nukatha, but it seems you are missing one vital piece of information in your above observations.

Saying that evolution cannot be seen is false. Evolution does NOT happen over time. It happens over generations. The genetic memory and environmental stimuli adds up to effecting offspring. The shorter the lifespan of any given species, the faster it evolves.

There has been examples of isolated species with a rather finite lifespan being effected by the environment. Evolution is fact.

I hate to use the reference but it illustrates the point - think of the movie 'Mimic.'

[Nukatha]

First, never saw the movie Mimic, sorry.

Anyways, Time, generations, regardless, its not observable. I'll bet that the species you speak of can still interbreed just fine with the originals that weren't affected by the climate change.

Take the Peppered moth for example, all they did was show a previously rare gene, they never changed species.

Regardless of what I am saying right now, could I have some linkage to examples? It is intruiging (I know I spelt that wrong...) lol.

[Renquist]

I'll leave that to the more enthralled members, as I'm sure they have links on hand.

I've stated before that both evolution and religion rely upon a heavy dose of the fantastic. I do believe that religion is closer to fairies and unicorns and magic wands turning people into toads though. At least science STRIVES to be credible.

Funny thing is, I believe in fairies, as I've had more evidence of them in my time than either religion or an ice age lol.

Just an observation earlier, I think many people make the mistake of thinking evolution is dependent upon time and not generation.

I don't really care for the debate as a whole though - there's not enough supporting evidence for either and I'd rather remain grounded in reality and not mere speculation. I'm sorry, but that's all it amounts to most days.

No one will have the answer in a hurry... save an act of God setting the record straight.

[Nukatha]

DALEETED.... by me

[ej]

Has this devolved into name-calling yet? Sorry... de-intelligently-designed yet? PM me if it does. I'd hate to think this thing has lasted over 100 pages without some hurt feelings on someone's part.

:twisted:

[Renquist]

Woah, for some reason I can't plop my message here, I keep getting a 403, forbidden, yet I can post just fine right now...

Well, it would seem that one or more of the words below was for some reason censored, and there aren't any swears whatsoever. Anyways, good luck reading the below, I put a space in the middle of nearly every word to get past the censor.


I bel ieve in Ang els and Dem ons.

Demo ns e nter hou ses mo stly o f Christ ians an d no n-Chris tians ali ke fo r th e s ole p urp ose o f dri vin g th em awa y f rom Go d. The y t ake th e fo rm o f usu ally mu rder ers, o r som eon e wh o w as mu rde red i n th e ho us e. Ju st thi nk, wo uld n 't i t b e pr et ty sm ar t t o ge t pe op le t o re ly o n wit c hcra ft, so met h ing con s idere d a sa tan ic a rt? Ev il, ve ry y es, b ut i t wou ld ma ke sen se. Sco re o ne Luc if er, i nste ad o f re sor ting t o chu rch an d pra yers, th ey gr ab so me s o cal l ed p syc hic w ho prac ti ces su ch art s.

I n th e T V sho ws su ch a s 'A Ha un ting' the re a re of ten 'ni ce' gho sts. Th ese s u ch pe ople m ig ht be A n g els, ap pea r ing a s s ma ll ch i ldr en, o r oth erwi se 'n i ce' pe op le, wo rk ing i n t he ho us e ag ai nst th e d em ons. Th ey att em pt t o ge t pe op le t o tru st i n G od b y sh owing th at the re is tr ul y a w ar go ing o n betwe en g ood a nd ev il beyo nd t he h uman wo rld. Wh en so m eone de ci des t o be gin go in g t o ch urch, st art pr ay ing, a nd t r ust i n G od unf aili ngly, t he de mon in the ho use usual ly di sapp ears, wh eras wi th t he ab ove versi on, t hey c an re a pp ea r. W it h th at, t he an gel m ay j ust dec i de t o fi nd a not her f am ily t o a ss ist, o r rem ain i n th e ho use i n ca se Sat an d oes d ecide t o att ack ag ain.

No, I have never seen a ghost, nor do I plan to, but if any ghost stories are true, this is what I think.

It may have gotten censored due to it's inaccuracy lol. Sorry, no offense meant.

'Witchraft' as you put it has been around far longer than christianity, catholicism, etc etc... I for one cannot understand how something that predates our knowledge of God and Satan, can be something of a Satanic art?

Now, you can tell me hat God out-dates everything, but according to written word and any traceable evidence, well that's just heresay.

Have you ever considered why the pagan 'great horned god' just happens to look like Satan? It's not the case. Satan was created to look like him to simply alienate such occult beliefs and further reinforce the churches propaganda.

As far as 'magic' is concerned, don't even get me started on burning people at the stake for practicing herbal medicine in the name of God.

This is hardly the place to discuss the occult.

As far as your conception of Demons and Angels is concerned, that's all well and good, but hardly correct by biblical reference.

People, murderers or not, are simply people. Satan does not make them do it.

Again, don't even get me started on ghosts and demons, as that's something I have quite a mass of experience with, but again; this is not the place to discuss it.

Feel free to ask anything Nukatha - I only wanted to enlighten you to the existence of much more dependable information regarding the topic of your post. I'm not assuming that you're uneducated in any way shape or form, and you are entirely entitled to your belief.

I simply feel that said opinion is hard to stand by when so many other things would indicate many other reasons for the existence and capabilities of ghosts, angels, demons and witchcraft.

[Nukatha]

Shows ya what randomness I can come up with at midnight lol.

I'm not even getting into what caused murderers to be murderers, and I don't think that magic exists period. I am confused. Heck, I'm going to delete that post and pretend it never was posted. Its hard to read anyways.

[Renquist]

Hold up one second - magic is simply a term of reference for many things. Tell me God isn't magical. By definition he is. Anything that science has failed to recognize or understand could also be considered the same.

There is stage magic, ritual magic, and what I refer to as base magics.

Again, wrong thread.

[jaques]

A would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory.

Evolution (species splitting/becoming so different from ancestors that it is unbreedable, that's my definition today. Genentic defects that affect the reproductive organs don't count, considering how there won't be a next generation...) certainly makes predictions, but they can't be observed as predicted.

Natural selection is the mechanism Darwin proposed for evolution. It states that individuals better adapted for their environment will be more likely to survive and reproduce, thus passing their genes on and causing their adaptations to become prevalent in the population.

Tuberculosis is a disease that, in its original form, was easily treatable by antibiotics. But if a person failed to complete the full course of antibiotics, not all of the bacteria would be killed off.

In accordance with Darwin's theory, we would predict that the bacteria that survived and reproduced would be those most resistant to the antibiotics.

The rise of drug-resistant tuberculosis is an observed example of a species adapting to a change in its environment, as predicted by evolutionary theory.

This example allows scientists to make a further prediction: If we continue to allow sloppy use of antibiotics, we will see more and more drug-resistant bacteria evolve, creating a grave danger to public health.

Is that useful enough for you?

[Tiberius]

It may have gotten censored due to it's inaccuracy lol. Sorry, no offense meant.

'Witchraft' as you put it has been around far longer than christianity, catholicism, etc etc... I for one cannot understand how something that predates our knowledge of God and Satan, can be something of a Satanic art?

Now, you can tell me hat God out-dates everything, but according to written word and any traceable evidence, well that's just heresay.

Have you ever considered why the pagan 'great horned god' just happens to look like Satan? It's not the case. Satan was created to look like him to simply alienate such occult beliefs and further reinforce the churches propaganda.

As far as 'magic' is concerned, don't even get me started on burning people at the stake for practicing herbal medicine in the name of God.

This is hardly the place to discuss the occult.

As far as your conception of Demons and Angels is concerned, that's all well and good, but hardly correct by biblical reference.

People, murderers or not, are simply people. Satan does not make them do it.

Again, don't even get me started on ghosts and demons, as that's something I have quite a mass of experience with, but again; this is not the place to discuss it.

Feel free to ask anything Nukatha - I only wanted to enlighten you to the existence of much more dependable information regarding the topic of your post. I'm not assuming that you're uneducated in any way shape or form, and you are entirely entitled to your belief.

I simply feel that said opinion is hard to stand by when so many other things would indicate many other reasons for the existence and capabilities of ghosts, angels, demons and witchcraft.

The original post was blocked because of the p s y combination of letters, you cant put them together or it gets blocked for some reason. Anyhow, hello again renquist, an interesting topic you have brought up with witchcraft and demons and satan.

I would agree that witchcraft has been around longer than "christianity" but not the old testament or God's people (i.e. the Isrealite nation). The old testament is full of warnings and worshipping other Gods, listening to oracles and practicing witchcraft and wizardry. Those are defined in the Christian world as deriving power from something other than God, be it nature, yourself, demons, satan, spirits, the sun, whatever.

According to Christian beleifs, Satan was cast out of heaven before the garden of eden was there, and hence Satan was on earth to tempt Eve, the first woman in christian doctorine, in the original sin.

So according to written word, the old testament, God does outdate everything since he created everything, including Satan, and all the fallen angels (demons) and everything else.

In christian beleifs, Satan is not some great horned goat man, he is actually one of the most beautiful of angels created by God, and I beleive he had an important function of standing in God's presence and leading worship or taking care of some sort of service, but I forget exactly what. The point is, Satan looks like an angel of light, a very beautiful and very tempting creature on the outside, according to scriptures. I am not sure of the origin of the horned demon/devil looking thing.

I agree with you about the witch hunts and burning at the stake. That was obviously taking things way too far and goes against scripture in my opinion. Refer to Jesus and the adulterous who was about to be stoned and he told the masses, he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Everyone left and no one threw any stones and Jesus said he wouldnt condemn her either, go and sin no more. The point is, the judge, jury and executioner mentality was not christian, it was anything but that.

Actually I think a religious thread is a fabulous place to discuss occult, as it is a religion or various religions in itself.

I agree with your statement, Satan does not cause people to sin. He might tempt, manipulate events, etc, but we make the ultimate decision. If I sin, I am the guilty one, no one else. I am responsible for my own actions, just like everyone else.

I do beleive in ghosts, demons and the such, as is evidenced in the Bible. It says they exist. I personally am suprised at how many christians do not beleive in them.

[Renquist]

Heheh, hiya Tiberius.

As I said, I know that I was about to be told about how long God has been about. My only point is that there is more documented evidence of the occult having a longer running, documented tradition.

In fact, the further back we go, the more we see common occult practices incorporated in many other structured religions. Some of these practices are still present and running strong these days.

I think we can all agree that modern religion has been through the works with many manipulators through the centuries - the message may be what is important, but many practices and teachings were formed and changed to suit certain mens and societies needs.

Perhaps I could say that religion, as it is passed down these days is something other than what it originally was meant to be. It is perhaps more structured and controlled, but has also been somewhat diluted in practice and message due to the many manipulations it has suffered.

I could recall many times that today's more dominant faith's were raised from the ashes or even created by those outside the church, purely because it served their needs... but I'm too tired to google names. LOL.

[Tiberius]

Heheh, hiya Tiberius.

As I said, I know that I was about to be told about how long God has been about. My only point is that there is more documented evidence of the occult having a longer running, documented tradition.

In fact, the further back we go, the more we see common occult practices incorporated in many other structured religions. Some of these practices are still present and running strong these days.

I think we can all agree that modern religion has been through the works with many manipulators through the centuries - the message may be what is important, but many practices and teachings were formed and changed to suit certain mens and societies needs.

Perhaps I could say that religion, as it is passed down these days is something other than what it originally was meant to be. It is perhaps more structured and controlled, but has also been somewhat diluted in practice and message due to the many manipulations it has suffered.

I could recall many times that today's more dominant faith's were raised from the ashes or even created by those outside the church, purely because it served their needs... but I'm too tired to google names. LOL.

I would agree with most of that. Even in the catholic church, at certain points that had someone in control that they called an anti-pope, who after they were put into power performed acts that were very unbefitting the station. The Witch hunts, the crusades, all done in the name of religion and anyone actually looking at the content of the religion would be able to tell it was all poppycock.

People may manipulate it and use it for thier own purpose, but the core is still out there, and it is for the discerning individual to strip away men's lies and manipulations and find the God inspired and preserved scriptures. I guess my sole point of contention is that God has protected his word throughout the centuries and has kept it what it once was. Translations may have typos, but the meaning is not changed. Entire civilizations have tried to destroy it and eradicate it but it survived and still flourishes on the best seller list. But overall I agree with you. There is a sordid history of men's sin closely associated with religion and that is a real shame.

[Renquist]

I would inform anyone unknowing that you Tiberius, follow your faith in it's purity and how it should be followed.

I'm not certain that everyone of faith can acknowledge that a certain degree of propaganda has permeated many denominations and til this day, is simply considered fact.

We can't assume all people have their head on as firmly as you. ;)

[Tiberius]

Well it would be awefully pompous of me to claim to know it all, as I certainly do not. I just know what I beleive, and what I have learned. But thank you for the kind words.

[Renquist]

No problem. Just calling it as I see it.

[jaques]

If I sin, I am the guilty one, no one else. I am responsible for my own actions, just like everyone else.

This is actually at odds with my understanding of Christian doctrine, so maybe you can clarify for me.

As I understand it, humans cannot help sinning. We are by nature sinful because of the fall of Adam. We are going to sin, and that's simply how it is. There may be individual acts of sin that we manage to resist, but we cannot through any act of will avoid sin entirely.

So more appropriately, one might say, "When I sin, I am accountable for it, even though ultimately it is Adam who was responsible."

This peculiar notion of being held accountable for something that's not really your own fault is part of what troubles me about Christianity.

[theats]

yeah, I want on of those 2008 DeLoreans too.

[Revdyer]

If I sin, I am the guilty one, no one else. I am responsible for my own actions, just like everyone else.

This is actually at odds with my understanding of Christian doctrine, so maybe you can clarify for me.

As I understand it, humans cannot help sinning. We are by nature sinful because of the fall of Adam. We are going to sin, and that's simply how it is. There may be individual acts of sin that we manage to resist, but we cannot through any act of will avoid sin entirely.

So more appropriately, one might say, "When I sin, I am accountable for it, even though ultimately it is Adam who was responsible."

This peculiar notion of being held accountable for something that's not really your own fault is part of what troubles me about Christianity.
This was, of course, essentially the argument between Pelagius and Augustine. I think it ran to something like 680 pages in Latin between the two of them.

[HSisforcoolkids]

This was, of course, essentially the argument between Pelagius and Augustine. I think it ran to something like 680 pages in Latin between the two of them.

Well don't tease us. Give us the play by play.

[Revdyer]

This was, of course, essentially the argument between Pelagius and Augustine. I think it ran to something like 680 pages in Latin between the two of them.

Well don't tease us. Give us the play by play.Augustine won in the third round. Augustine contented (watch this carefully) that you could not choose not to sin. He said "original sin" prevented an "I will not sin" from being possible. Pelagius countered, from England, saying, "God wouldn't pull a dirty trick on us like that. Of course we can choose not to sin, we just never do. But we could." Augustine replied, for the knock out, "If we never do, then there is no use in saying that we can." Everyone was tired at that point and the debate went on hold until Thomas Aquinas.

(This is why I got paid to teach "Philosophy of Religion.")

[jaques]

This was, of course, essentially the argument between Pelagius and Augustine. I think it ran to something like 680 pages in Latin between the two of them.

680 pages in Latin? Holy cow, that's like, 4900 pages in Pig Latin!

:)

I guess I should look this up sometime. Augustine bored me off my rocker in college, but I had a much more limited attention span back then. (Although curiously, I had a lot more time on my hands. Is there some sort of paradox there?)

[Tiberius]

If I sin, I am the guilty one, no one else. I am responsible for my own actions, just like everyone else.

This is actually at odds with my understanding of Christian doctrine, so maybe you can clarify for me.

As I understand it, humans cannot help sinning. We are by nature sinful because of the fall of Adam. We are going to sin, and that's simply how it is. There may be individual acts of sin that we manage to resist, but we cannot through any act of will avoid sin entirely.

So more appropriately, one might say, "When I sin, I am accountable for it, even though ultimately it is Adam who was responsible."

This peculiar notion of being held accountable for something that's not really your own fault is part of what troubles me about Christianity.

Hi Jaques, thank you for pointing out my poor grammer. I never meant to say that I could ever fully be sin free, if that is what you got from my line. I meant it more of the, if we are faced with a temptation, we can choose not to sin. No one can avoid all sin and not all sin falls into you through giving into temptation, sometimes it comes from bad judgement or making a mistake or letting your concerns for yourself or situation become stronger than your reliance on God, or any number of a gazillion things. So yes, your understanding is correct that through Adam and Eve, thier original sin cursed our race to be imperfect beings.

But regardless, "when" I sin, I am responsible for it, whether I can stop myself from doing it or not. I deserve what consequences I get from it. It is through grace, a gift from God though Jesus Christ and His sacrifice that I can find salvation. That act of sacrifice has justified me in God's sight, because I have wholeheartedly accepted that gift.

I guess it is your statement about something not being my own fault that strikes me as wrong. It is my own fault, I can always strive to do better.

[jaques]

I guess it is your statement about something not being my own fault that strikes me as wrong. It is my own fault, I can always strive to do better.

The fact that you strive to do better is your own individual will being expressed. The fact that you are tempted in the first place is Adam's fault; there is nothing whatsoever that you can do about it, and God knows that you will never fully be able to resist those temptations.

This is what troubles me: that the striving to do better is unimportant in God's eyes (unless accompanied by an acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior), whereas the blot of sinfulness causes him to judge us as individuals, even though we did not acquire that blot individually.

[Tiberius]

I think we are both dancing around a topic that neither of us are being 100% accurate on, in describing the christian doctorine of this concept of original sin and how your own life and personal sin comes into that. Let me think about it for a while and I will post something when I think of a better way to formulate it.

[Tiberius]

I guess it is your statement about something not being my own fault that strikes me as wrong. It is my own fault, I can always strive to do better.

The fact that you strive to do better is your own individual will being expressed. The fact that you are tempted in the first place is Adam's fault; there is nothing whatsoever that you can do about it, and God knows that you will never fully be able to resist those temptations.

This is what troubles me: that the striving to do better is unimportant in God's eyes (unless accompanied by an acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior), whereas the blot of sinfulness causes him to judge us as individuals, even though we did not acquire that blot individually.

You are correct in saying that original sin originated from Adam and Eve. And through them, sin and imperfection has been passed down through generations to thier children. For a good reference and explanation of the Christian doctorine behind this I recommend the Catholic Church Catechism. It does a very good job of describing the biblical foundation and church stance on the issue.

Original Sin The Wound Of Sin: Original And Personal (from the Catechism)

Man's First Sin

The reality of sin - it breaks the profound relationship of man to God
Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognise the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history. (386)
Only Revelation clarifies the reality of sin, which is not just a p sychological flaw
Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognise sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a p sychological weakness, a mistake, or a necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another. (387)
We cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ
The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the ‘reverse side’ of the Good News that Jesus is Saviour of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ. (389)
A primeval event at the beginning of the history of man
The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault committed by our first parents. (390)
Freedom put to the test
God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die". The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognise and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. (396)
Disobedience to God
Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness. (397)
Seduced by the devil, man preferred himself to God
In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully ‘divinized’ by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God" (St Maximus the Confessor) (398)
The tragic consequences of this sin
Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives. (399)
The harmony is broken- in man, between man and woman, with creation - and death enters human history
The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: the visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay" (Rom 8:21). Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground", for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history. (400)


In brief - By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings. (416)
The Consequences for Humanity

We are all afflicted with Adam’s sin
Following St Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the ‘death of the soul’. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptises for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin. (403)
The personal sin of Adam and Eve affected human nature which is transmitted in a fallen state to all of us
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam ‘as one body of man’. By the ‘unity of the human race’ all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’ - a state and not an act. (404)
The effects of original sin in us - human nature is wounded, subject to concupiscence, and death
Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called ‘concupiscence’. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (405) In brief - Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called ‘original sin’. (417)
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called ‘concupiscence’). (418)
A New Adam and a New Eve

After the original sin - the ‘First Gospel’, the promise of a Redeemer

After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall (cf. Gen 3:9,15). This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (‘first gospel’): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers. (410)

The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the ‘New Adam’ who, because he "became obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience of Adam. Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the ‘Protoevengelium’ as Mary, the mother of Christ, the ‘New Eve’. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life. (411)

In brief - Christians believe that ‘the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator’s love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen, to break the power of the evil one...’ (421)
Man in Paradise

The harmony and friendship with God before sin
The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ. (374)
The original state of holiness and justice
The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original ‘state of holiness and justice’. This grace of original holiness was ‘to share...in divine life’. (375)
The inner harmony of the human person - no human suffering or death
By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called ‘original justice’. (376)
Mastery of self and freedom from triple concupiscence
The ‘mastery’ over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realised above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason. (377)
Familiarity with God
The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden. there he lives to "till it and keep it". Work is not yet a burden, but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation. (378)
This harmony was lost by the sin of our first parents
The entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents. (379)

In brief - Revelation makes known to us the state of original holiness and justice of man and woman before sin; from their friendship with God flowed the happiness of their existence in paradise. (384)

[theats]

...And thus, the Tome of Tiberius was concluded.

[Jotun]

My internet connection has been batty, and now that I'm back at least for a little bit I'd like to pose a thought I had recently.

I've been thinking about free will recently. From my past history of good ideas, bad ideas, and really bad ideas, all of them were decisions that I considered "right" at the time. I've heard argued before that there is no such thing as a wrong decision because every action you take is an action you believe is right.

Now the word "right" is tricky because I'm not applying any morality to the action. Murder is wrong unless of course you justify it to yourself as in, say, war or self-defense or doing God's will.

This arose from the recent things I've read (maybe not here) regarding people saying that science cannot explain consciousness, beauty, etc. Of course, religion doesn't explain it either but it does insert a surrogate explanation of saying, "Maybe Thor causes it." It can't be disproved yet so it satisfies all of the criteria for potential God stuff.

People pose questions to naturalists saying that if every thought in our brain is the result of a chemical reaction then we have no free will. I may be butchering this in the deliver, but I hope you'll get to my general point even if I fudged some of the details. Scientists barely have begun to understand the brain, but considering it seems impossible to make a "wrong" decision maybe there's nothing to this whole free will idea after all. Even if you tried to make a wrong decision you would still be making a right decision because you justified it inside your head.

Or is free will just a fancy way of saying, "Be responsible."

[Jonathan]

So, Jotun, are you saying that "wrongness" can only be determined in hindsight?

[ej]

So, Jotun, are you saying that "wrongness" can only be determined in hindsight?

Religion, Philosophy and Common Sense always seem to be in conflict.

[Tiberius]

My internet connection has been batty, and now that I'm back at least for a little bit I'd like to pose a thought I had recently.

I've been thinking about free will recently. From my past history of good ideas, bad ideas, and really bad ideas, all of them were decisions that I considered "right" at the time. I've heard argued before that there is no such thing as a wrong decision because every action you take is an action you believe is right.

Now the word "right" is tricky because I'm not applying any morality to the action. Murder is wrong unless of course you justify it to yourself as in, say, war or self-defense or doing God's will.

This arose from the recent things I've read (maybe not here) regarding people saying that science cannot explain consciousness, beauty, etc. Of course, religion doesn't explain it either but it does insert a surrogate explanation of saying, "Maybe Thor causes it." It can't be disproved yet so it satisfies all of the criteria for potential God stuff.

People pose questions to naturalists saying that if every thought in our brain is the result of a chemical reaction then we have no free will. I may be butchering this in the deliver, but I hope you'll get to my general point even if I fudged some of the details. Scientists barely have begun to understand the brain, but considering it seems impossible to make a "wrong" decision maybe there's nothing to this whole free will idea after all. Even if you tried to make a wrong decision you would still be making a right decision because you justified it inside your head.

Or is free will just a fancy way of saying, "Be responsible."

I might be missing the general point you are trying to make Jotun so please correct me if I have misconstrued anything. I disagree that just because it is justified in our minds, it is right for us. At least from my own beleifs. An example I will use is from the Bible, King David (the guy that slew goliath, I am sure most people know of that story and who I am talking about), anyhow, later in his life, he wanted to build God a temple, The Temple, but God wouldnt let him because he had too much blood on his hands from all the wars he had waged throughout his life, some in self defense, some in defense of his people, some to take over the throne as was told by God. So just because doing something may seem justified, wrong is still wrong, you just have to be willing to live with the consequences.

But I do agree with your last statement, free will is synonymous with be responsible.

[Tiberius]

...And thus, the Tome of Tiberius was concluded.

:lol:

[Jotun]

My internet connection has been batty, and now that I'm back at least for a little bit I'd like to pose a thought I had recently.

I've been thinking about free will recently. From my past history of good ideas, bad ideas, and really bad ideas, all of them were decisions that I considered "right" at the time. I've heard argued before that there is no such thing as a wrong decision because every action you take is an action you believe is right.

Now the word "right" is tricky because I'm not applying any morality to the action. Murder is wrong unless of course you justify it to yourself as in, say, war or self-defense or doing God's will.

This arose from the recent things I've read (maybe not here) regarding people saying that science cannot explain consciousness, beauty, etc. Of course, religion doesn't explain it either but it does insert a surrogate explanation of saying, "Maybe Thor causes it." It can't be disproved yet so it satisfies all of the criteria for potential God stuff.

People pose questions to naturalists saying that if every thought in our brain is the result of a chemical reaction then we have no free will. I may be butchering this in the deliver, but I hope you'll get to my general point even if I fudged some of the details. Scientists barely have begun to understand the brain, but considering it seems impossible to make a "wrong" decision maybe there's nothing to this whole free will idea after all. Even if you tried to make a wrong decision you would still be making a right decision because you justified it inside your head.

Or is free will just a fancy way of saying, "Be responsible."

I might be missing the general point you are trying to make Jotun so please correct me if I have misconstrued anything. I disagree that just because it is justified in our minds, it is right for us. At least from my own beleifs. An example I will use is from the Bible, King David (the guy that slew goliath, I am sure most people know of that story and who I am talking about), anyhow, later in his life, he wanted to build God a temple, The Temple, but God wouldnt let him because he had too much blood on his hands from all the wars he had waged throughout his life, some in self defense, some in defense of his people, some to take over the throne as was told by God. So just because doing something may seem justified, wrong is still wrong, you just have to be willing to live with the consequences.

But I do agree with your last statement, free will is synonymous with be responsible.

Making the best decision you can with the information and context seems rational enough. No need to bring God and free will into it. Free will implies that we are given a choice between being good or evil. However if we chose to believe that one's mind is constantly assessing all the possible choices based on the information we've received about the world throughout our lives, then it would support the idea that knowledge gives you power to make more informed decisions. Whereas free will makes it sound like more of a coin toss and puts the little angel and devil on our shoulders. Which one sounds more reasonable? (Obviously, in this example I was biased against free will.)

If I were to find out that all of my actions are the result of chemicals and trillions or more brain functions in a split second, then that would be so bad. I certainly wouldn't feel as if I was living any less. In fact, if that was pounded into kids' heads instead of religion, who knows what would be different.

For an amazing discussion about consciousness and free will, watch these very interesting philosophers, philosophers Daniel Dennett and Robert Wright. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486&q=dan+dennett+robert+wright&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

[Tiberius]

Interesting points Jotun. The chemicals and brain functions you refer to remind me of the in house christian debate of predestination vs free will, where some people beleive that God has dictated every action you will ever take and you are nothing more than a program following along on a predetermined path. For example, what if my brain was programmed to react a certain way to different stimuli and yours was programmed to react a different way? I guess we kind of are, but I believe there is more to it than simply programming. I think we have a say, a choice, and while there are factors that can influence that decision, often times painful influences, the decision is still ours to make. I agree with you on your point of learning to assesses options and making that choice. I never saw freewill as the coin flip or the angel and devil saying go right or left. Typically decisions are much more complicated than that.

[theats]

Interesting points Jotun. The chemicals and brain functions you refer to remind me of the in house christian debate of predestination vs free will, where some people beleive that God has dictated every action you will ever take and you are nothing more than a program following along on a predetermined path. For example, what if my brain was programmed to react a certain way to different stimuli and yours was programmed to react a different way? I guess we kind of are, but I believe there is more to it than simply programming. I think we have a say, a choice, and while there are factors that can influence that decision, often times painful influences, the decision is still ours to make. I agree with you on your point of learning to assesses options and making that choice. I never saw freewill as the coin flip or the angel and devil saying go right or left. Typically decisions are much more complicated than that.

I see this argument on predestination and reflect on my own thoughts, or do I? I believe that we have free will, and that my omniscient God knows what every action we are ever going to make is. We have the choice, he knows the answer.

[Tiberius]

Interesting points Jotun. The chemicals and brain functions you refer to remind me of the in house christian debate of predestination vs free will, where some people beleive that God has dictated every action you will ever take and you are nothing more than a program following along on a predetermined path. For example, what if my brain was programmed to react a certain way to different stimuli and yours was programmed to react a different way? I guess we kind of are, but I believe there is more to it than simply programming. I think we have a say, a choice, and while there are factors that can influence that decision, often times painful influences, the decision is still ours to make. I agree with you on your point of learning to assesses options and making that choice. I never saw freewill as the coin flip or the angel and devil saying go right or left. Typically decisions are much more complicated than that.

I see this argument on predestination and reflect on my own thoughts, or do I? I believe that we have free will, and that my omniscient God knows what every action we are ever going to make is. We have the choice, he knows the answer.

Theats, that pretty much sums up my personal view on it as well. I am glad we agree.

[Dictatorbilbo]

A bit off topic, but does science currently agree that chance exists? I know that some argue that predestination isn't really science because it isn't verifiable, but I've heard arguments the other way...

I'm a bit confused on this point...

[Tiberius]

Does science involve chance? I would have to say absolutely, especially in my profession. I am a nuclear engineer and we deal in probabilities in fuel design every day. Something that is called a cross section is based on the probability that a nucleus of an atom of Uranium will absorb a neutron or reflect it or fission from the impact.

In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recently been getting into probabilistic risk assessment based evaluations. Before, you had to think of the worst thing that could ever happen and build your plant to withstand it. Now we look at, what are the chances that something like that would happen, what is the probability that these specific pieces of equipment would fail, that someone would make this specific mistake, etc, to make the worst case happen. It adds a bit of realism and best guess to the ultra conservatism that is the nuclear industry.

[theats]

A bit off topic, but does science currently agree that chance exists? I know that some argue that predestination isn't really science because it isn't verifiable, but I've heard arguments the other way...

I'm a bit confused on this point...

I was coming from a theological standpoint.I have heard that some beleive that the fourth dimension is time, and that if we could see the fourth dimension, we would see a long snake like form. We would move along the snake until we died. That is predestination.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Does science involve chance? I would have to say absolutely, especially in my profession. I am a nuclear engineer and we deal in probabilities in fuel design every day. Something that is called a cross section is based on the probability that a nucleus of an atom of Uranium will absorb a neutron or reflect it or fission from the impact.

In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recently been getting into probabilistic risk assessment based evaluations. Before, you had to think of the worst thing that could ever happen and build your plant to withstand it. Now we look at, what are the chances that something like that would happen, what is the probability that these specific pieces of equipment would fail, that someone would make this specific mistake, etc, to make the worst case happen. It adds a bit of realism and best guess to the ultra conservatism that is the nuclear industry.

Thank you for the response! I was coming from a more theoretical standpoint... I'm still learning and I have yet to learn further than the Newtonian universe... I guess my real question was "Does God play dice?" (I think that's how the quote goes...)

[Jonathan]

God "plays dice" by giving us free will :D

[ares834]

God "plays dice" by giving us free will :D
Naw, he rolls aroung dice with Skulls and Shield hoping his next soildier will destroy that terrorist. "Come on three skulls"

[Tiberius]

Does God play dice? Good question and there are really two answers to that, that might seem to contradict but dont. First, recognize that an omnipotent being is perfect. I think the Infinity Gauntlet series (marvel comics) put it best that if God made a mistake, he could simply wish it away, but with knowledge of the future, past and present and knowledge of all possible outcomes from every action, you really couldnt make a mistake unless it was intentional. Is that what reality is? I beleive God is omnipotent so if there are any flaws, God intentionally allowed it, is what I believe.

I think God does play dice in the sense that he allows humans to have free will and make thier own decisions. He knows what decision you will make, but he doesnt make that decision for you, does that make sense? So in the sense of God taking a chance, he isnt because he knows the future, but he is because he is not directly controlling the outcome of your decision. At least that is what I believe.

[Onion Knight]

The chemicals and brain functions you refer to remind me of the in house christian debate of predestination vs free will, where some people beleive that God has dictated every action you will ever take and you are nothing more than a program following along on a predetermined path.

This is an interesting next step of the conversation. I'm interested to see what RevDyer has to say about this, because (I think) the Presbyterian Church has "predestination" aspects to its world view. This is something that I've never fully understood in relationship to free will. (Also, my wife and I have been considering visiting a Presby church.)

BTW, I think that as we believers admit that some of the motivation for belief is the hope of heaven, an athiest must admit that some of the motivation for "non belief" is the desire to have no accountability for one's actions in an afterlife.

[theats]

Another way to put my predestination/omniscient argument would be like this:

You have a mouse in a box with an open top. You placed the mouse there, and along with it, you placed cheese on the other side. The mouse can choose not to eat the cheese, but you know he will because hungry mice like cheese.

[davidlhsl]

I beleive God is omnipotent so if there are any flaws, God intentionally allowed it, is what I believe.

I've taken a break from this excellent thread, but this stimulates a thought I've had that I'd like to share. I hope it doesn't repeat someone else's point or is out of context. My point deals with the aspect of whether God can create something that is flawed if God is perfect.

Consider a pair of dice to be used for craps in a casino. A perfect pair of dice would require construction in such manner for each die to have a precisely equal probability of landing on each of its six sides. If a die isn't weighted or cut properly, it might favor one side over the others.

Now consider a pair of loaded dice. These dice have to be constructed in such a manner where a combined total of 7 appears when thrown. You have to change the construction from the way a normal die is built in order to achieve it (you have to shave one of the sides at a slight angle and/or shift the weight, I would imagine). Thus, a pair of loaded dice would be considered flawed in comparison to a normal pair of dice. However, a pair of loaded dice would be considered perfect if it performs according to the purpose of its design.

Just another one of my random musings...

-David

[Revdyer]

There is a distinction that needs to be kept in mind between the ideas of predestination and determinism.

Predestination, in a strict meaning, is the idea that God knew, from the creation itself, those who were among the elect and those who were not. It is rightly used as a doctrine of humility, saying, "I can't take any credit for being a believer, it was a gift I was given even before I was made, by the grace of God." In that context it makes sense as a faith statement. It is, however, a misuse to say, "God chose me, but God didn't choose you." That would not only be arrogant, but it would destroy any motive to share one's faith (a danger that now and then in history has been seen).

Determinism, on the other hand, says that God has created everything is such a way that there are no accidents, no chance events, and no true free will, for human beings or animals or anything. All is fixed, pre-determined, and unchangeable. All is, also, perfect. Such a philosophy, of course, can be a comfort to people ("When it is your time to go, then you'll die, but not before."), but it tends to make us seem to be, at best, passive observes of the universe that we cannot effect, change, or control. If so, though, we also don't have to take any responsibility for our choices, since we don't really have any choice. At it's most extreme expression Behaviorist psychology says almost that.

Presbyterian theology tries to hold in tension both the idea and ideal of the sovereignty of God who is in absolute control, the calling of God to us to respond while choosing us and giving us the ability to respond, and the free will that we have been given to live in that response. It is a tricky juggling act and the logical explanations are never quite satisfying to the head. The experience of being held in the hands of a loving and Almighty God can be quite satisfying to the heart, though.

[Bannister]

I see this argument on predestination and reflect on my own thoughts, or do I? I believe that we have free will, and that my omniscient God knows what every action we are ever going to make is. We have the choice, he knows the answer.

If God already knows what actions we will take then every action we will make is predetermined. So we would have no ability to choose what actions we will take. The illusion of choice does not equal the free will to choose.

If God already knows all the answers then he already knows what souls will go to heaven and what souls will go to hell. If that is the case then why create the Earth and mankind in the first place? What would be the point? Why not just create heaven and hell and be done with it?

If you argue that the point of living your life is so that through free will you have the opportunity to choose God then you have to believe that your actions aren't predetermined. If they aren't predetermined then God can't know what actions you will take. Would this then mean that there are some things that are unknowable even to God? If there are things that beyond even him then he can't be all powerful and omnipotent.

Bannister

[Onion Knight]

If God already knows what actions we will take then every action we will make is predetermined.
I don't think that "predetermined" is the right word. That is, God hasn't determined our actions he just knows all possible choices from which we can choose.
If they aren't predetermined then God can't know what actions you will take.
If he knows all possible outcomes of every choice, then your free will is not limited, nor is his omniscience.

[Bannister]

If God already knows what actions we will take then every action we will make is predetermined.
I don't think that "predetermined" is the right word. That is, God hasn't determined our actions he just knows all possible choices from which we can choose.
If they aren't predetermined then God can't know what actions you will take.
If he knows all possible outcomes of every choice, then your free will is not limited, nor is his omniscience.

It is one thing if you say he knows all possible choices we can make and quite another to say that he knows "the" choice we will make. If at our birth God has no uncertainty about the choices we will make because they are already set, then there is no free will, only the illusion of free will. We would have no say in what we do, we would be destined to make certain choices.

The only way this would not be the case is if the choices we will make are unknowable, even by God. If they are knowable then they are already determined. If they are already determined then we have no real free will.

Again, if God knows I am going to hell, then what is the point of life? Certainly not to be given the chance to choose god, because he already knows that I won't. If God doens't know if I am going to hell or not then he isn't omipotent.

Bannister

[Jonathan]

If you can choose apples, grapes, or oranges, you only have 3 choices but you are not forced into any of them. I think a distinction has to be made there.

[Bannister]

But is the choice already set? Does God already know that I am going to pick the apple? If my choice will always be the apple and never the banana then i didn't really have a choice.

If he knows I am going to pick the apple, then what was the point of the banana and the orange? Why even give me the choice? If my choices are all predestined then when do I get to exercise my free will? The only way to really have free will is to have the future completely unset.

Does God Know or not to me anyway is really the question. It is somewhat of a paradox. If he knows then I don't have free will and he never really gave me a choice. If he doesn't know then he isn't omnipotent.

Bannister

[Jonathan]

Isn't it your choice for your choice to always be the apple?

I think just the fact that someone knows you well enough to know what you will choose does not discount your ability to choose.

[Revdyer]

It is an interesting thought that God knows all possible parallel universes. Definitely a post-Biblical concept, but interesting nonetheless.

[Onion Knight]

I never thought of God's omniscience as a post biblical concept. :ponder:

But,
om·nis·cient (?m-n?sh'?nt)
adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

1 Samuel 2:3
Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

This may be relevant...
1 Ch. 28:9
And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.

[Onion Knight]

I never thought of God's omniscience as a post biblical concept. :ponder:

But...

om·nis·cient (?m-n?sh'?nt)
adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

1 Samuel 2:3
Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

That may be out of context? I dunno...

Also, this may be relevant...
1 Ch. 28:9
And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.

[Bannister]

Isn't it your choice for your choice to always be the apple?

I think just the fact that someone knows you well enough to know what you will choose does not discount your ability to choose.

Isn't that the question???

Is it my choice? Is it that God knows me really well and knows what I "might" do or is it that God knows exactly what I "will" do? If he knows what I "might" do then it would be possible for me to pick the banana and for him to go, "wow, I didn't know he was going to do that". If he knows what I "might" do then I would have free will. Going to heaven or hell would be 100% up to me and he wouldn't know for sure which way I might end up.

If he knows what I "will" do then he is omipotent and can see everything from beginning to end. If this is the case then before he ever even created the heavens and the earth he knew I would be going to hell. So he created me knowing that my soul would torment for all eternity. Knowing that there was nothing that could be done about it. I would then have no free will.

If the point to life is to be given the opportunity to choose God then God shouldn't know which path you would choose. If he does then he created certain souls who would go heaven and certain souls who would go to hell on purpose. Why would he do that?

Tell me then, what is the point of life? Why create me in first place if he already knows how I will end up? Why bother with life on earth, why not just send everybody to heaven or hell?

It seems to me that this whole life thing is pretty pointless if the end result is already known.

Bannister

[Revdyer]

I never thought of God's omniscience as a post biblical concept. :ponder:

But...

om·nis·cient (?m-n?sh'?nt)
adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

1 Samuel 2:3
Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

That may be out of context? I dunno...

Also, this may be relevant...
1 Ch. 28:9
And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.<laughing> No, I meant the idea of parallel universes being post-Biblical, not God as omniscient.

[Onion Knight]

:duh:

:oops:

[that guy]

There better not be an afterlife. I'm looking forward to never having to do anything ever again. Ever.

[jaques]

If God already knows what actions we will take then every action we will make is predetermined. So we would have no ability to choose what actions we will take. The illusion of choice does not equal the free will to choose.

I hate to say this, but I think Theats' analogy of the mouse and cheese defeats this argument, Bannister.



If God already knows all the answers then he already knows what souls will go to heaven and what souls will go to hell. If that is the case then why create the Earth and mankind in the first place? What would be the point? Why not just create heaven and hell and be done with it?


I write stories and novels. Before I start writing one, I usually have a good idea of how it will turn out, although the details often surprise me as I go along. By halfway through, I'm usually very certain about almost all of the expected resolutions.

Why do I bother to keep writing?

Why do I often go back to things I've written and reread them?

The answer is that I enjoy writing stories, and I enjoy reading them. Familiarity with the details sometimes even increases my enjoyment upon rereading.

If there is a God who resembles man in any way, I suspect He is a storyteller, and whether His external audience is humanity, or a choir of angels, or some other entity of which we here on Earth have no knowledge whatsoever, one thing is certain: if He is at all like most human storytellers, then a very important member of his audience is Himself.

[Tiberius]

Isn't it your choice for your choice to always be the apple?

I think just the fact that someone knows you well enough to know what you will choose does not discount your ability to choose.

Isn't that the question???

Is it my choice? Is it that God knows me really well and knows what I "might" do or is it that God knows exactly what I "will" do? If he knows what I "might" do then it would be possible for me to pick the banana and for him to go, "wow, I didn't know he was going to do that". If he knows what I "might" do then I would have free will. Going to heaven or hell would be 100% up to me and he wouldn't know for sure which way I might end up.

If he knows what I "will" do then he is omipotent and can see everything from beginning to end. If this is the case then before he ever even created the heavens and the earth he knew I would be going to hell. So he created me knowing that my soul would torment for all eternity. Knowing that there was nothing that could be done about it. I would then have no free will.

If the point to life is to be given the opportunity to choose God then God shouldn't know which path you would choose. If he does then he created certain souls who would go heaven and certain souls who would go to hell on purpose. Why would he do that?

Tell me then, what is the point of life? Why create me in first place if he already knows how I will end up? Why bother with life on earth, why not just send everybody to heaven or hell?

It seems to me that this whole life thing is pretty pointless if the end result is already known.

Bannister

I am with Jaques, Theats and David, there Bannister.

God puts the decision in front of you, you make the choice. It is your choice to continue choosing the apple, or with knowledge that you have that continuing to choose the apple leads to hell and you still choose the apple, well that is still your choice.

I never thought of it like your book author analogy Jaques, I liked that alot.

[jaques]

God puts the decision in front of you, you make the choice. It is your choice to continue choosing the apple, or with knowledge that you have that continuing to choose the apple leads to hell and you still choose the apple, well that is still your choice.

Although from the nonbeliever's perspective, it's more like an apple has been put before us, and on the one hand we have people saying, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away," while on the other hand, other people are saying, "Watch out! That apple is covered in dioxin!"


I never thought of it like your book author analogy Jaques, I liked that alot.

Thanks, Tiberius. Usually, people have a more negative reaction when I liken myself to God. :wink:

[Agent Minivann]

I think that God does know us well enough that he knows how we will react in any given situation. IMO that doesn't affect free will at all. Just taking us and putting us in heaven or hell based purely on that knowledge would affect free will. The appeal that we would have chosen differently would probably be loud and clear among those that don't like where they are. Ultimately I think it boils down to the experience of choosing is inherently important for the individual. Knowing I can enjoy a certain set of health benefits from exercise is VERY different from actually performing the exercise. Considering that we don't inherently know whether following one religious tradition or another is absolutely correct makes it even more a case of exercising our free will. The experience and the knowledge we pick up along the way shape who we are in the next life.

[ares834]

There better not be an afterlife. I'm looking forward to never having to do anything ever again. Ever.
It actually would not be bad, because you would not exist so you would not ven notice it would suck. I know it's hard to pretend not to exist ,but would you agree that not existing is better than hell? NENE would.
I however do belive in God so i belive in an afterlife.

[Dictatorbilbo]

I'm still kind of confused... I'm sorry if this has been addressed already (the thread moves way too fast for me :) ), but what is the main argument against determinism?

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

BTW, I think that as we believers admit that some of the motivation for belief is the hope of heaven, an athiest must admit that some of the motivation for "non belief" is the desire to have no accountability for one's actions in an afterlife.

Incorrect. A necessary part of Christianity is belief in Heaven. The only necessary part of being an atheist is having no belief in God(s).

IOW - I think for some atheists this could be true - it is not an across the board thing like the belief in heaven is for a theist.

[theats]

Wow, 110 pages and there have been NO references comparing any member to Nazism.

[Revdyer]

I'm still kind of confused... I'm sorry if this has been addressed already (the thread moves way too fast for me :) ), but what is the main argument against determinism?Traditionally, the main argument against determinism is that it removes human choice or free will, even limited free will, and it feels to most people like we do have choices in our lives. The counter argument is that even the feeling of having choices is determined for us already.

[HSisforcoolkids]

Incorrect. A necessary part of Christianity is belief in Heaven. The only necessary part of being an atheist is having no belief in God(s).


Heaven is not a necessary belief for Christians to have. It is a common belief, but not necessary. I know an ordained Methodist minister who does not believe in heaven or hell. He believes that a person can live in hell on earth and that a person could also live in heaven on earth, depending on the way things are in that person's life.

I've thought often on if there is a heaven or a hell, and quite frankly, I'm not sure the Bible is as clear on that issue as we sometimes like to think. It comforts me to think that after my life on earth is over I will continue to live and in the presence of God at that, but I'm just not sure. Regardless of if there is a heaven or not, I have no doubts that there is a God. Having a relationship with God brings enough joy to me in this life that I am OK with the thought that after I die I just return to the ground and that is it.

[Bannister]

If God already knows what actions we will take then every action we will make is predetermined. So we would have no ability to choose what actions we will take. The illusion of choice does not equal the free will to choose.

I hate to say this, but I think Theats' analogy of the mouse and cheese defeats this argument, Bannister.

I fail to see how? Please explain.




If God already knows all the answers then he already knows what souls will go to heaven and what souls will go to hell. If that is the case then why create the Earth and mankind in the first place? What would be the point? Why not just create heaven and hell and be done with it?


I write stories and novels. Before I start writing one, I usually have a good idea of how it will turn out, although the details often surprise me as I go along. By halfway through, I'm usually very certain about almost all of the expected resolutions.

Why do I bother to keep writing?

Why do I often go back to things I've written and reread them?

The answer is that I enjoy writing stories, and I enjoy reading them. Familiarity with the details sometimes even increases my enjoyment upon rereading.

If there is a God who resembles man in any way, I suspect He is a storyteller, and whether His external audience is humanity, or a choir of angels, or some other entity of which we here on Earth have no knowledge whatsoever, one thing is certain: if He is at all like most human storytellers, then a very important member of his audience is Himself.

But he isn't anything like humans at all. He can't be.

If we agree that god is omnipotent (knows everything) and is all powerful (created everything), then he not only knows exactly what will happen in my life he also created it to happen just that way. He could have created a life experience that sent me towards the church instead of away from it but he didn't. If god knows what I will do and created me do just that then please tell me when my free will comes into play. My life experiences will determine my decisions, god not only knows what they are but made them that way. When do I get to decide to go against gods plan?


I would even argue further that an omnipotent, all powerful, all loving god would also be without free will.

If he is all loving then he only every has one choice. He has to make the most "moral" choice. He can't choice to do evil. If he can't choose then he doesn't have free will.

If he is omnipotent he knows everything that will happen. His future is set he already knows exactly what will happen. For every moment of his existence he already knows the choice he will make. He can't go right when he knows at this moment he will go left.

Bannister

[HSisforcoolkids]

I'm enjoying reading this dicussion and I'll just chime in with some personal thoughts on the nature of God.

I think God is capable of evil, but in His wisdom He chooses only good. We are created in Gods image with the ability to be wise and make good decisions, but we have all made poor decisions in our lives and have done some sort of evil at some point.

I've had people tell me that I'm limiting God's power by saying this (although how could my thought really limit God's power when God is so much more powerful than me?), but I don't think that God determines or knows our decisions beforehand. I think it would be a cocky statement to say that God created me to find salvation in Him but He created someone else to live a life of pain and remorse. Not only would that be arrogant of me but I think that would make God sadistic.

I gather, though, that people on this thread view God's omniscience as knowing what we will choose before we do it, rather than pre-determining what we will do. I still have trouble with that thought, because why would it be necessary for us to learn? Why would it be necessary for us to pray? What would be the point of prayer if God already knew we were going to pray for something? What would be the point of God's intervention? If what's going to happen is going to happen, then what is the point of us even living?

I think that God not knowing what we will do shows how powerful He actually is. He leaves it up to us to make decisions. He's a risk taker. I believe He intervenes and when good things happen in a world that seems hell bent on destroying itself, it's a testament to God's love and power despite the odds against someone following Him or consistently making good decisions.

I do believe that God is like humankind in His possibilities of morality, but as a perfect God, He chooses not to sin. God would not ask us to fight against sin if He was not willing to do the same-He does, but successfully.

[Bannister]

That is a very interesting answer. I think that most christians will have a problem with a God that can do evil and who doesn't know (not omnipotent), but still a very interesting answer.

I agree that if God already knows then life would be pointless. The problem though is then if he doesn't know then I think that would be placing some limits on his power. How do you explain this to others? Also, if you view God as capable of evil, is he still an all loving God and what would prevent him from doing evil?

Very interesting indeed. :D

Bannister

[HSisforcoolkids]

I agree that if God already knows then life would be pointless. The problem though is then if he doesn't know then I think that would be placing some limits on his power. How do you explain this to others? Also, if you view God as capable of evil, is he still an all loving God and what would prevent him from doing evil?

Bannister

As to the first question of God's power, I think it is subjective in the sense that to us, God's power has no ends. Compared to a human, God's power and sovereignty reaches beyond our wildest thoughts. With that said, I am unaware of any Scripture that says something along the lines of "God's power is infinite." (Although I could certainly be wrong about that.)

The second question is easier for me to come up with an answer for. I do believe that God is all loving, which is to say He chooses to love us completely. Love, as defined by my understanding of the Bible, is a choice we make. God chooses to love humanity despite our best efforts to forget God. What prevents God from doing evil is His dedication to love and to us. Real love and evil cannot co-exist, and God chooses to not do evil.

Bringing the two ideas together, I think God could exercise complete control over humanity, if God chose to. But God chooses to allow love a chance. If God has complete control over us, then how could we love Him? We couldn't, because it wouldn't be a choice. God gives each of us the ability to love, but He also gives us the choice to love. We are created in His image; God has the ability to love, and He also has the choice to love, just as we do. While we often stray from love, God always chooses love.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Hey all, haven't read or posted in this thread for awhile. (it can tend to be a bit distracting at times.... :wink: )

Discussions of free will & God are alwasy interesting. One thought-provoking book I read a couple years ago is God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God by Gregory Boyd. I don't necessarily agree with it, or everything that Boyd writes, as I've yet to really get my mind around (if such a thing is really even possible) a timeless God in a temporal creation, but it is food for thought. The general thrust of it is that while God is in 100% control of the "Big Picture", He leaves the details to His creation, while knowing the probabilities for each and every action/choice.

Let me try to summarize the concept without rewriting the book.... God doesn't just know what will happen over the lifespan of an individual, He also knows the probabilities of each and every possible action and choice that he or she could make, and the resulting effects from it. In other words, God wrote a "choose-your-own-adventure" book with almost infinite choices available to the reader, while still being in control of the overall parameters (beginning/end/etc...) But obviously the ending that we come to is up to the "reader" and the choices that he/she makes.

This is how prayer can affect reality. The future isn't already "written in stone", except for the "big picture" (as prophesied in Revelations, ie), so while God is in control, He has given us the freedom to make good and bad choices, both of which are needed for one to have free will, that fit within the overall framework of His creation.

So as a reader of a choose-your-own-adventure book, one which has almost infinite choices available at every turn, I would say that I most certainly have free will to choose the next step... though the author already "wrote" those choices out ages ago... Now if I were only limited to 1 or even a handful of choices, then "freewill" would be quite cramped and iffy as a concept, but since there are nearly an infinite number of choices on hand, I'd be pretty hard-pressed to argue that I don't have free will.

In short, "omniscience" accoring to Boyd isn't just knowing what WILL happen, but more along the lines of knowing all of the PROBABILITIES of what COULD happen over the course of creation... which is an even more awe-inspiring concept.

Anyway, I'm not arguing this point of view as something I believe in, but I did find it to be an interesting thought to ponder. Trying to understand something so vastly beyond us is a daunting task. I couldn't expect the ant to comprehend me in any substantial way, and likewise for me to demand that God reveal to me ALL of the mysteries of Himself and His creation is a bit far-reaching. Someday I will know and understand more, but on this side of eternity, I can merely speculate on the details.

Have a great day all!

[Jotun]

BTW, I think that as we believers admit that some of the motivation for belief is the hope of heaven, an athiest must admit that some of the motivation for "non belief" is the desire to have no accountability for one's actions in an afterlife.

Incorrect. A necessary part of Christianity is belief in Heaven. The only necessary part of being an atheist is having no belief in God(s).

IOW - I think for some atheists this could be true - it is not an across the board thing like the belief in heaven is for a theist.

Onion Knight and DMG, actively disbelieving strikes me as something that can only be done by someone who believes. IF If I believe that by saying "I don't believe in God" that I can somehow get through a loophole and avoid judgment, then that means that I believe that those loopholes exist. Those loopholes I'm jumping through would be part of the legal contract with God, and if I believe in that contract then I would not be an atheist. I would just be someone trying to trick an omnipotent being, which seems like a tough task.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANY atheist that is trying to avoid judgment. You would instead find that most atheists think it is "cute" that you believe in a personal God who would pass judgment. Personally, if I do find myself being judged as a nonbeliever in front of God, I will be disgusted with Him. Disgusted is not even a strong enough word. How could he possibly expect everyone to believe in Him? The Bible? Oh please.

If God has any understanding of human nature at all then He will say, "I hoped you would find your way to me, but you were a bit of a tougher nut to crack. Guess I shouldn't have given you such an inquisitive, skeptical mind. I guess my followers should have done a better job of being good people. I wrote a horribly interpreted book!! People with the best of intentions killed men, women and children because of my book. I can't believe I actually made people think that gay people were evil just for trying to live their lives as their brain chemistry told them. I created a universe that existed without even needing me. So there was no reason to believe that I even existed at all except to keep old traditions alive. Maybe I'll have better luck with my next universe. This faith-as-proof experiment didn't work. Jotun, my bad. Now that you see that I do exist, obviously you will choose me. Sorry I made it so impossibly tough to believe."

[HSisforcoolkids]

That's really interesting SW8000. Thanks for sharing. I'm going to see about that book.

[theats]

We are made in God's image, so we know that he looks like a bi pedal human. We know God has at least a sense of humor, he made penguins and Giraffes.

Maybe rev can point out where, but Jesus actually said that Satan was real, as was heaven and hell. I think the bible is PRETTY clear on there being a heaven, as well as hell. Hey, that rhymed. I was a poet and didn't know it!

[Revdyer]

I don't quite think that having two feet is what is meant by being created "in the image of God."

[theats]

I don't quite think that having two feet is what is meant by being created "in the image of God."


I wasn't putting emphasis on two feet, I was putting emphasis in likeness in p0hysical appearance. not to mention, in the passage where stephen is about to be stoned, he sees God and Jesus standing by the throne in heaven.

[Dictatorbilbo]

I don't quite think that having two feet is what is meant by being created "in the image of God."


I wasn't putting emphasis on two feet, I was putting emphasis in likeness in p0hysical appearance. not to mention, in the passage where stephen is about to be stoned, he sees God and Jesus standing by the throne in heaven.

I always thought it was meant in metaphorical terms... Humanity thinks, feels emotion, and exists in a way similar to the way God does...

[Tiberius]

I mean seriously, God is the creator, he can make any body or form that he wants to represent himself in. What is his original form? I dont know. Man was created in the image of God, but God shaped us out of mud or clay, how often does the artist give an exact rendition or put a little of thier own flair into thier creation? And I would think it refers to the personality, mind, and soul more than the body.

[jaques]

If God already knows what actions we will take then every action we will make is predetermined. So we would have no ability to choose what actions we will take. The illusion of choice does not equal the free will to choose.

I hate to say this, but I think Theats' analogy of the mouse and cheese defeats this argument, Bannister.

I fail to see how? Please explain.


Well, you just seem to be saying that a perfect ability to predict equals the absolute enforcement of an outcome. Theats' analogy points out that a prediction is separate from the outcome.

Consider these two alternatives:

(1) God creates the world. God looks at the world, and says, "Hmm. Now that I've created this, I see exactly how it's going to turn out."

(2) God creates the world and deliberately locks it into a single path from which no diversion is possible.

From my perspective, these are two entirely different circumstances. But you seem to be saying that they're the same.

I would also point out that God clearly is imputed to have the ability to restrict his omniscience -- that was the whole point of him coming to Earth as Jesus, right? So that he could experience mortality and gain the sympathy needed to forgive Man?

One needs to remember that Christianity is originally an Eastern religion, and as such it has certain commonalities with Hinduism and Buddhism, including the contradiction of an all-knowing infinity that is capable of restricting itself to a mortal frame of reference.

[Bannister]

Jacques,

I do she both as very similar. If we are dealing with an all powerful, omnipotent being then before he even began the creation of the heavens, the earth and humanity he knew how it was going to turn out. If he didn't want it to turn out that way he could have / would have created it differently.

So not only would he have known exactly what was going to happen, he created it so that it couldn't happen any other way. So if I am going to hell then it is because god designed it that way, I have no choice. If I don't have a choice then I have no free will.

If he knew how it was going to play out and which souls would be the chosen few, then why not just skip this whole universe thing and just all head to either heaven or hell. We are talking about eternity so the skiping of 14+ billion years would add up to 0 next to infinity.

Bannister

[Snotwalker 8000]

Jacques,

I do she both as very similar. If we are dealing with an all powerful, omnipotent being then before he even began the creation of the heavens, the earth and humanity he knew how it was going to turn out. If he didn't want it to turn out that way he could have / would have created it differently.

So not only would he have known exactly what was going to happen, he created it so that it couldn't happen any other way. So if I am going to hell then it is because god designed it that way, I have no choice. If I don't have a choice then I have no free will.

If he knew how it was going to play out and which souls would be the chosen few, then why not just skip this whole universe thing and just all head to either heaven or hell. We are talking about eternity so the skiping of 14+ billion years would add up to 0 next to infinity.

Bannister

I have to disagree with the lack of free will here. Just because someone knows what will happen doesn't necessitate a lack of free will for the participant.

For example, if I both watch and record a football game, and then go back and watch the game over again, I now know what's going to happen during the game and how it will end... However, just because I now KNOW that Favre is going to throw the next pass to Driver, because I've already SEEN it happen, doesn't mean that Favre didn't have free will at the time it was done.... Favre was free to make any other choice or action at the time it was done. My now current foreknowledge doesn't change that fact in the moment in time it was done. Sure I can now rewind the play over and over again and Favre can't NOW do anything differently, because his decision/action was already made BY HIMSELF at that time.

So just because God knew that someone was going to reject His free offer of salvation through His son, Jesus Christ, doesn't make Him responsibloe for it. I believe that God created each of us with free will, with the ability to make our own choices and actions. Now just because God knows what choice you make before you make it, because He is timeless and exists outside of our temporalness (is that a word?), doens't mean you didn't have free will to make that choice or a different choice.

God set the stage for the best possible world with the best possiible outcome, given the inevitability of the negative consequences assosicated with free will in human kind. This doesn't mean the world is perfect, as we all know it isn't... but that doesn't mean that it isn't the best world possible, given the existance of free will in creation to choose good or evil for ourselves.

You may ask, well why couldn't an all-powerfull/all-knowing God create a "perfect" world with free will right off the bat...? I would suggest that one possibility is that it simply isn't possible. It's kind of like saying that God should be able to make a perfectly square circle with 90 degree angles.... it's nonsensical. It may be the same sort of impossible/nonsensical situation to have both free will (to love or to reject the Creator) and to also have at the same time a "perfect" sinless world. So it's not perfect, but God gave each of us an equal opportnity to choose good or evil. And we have to live with the consequences of our own choices. I can't blame God for my choices. Why? Because I have free will.

Sorry this is long... ;) in short, just because God has foreknowledge of what you have freely chosen to do or believe doens't mean that foreknowledge negates free will. Just as watching a recording of a previously seen football game doens't negate the freewll that each player had at the time of the actual game.

<whew> it's a hard topic to keep brief. :)

Well, I'm now going to freely choose to eat lunch!

Enjoy the day!!

SW8K

[Bannister]

I have to disagree with the lack of free will here. Just because someone knows what will happen doesn't necessitate a lack of free will for the participant.

For example, if I both watch and record a football game, and then go back and watch the game over again, I now know what's going to happen during the game and how it will end... However, just because I now KNOW that Favre is going to throw the next pass to Driver, because I've already SEEN it happen, doesn't mean that Favre didn't have free will at the time it was done.... Favre was free to make any other choice or action at the time it was done. My now current foreknowledge doesn't change that fact in the moment in time it was done. Sure I can now rewind the play over and over again and Favre can't NOW do anything differently, because his decision/action was already made BY HIMSELF at that time.


1. You are watching it after it has already occurred not before so your knowledge is of a past event not a future event.

2. You didn't create the game and all its participants nor do you have any control over the outcome of the game. You are mearly an observer not a creator.

3. Lets say you had the ability to know the outcome of the game "before" it actually happened. When you sit down to watch the game with this knowledge and you KNOW that Favre's next pass is going to be to Driver, is it then possible for Favre to run a QB sneak? No, because you KNOW the future. You have already foreseen his actions, he can't change them. If you know the outcome of the game before it is played and you know Green Bay wins, are you going to put down 10k on Tampa???? No, because you know that Tampa can't change the future, it is already set.



So just because God knew that someone was going to reject His free offer of salvation through His son, Jesus Christ, doesn't make Him responsibloe for it. I believe that God created each of us with free will, with the ability to make our own choices and actions. Now just because God knows what choice you make before you make it, because He is timeless and exists outside of our temporalness (is that a word?), doens't mean you didn't have free will to make that choice or a different choice.

If God knows who would go to Hell and who would go to even before he even created the universe then what was the point of the universe?

Yes he is responsible for it, he created it. Not only did he create it but he created it with full knowledge of how it was going to go. If he wanted me to believe in him he could have and would have made it so.

Actually, if God already knows then yes it does negate my free will. If god knew that I would grow up to be an Athiest and not believe in him, then he also knew full well that I wouldn't be able to become a christian. If the future is knowable then it is set.



God set the stage for the best possible world with the best possiible outcome, given the inevitability of the negative consequences assosicated with free will in human kind. This doesn't mean the world is perfect, as we all know it isn't... but that doesn't mean that it isn't the best world possible, given the existance of free will in creation to choose good or evil for ourselves.

You may ask, well why couldn't an all-powerfull/all-knowing God create a "perfect" world with free will right off the bat...? I would suggest that one possibility is that it simply isn't possible. It's kind of like saying that God should be able to make a perfectly square circle with 90 degree angles.... it's nonsensical. It may be the same sort of impossible/nonsensical situation to have both free will (to love or to reject the Creator) and to also have at the same time a "perfect" sinless world. So it's not perfect, but God gave each of us an equal opportnity to choose good or evil. And we have to live with the consequences of our own choices. I can't blame God for my choices. Why? Because I have free will.

But isn't that along the lines of "Can God create a rock that he can't lift"? Why couldn't God create a perfect world? To say he can't create a perfectly square circle with 90 degree angles limits his all powerfullness. A nonsensical limit for sure, but a limit none the less.


Sorry this is long... ;) in short, just because God has foreknowledge of what you have freely chosen to do or believe doens't mean that foreknowledge negates free will. Just as watching a recording of a previously seen football game doens't negate the freewll that each player had at the time of the actual game.

<whew> it's a hard topic to keep brief. :)

Well, I'm now going to freely choose to eat lunch!

Enjoy the day!!

SW8K

Again, I just don't like your football game comparision. Mostly because you are talking about watching a recording of something that has already happened. The recoding itself has no impact how the game was played. But to a god that knows everything before he ever even created it, it's not like him watching the game in the present but like him watching the recording. He already knows what is going to happen and there is nothing Favre can do about become the all time interception leader.

Welcome back by the way.

:D

Bannister

[Onion Knight]

1. You are watching it after it has already occurred not before so your knowledge is of a past event not a future event.

Yes, but God, unlike SW8K, exists outside of time. It is possible for him to be in all aspects of time simultaneously.

[Bannister]

1. You are watching it after it has already occurred not before so your knowledge is of a past event not a future event.

Yes, but God, unlike SW8K, exists outside of time. It is possible for him to be in all aspects of time simultaneously.

Exactly, which means he is omnipotent and knows the future. He has already seen how it will play out.

Bannister

[theats]

God knows every action that you will make until you die, bannister. You have the choice to make, God just knows what choice you will pick. The fact that you know tampa will loose doesn't mean that you decided they would loose. It is inconceivable to the human mind to fathom eternity. God knows everything. For instance, God knew that C.S. Lewis, an atheist, would become a well known Christian and author. God didn't make C.S. Lewis change his mind, he did it on his own accord, but he did know that he would. For instance, I know that you will post in this thread. I am not making you post, thats your choice, but I have foreknowledge that you will.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Oh...

I have a rock in my hand. I know in advance that it will fall when I let it go, and I know it always will fall when I let it go. Does the rock have a choice not to fall towards the ground?

But I still don't understand... What is the logical argument against determinism? Is there at least some degree of randomness present in the world?

[Revdyer]

Oh...

I have a rock in my hand. I know in advance that it will fall when I let it go, and I know it always will fall when I let it go. Does the rock have a choice not to fall towards the ground?

But I still don't understand... What is the logical argument against determinism? Is there at least some degree of randomness present in the world?The true determinist would argue that there is no randomness in reality. Even quantum randomness is simply due to our lack of knowledge about the processes. There is no choice either, and, in fact, you asking the question was already determined.

There are both deistic determinists and material determinists. The both seem to agree that everything is "fixed," they just differ about how everything got that way.

But given the internal logic of determinism, there is no way to argue against it except to reject the premise itself.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Oh, ok... That makes sense. That puts determinism in the same category as God and Bob the Pigeon... Thank you!

[Jotun]

If God is all-powerful, why can't he choose to turn off part of his all-knowing? If randomness is part of nature, then why can't we be predetermined to a certain extent, but with the ability to override the system. Maybe our brains are fixed to a certain degree, but maybe there are parts where the brain is open to options. That certainly seems like the best way for a brain to operate.

From what little I understand about genes, I think that some have the ability to lay dormant until needed. I was lactose intolerant after being vegan for a few years. When I began to eat cheese again, eventually I got to a point where I could drink milk without running for the bathroom. Why can't the mind work that way?

If God created me knowing that I would go to Hell for not believing in Him, then you can say he all powerful, but there's no way you could say he's a loving God.

[theats]

but you consiosly made the choice not too accept him, though you have the choice throughout life.

[Jotun]

but you consiosly made the choice not too accept him, though you have the choice throughout life.

Where is this disconnect that keeps happening? It's not like there is any credible evidence of God that I am turning my back on.

You've probably consciously made the choice not to believe in unicorns despite all the colorful folders and binders in Walgreens. It's much more likely that unicorns existed than God. At least we are familiar with the separate ideas of horns and horses.

I would LOVE to believe in God. I would throw myself on the ground and worship him until I died. Unfortunately, despite how beautifully and benignly everyone picks and chooses their Bible verses to make God appear, there is no reason at all to believe that he exists. Maybe somewhere at the beginning of time there was a supernatural being that started it, but there is no reason to believe that your religion got it right and every other religion got it wrong. There's no evidence that a supernatural being is concerned even slightly with our existence. I don't know what happens when I die, and neither do you.

[theats]

I will quote C.S. Lewis "If Christianity is false, and there is no afterlife, then it bears little importance, but if it is right, and a heaven and hell exist, and bears all the importance"

I am shooting for a target. I propel my arrow by good deeds and a faith that I will land right on the mark. If the target indeed doesn't exist, then I at least I flew, and made a nice wooshing sound as I arched overhead.


If hinduism is correct, then I have done deeds, and I will be reincarnated as a higher class individual. If some other strange relegion is correct, I dunno what my outcome will be.

However, a Jesus's yoke is easy, and his burden is light. His words give me hope, enough hope to move on. Do you deny that there was ever a man named Joshua (pronounced HA shu uh, wich is greek for jesus) that walked the earth 2 millenia ago? there is non biblical proof of that. I have stated them earlier, and if thats not enough for you, tell me what year it is(and I know its actually around the year 2012, either that or christ was born in 6-5 b.c.).


My question is "Is it worth the risk to impact lives and to live with hope of a better life, than to just wait until your end has come and that is all?"

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

I will quote C.S. Lewis "If Christianity is false, and there is no afterlife, then it bears little importance, but if it is right, and a heaven and hell exist, and bears all the importance"

I am shooting for a target. I propel my arrow by good deeds and a faith that I will land right on the mark. If the target indeed doesn't exist, then I at least I flew, and made a nice wooshing sound as I arched overhead.


If hinduism is correct, then I have done deeds, and I will be reincarnated as a higher class individual. If some other strange relegion is correct, I dunno what my outcome will be.
Uughh

Not Pascal's agaaaiin!

So what if Islam is correct then?? What then?

The logical end of Pascal's is choosing the religion with the least horrible hell.

However, a Jesus's yoke is easy, and his burden is light. His words give me hope, enough hope to move on. Do you deny that there was ever a man named Joshua (pronounced HA shu uh, wich is greek for jesus) that walked the earth 2 millenia ago? there is non biblical proof of that. I have stated them earlier, and if thats not enough for you, tell me what year it is(and I know its actually around the year 2012, either that or christ was born in 6-5 b.c.).
There are plenty of people who can argue effectively for a mythical Jesus. Me? I could care less whether he was real or not - the only important question is - was he a god? If that question could be satifactorily answered then we would have real information to work with.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

My question is "Is it worth the risk to impact lives and to live with hope of a better life, than to just wait until your end has come and that is all?"

Of course! But what has that to do with the subject matter at hand??

[Chimpy]

OK, this topic is not at all what we are discussing and I hope you can forgive me for dragging it back up again.

You guys remember when I said, "Laws about Alcohol, Murder and Gay Marriage are all religious laws to me" and you guys said, OK, but two of them stop a person from infringing on another's rights and one of them infringes on another person's rights?

Well, I was having this exact conversation today with a friend and this particular issue came up. Our conversation went as follows:

ME: The prohibition was a perfect example of why the government should not legislate morality. It is impossible to do so successfully because everybody has a different version of morality.

FRIEND: That is exactly what the 10th Grade text book says, huh?

ME:Well yes, but that does not mean it is not true.

FRIEND: Ok, I think you need to define morality for me. It seems to me that ALL laws are an attempt at defining morality. What is the difference between a law restricting gay marriage and armed robbery?

Me: Well, armed robbery and crimes of that sort deprive human beings of their basic human rights of life, liberty-

FRIEND: Human right? What is a human right? Is it just me or are you forcing your morals on me when you tell me that I cannot go rob somebody? What if my personal moral code says that is OK to kill somebody? By declaring that it is amoral to infringe on other people's rights- to even state what other's people's rights should be is forcing me to accept your definition of morality.

ME: Well then, are you saying that we should not have laws those punisher wrong doers?

FRIEND: Not in the least. Our laws are quite valid. They are the sum of the majority's shared values. In a democracy, every law drafted is an attempt to legislate morality. So, in regards to your earlier question, yes America should ban gay marriage if it can pass through the majority. If the majority decides that homosexuality is a crime, just as they decided that murder, rape, and tax evasion is then it cannot be sanctioned by our government. That, my friend, is the anarchy of democracy.


So, all of you people who responded to me earlier, what do you think of his case? I do not know about you, but he has me pretty convinced.

EDIT: This is a paraphrase, so both sides probably sound like me. I am sure the actual conversation was a little less wordy.

[davidlhsl]

FRIEND: Not in the least. Our laws are quite valid. They are the sum of the majority's shared values. In a democracy, every law drafted is an attempt to legislate morality. So, in regards to your earlier question, yes America should ban gay marriage if it can pass through the majority. If the majority decides that homosexuality is a crime, just as they decided that murder, rape, and tax evasion is then it cannot be sanctioned by our government. That, my friend, is the anarchy of democracy.


So, all of you people who responded to me earlier, what do you think of his case? I do not know about you, but he has me pretty convinced.

I wasn't one of the ones who responded to you earlier, but you and your friend certainly had an interesting conversation! My response to your friend's argument would be to ask your friend if he/she would apply that standard to the institution of slavery.

I should point out that I personally have no qualms about gay marriage, because it's a consensual relationship between two partners of equal "power" (as opposed to the "power" discrepancy between an adult and a minor). But if we merely accept the rule of the majority without any question, then how does a society correct such severe injustices as slavery?

Perhaps it would be useful here to share something I posted in another forum concerning my views of ethics. #8 in the first section and #2 in the second are pertinent to your discussion. I hope I don't offend anyone with the length:
==================

What a fascinating discussion! I'm certainly not as learned as the rest of you, but I have pondered this subject. My own humble observations:

(1) Good and Evil aren't fixed terms in a binary manner (in other words, it's not just a matter of good or evil). Rather, good and evil are values along an analog scale that we call ethics. I think the best way to think of this is to consider what hot and cold mean. Those are values along an analog scale of temperature. There are things which are more hot than other hot things. There are things which are neither hot nor cold. More importantly, whether something is hot or cold depends on what we are examining. A cup of coffee? The temperature outside? Human body temperature? Ice cream?

Of course, judging something good doesn't involve judging it relative to something else, so that is where the analogy falls apart. But the analogy is useful in expressing my belief that good and evil are variable in the sense that action A can be judged more good than action B.

(2) "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" This familiar question doesn't ask whether the tree exists if nobody is around, but rather asks about what it means for something to make a sound. Does a sound require a percipient?

A similar question should be asked of ethics: Is virtue the action itself, or is virtue the judgement of the action? If it's the action itself, then virtue could be considered objective. If it's the judgement, then virtue is subjective. I think virtue is subjective and requires a percipient for reasons explained in (3)...

(3) Central to an act being considered virtuous and its degree is the intention of the person performing the act. If I save a drowning victim because I'm a lifeguard and it's my job that I have to do, then my act may not be considered good at all. However, if I see a drowning victim and selflessly swim out to rescue the person because I don't want this stranger whom I don't even know to die, then that would certainly be judged more virtuous. It should be stated, just to complicate things, that if a person becomes a lifeguard because that person wants to save lives, then saving a person's life wouldn't simply be judged as "just doing one's job."

I believe that virtue requires the person performing the act to willfully and voluntarily conduct the act with the specific intent of doing a good deed. Thus, you have at least one percipient for an act of virtue to even exist.

(4) Good also seems to require the execution of the act to actually succeed. Suppose I swim out to save a drowning man, but he dies before I reach him. It's mildly good in the sense that I made the effort to swim out to him, but I didn't actually save his life. Thus, the only action was making the attempt. It's like the saying, "the road to Heaven is filled with good intentions."

(5) Suppose you are choking on some food, and I notice. Let's say that I know how to perform the Heimlich Maneuver. Now: I think about saving your life, but I don't. Can that be described as virtuous? No, because you are still choking to death. Only if I actually act will I perform a virtuous act in saving your life. Good requires execution.

Now, suppose I think about killing you, but I never do. While my thoughts might not be ranked as evil as actually going through with it in reality, I've nevertheless performed an act of evil. The action in question isn't the killing, but the thought itself.

(6) Complicating the issue of good and evil is that actions can be grouped in various way. Consider the act of sharpening a pencil. That's one act, but you can also consider the act as a series of specific steps: (1) place the pencil in the sharpener with one hand, (2) turn the handle with the other hand, (3) after a period of time, remove the pencil and examine it, etc.

But sharpening a pencil could be considered a single step within a much larger action such as taking a test.

Pertaining to the subject of good, we would consider charity to be a good thing. I give money to a homeless man. That's good, right? But suppose the homeless man uses the money to buy booze? Was my act really good?

In judging whether or not an act is good, how far down the causal chain does one go?

(7) One recurring factor in virtue seems to be sacrifice. Charity requires a sacrifice of money. Saving someone's life requires a sacrifice of time, at the minimum; and usually requires a sacrifice of one's own safety (swimming to save a drowning man is a act involving risk). The highest virtue we assign are to those who sacrifice their own lives.

(8 ) What I've described so far indicates that ethics is relative, and their are no absolutes. This isn't really satisfying, though. Imagine you lived during the period of slavery in the Southern U.S. Suppose you think slavery is wrong and attempt to smuggle a slave to freedom. The slave owner and Southern society would consider it an act of evil (theft). But should we feel comfortable leaving issues of morality to a vote?

It seems that we need something more than that. We need a higher percipient, if you will. We need a percipient that knows the intentions of the person performing the act. We need a percipient that knows the true consequences of the action, and the context in which the action takes place. We need a percipient that truly embodies virtue itself to prevent contamination from ones own imperfections.

When you have found that percipient, you have found God. Whether or not you actually believe in God's existence, it does seem necessary to weigh issues of virtue from a perspective outside ourselves. Thus, I think that God or god (depending on your own beliefs) is an effective basis for examining morality.

==== second message in same forum ====

I appreciate and enjoy all of the comments that have been posted. I would like to add two more items to flesh out my position a bit more fully. (I wish I could correct some of my spelling and grammatical mistakes. Sorry.)

(1) The first is an amendment to a point I made in my earlier post. I mentioned that sacrifice seems to be a consistent factor in virtue. However, I didn't add another important item: expectation of reward. If you perform an act of virtue because you expect to receive a reward, most people wouldn't classify that act as virtuous at all. A person who performs a virtuous act without expectation of reward would be considered virtuous, even if that person does receive a reward for it. Performing acts to avoid punishment works the same way.

This is one point that does pose a rather significant issue for religion. If you make it to Heaven because of the good deeds you do, then God has essentially created an enormous obstacle for us humans. We want to go to Heaven (or avoid Hell), so we do good deeds. However, that creates in us an expectation for being rewarded for our good deeds. In having that expectation, we've essentially nullified the goodness of our deed. Conclusion: we never make it to Heaven! Yikes! It's not completely insurmountable, because we can still want to be virtuous for virtue's sake. But we basically have to ignore the promise of Heaven to do it, which is really difficult.

The tenet of salvation by grace does alleviate that problem, but it is one that religion did need to address.

(2) There are basically three levels in which we form our belief system:

(a) Personal. This level governs how we believe we should act, and the way we should live our life. I believe personal beliefs are best when they are strict and subordinate themselves to some authority. We are subject to all sorts of temptations. I want to be the next American Idol! I want to eat another slice of cheesecake! I want to drive a fancy car!

However, we shouldn't (and usually don't) always get what we want. We strengthen ourselves morally when we do put restrictions on ourselves. We may exercise instead of sleeping late. We may pray daily.

Some of these restrictions aren't always in our control. We don't have an unlimited amount of resources, so those limitations can affect our freedom.

Look at what happens to super-rich celebrities who don't have any restrictions placed upon them. To use a phrase used in the excellent "Questions of Value" course: Are these "Lives to Envy, Lives to Admire?"

Religion, or even more generally spirituality, can offer a positive foundation for the Personal Level of Belief. It can force us to consider our responsibility towards others, among other things. It is also useful in providing a blueprint. You wouldn't want to build a house based on the whim of the moment, would you?

(b) Political. This level governs our expectations on how we expect others to behave. I believe political beliefs should be more tolerant than personal beliefs. With personal beliefs, you are "king/queen of your castle," so to speak. But we have to share this planet with other people when it comes to political beliefs. I also believe political beliefs should be freely and openly debated in a civil manner. The ideal I'm expressing is that the best ideas rise to the surface, and all perspectives are taken into account to reach the best solution.

You can always shape your political beliefs to coincide with your personal, if you want to go in that direction instead. If you do that, however, then you necessarily must enforce those beliefs upon those who disagree with you. That simply results in violence.

Nevertheless, there are certain things that a society should never tolerate. What would society look like if there were no laws and law enforcement?

An important thing about political beliefs it that they are not always pertinent to morality. There is nothing intrinsically virtuous about paying taxes, for example. Thus, political beliefs need to be practical, while personal beliefs need to be more idealistic.

(c) Judicial. This level requires one to subordinate one's own belief system in deference to another. This actually overlaps with the personal and political. But any belief system requires interpretation. This is where the judicial level comes in.

An innocent example of this is when we play a game, such as chess. When we play a game of chess, we essentially subordinate our own interests in deference to the rules of the game. When settling a dispute, we consult the rules. Otherwise, I'd start the game with all my pawns promoted to queens. Checkmate, sucker!


All three levels I've described require one to basically subordinate oneself to another authority: (a) a higher power, such as God or a revered individual, (b) the group, (c) the rules or law. So where do we come in? Are we merely powerless?

We assert ourselves in the choices we make for all three levels. We choose what religion to worship or which authority to respect. We choose which political system we desire. We choose how we interpret the rules and to what extent (there are tons of excellent chess variants, for example). Of course, we always have limitations. When we're growing up, we're at the mercy of the authority of our parents. When we grow up, we're at the mercy of the government. If we're in a chess tournament, we're at the mercy of the tournament judges. But we do have the power to speak up. We do have the power to let our voice be heard. The best way to bring others along isn't through force, but by making our own lives an example that others will want to follow.

-David

[Chimpy]

FRIEND: Not in the least. Our laws are quite valid. They are the sum of the majority's shared values. In a democracy, every law drafted is an attempt to legislate morality. So, in regards to your earlier question, yes America should ban gay marriage if it can pass through the majority. If the majority decides that homosexuality is a crime, just as they decided that murder, rape, and tax evasion is then it cannot be sanctioned by our government. That, my friend, is the anarchy of democracy.


So, all of you people who responded to me earlier, what do you think of his case? I do not know about you, but he has me pretty convinced.

I wasn't one of the ones who responded to you earlier, but you and your friend certainly had an interesting conversation! My response to your friend's argument would be to ask your friend if he/she would apply that standard to the institution of slavery.

I should point out that I personally have no qualms about gay marriage, because it's a consensual relationship between two partners of equal "power" (as opposed to the "power" discrepancy between an adult and a minor). But if we merely accept the rule of the majority without any question, then how does a society correct such severe injustices as slavery.....

-David

I think I can predict where that will lead to: the majority decided that slavery was bad, as seen by the abandonement in the 19th Century. Was it a bad practice before then? Well, if you don't mind, I will quote you for the answer:

A similar question should be asked of ethics: Is virtue the action itself, or is virtue the judgement of the action? If it's the action itself, then virtue could be considered objective. If it's the judgement, then virtue is subjective. I think virtue is subjective and requires a percipient...

If slavery was judged as virtuos during its time, does that in turn make it a virtuous action? My friend would probably say yes to that question as that is what the majority decided. It has only now become a crime when the subjective view of the majority has changed.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Hmm... I guess the main use of the concepts of good and evil are to create and enforce norms that allow the proper functioning of society.

Of course, this brings about the problems mentioned above, with examples such as the Holocaust and slavery. If everybody believes we should lock Billy in a closet because he's ugly, does that make it right?

...

hmm...

[Grungebob]

Hmm... I guess the main use of the concepts of good and evil are to create and enforce norms that allow the proper functioning of society.

Of course, this brings about the problems mentioned above, with examples such as the Holocaust and slavery. If everybody believes we should lock Billy in a closet because he's ugly, does that make it right?

...

hmm...Oi!! Who you callin' oogly? Wanka!

http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/TV2/archive/00187/billy_idol_epa_187610g.jpg

[Chimpy]

Hmm... I guess the main use of the concepts of good and evil are to create and enforce norms that allow the proper functioning of society.

Of course, this brings about the problems mentioned above, with examples such as the Holocaust and slavery. If everybody believes we should lock Billy in a closet because he's ugly, does that make it right?

...

hmm...

But again, if it is not the majority, who is it that has the power to define, "right" and "wrong"? The religious person will say it is what ever form of scripture they adhere to, but not every one agrees on religion. As for the non religious person- well I suppose it is different for every one.

But that brings us back to square, does it not?

EDIT: Insert quote.

[Grungebob]

Well, universal values do exist and have been around for some time:

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

[Chimpy]

Ah, but those are not "universal" in the sense that everybody agrees on them. Rather, they are universal in that they apply to all people no ,atter what the circumstances. As said in the article:

value is universal if and only if the same value is applicable:

1) at all times
in the past
at the present
in the future
2) to all humans
different cultures
different genders
different religious background
3) under all circumstances
among members of a family
in work setting
between nations


So my friend's question still stands: Who gets to decide what the Universal values are?

[Grungebob]

As I understand it, we all agree to them voluntarily. They transcend nationalism and religion, and ethnicity or class, and simply are a philosophical set of universal truths, that are obviously the result of much study... They are evolving as we are.

They are part of a very large picture of our sociaty as viewed from a planetary perspective... In essence, despite our differences we are all humans living on one planet. The planet is getting smaller due to globalization, and the necessity to have a voluntary set of values and ethics is growing rapidly. These are not laws carved on stone tablets but more a set of guidelines to define behavior that is good for humanity as a whole.

[theats]

I think a universal creator can decide what is right.

[Grungebob]

I think a universal creator can decide what is right.Well good for him, but that doesn't really assist the human condition does it?

[davidlhsl]

FRIEND: Not in the least. Our laws are quite valid. They are the sum of the majority's shared values. In a democracy, every law drafted is an attempt to legislate morality. So, in regards to your earlier question, yes America should ban gay marriage if it can pass through the majority. If the majority decides that homosexuality is a crime, just as they decided that murder, rape, and tax evasion is then it cannot be sanctioned by our government. That, my friend, is the anarchy of democracy.


So, all of you people who responded to me earlier, what do you think of his case? I do not know about you, but he has me pretty convinced.

I wasn't one of the ones who responded to you earlier, but you and your friend certainly had an interesting conversation! My response to your friend's argument would be to ask your friend if he/she would apply that standard to the institution of slavery.

I should point out that I personally have no qualms about gay marriage, because it's a consensual relationship between two partners of equal "power" (as opposed to the "power" discrepancy between an adult and a minor). But if we merely accept the rule of the majority without any question, then how does a society correct such severe injustices as slavery.....

-David

I think I can predict where that will lead to: the majority decided that slavery was bad, as seen by the abandonement in the 19th Century. Was it a bad practice before then? Well, if you don't mind, I will quote you for the answer:

A similar question should be asked of ethics: Is virtue the action itself, or is virtue the judgement of the action? If it's the action itself, then virtue could be considered objective. If it's the judgement, then virtue is subjective. I think virtue is subjective and requires a percipient...

If slavery was judged as virtuos during its time, does that in turn make it a virtuous action? My friend would probably say yes to that question as that is what the majority decided. It has only now become a crime when the subjective view of the majority has changed.

Politics, at its most base form, concerns itself more with power than anything else. One of the things I admire about American politics is that it does sincerely desire to produce virtue, if not to at least take it into consideration in our deliberations. The Bill of Rights was established because of a real concern about the abuses that can occur with majority rule in its rawest form.

The problem slavery's history poses for me, beyond its obvious contradiction with America's founding principles, is that it did prevail because the majority didn't consider it an injustice. Slavery became abolished when a conflict developed between two opposing cultures, with the matter determined through a bloody war. The injustice of segregation followed, which was more peaceably resolved through the Civil Rights movement. Discrimination and prejudice are the lingering aftershocks.

What concerns me most about your friend's belief in the automatic validity of any law on the basis of majority rule in light of this tragic history is that your friend doesn't provide a corrective means to change a law when it is unjust other than to wait for the culture's values to change. In a pragmatic sense, that's probably what happens anyway.

My concern with your friend's argument has a major problem: I now must confront the issue of what establishes injustice, because that is subjective. You have it right: we're now back to where we started from. I think your friend has me in stalemate, if not outright checkmate. :)

I guess the only resolution to this is that politics is an ongoing process that depends upon a free and open exchange of ideas in order to flourish. The consideration of an objective view of ethics is an important means of testing our own subjective opinions.

-David

[theats]

I think a universal creator can decide what is right.Well good for him, but that doesn't really assist the human condition does it?

Well, there from my standpoint, there is almost no difference from coincidence and intervention.

I honestly think that there is no such thing as luck, and it is by divine intervention that I am able to experience uncountable fortunes along my journey. If it was truly probability, then I, just one in 7 billion, would not be so "lucky".





(I find it rather funny that bannister hasn't posted since I made the predictoin that he would. Either I am correct in my prediction, or Human will has intervened and he is not posting, probably to spite me, but hey, im only human. God is the only one that knows the future.)

[Grungebob]

I think a universal creator can decide what is right.Well good for him, but that doesn't really assist the human condition does it?

Well, there from my standpoint, there is almost no difference from coincidence and intervention.

I honestly think that there is no such thing as luck, and it is by divine intervention that I am able to experience uncountable fortunes along my journey. If it was truly probability, then I, just one in 7 billion, would not be so "lucky".





(I find it rather funny that bannister hasn't posted since I made the predictoin that he would. Either I am correct in my prediction, or Human will has intervened and he is not posting, probably to spite me, but hey, im only human. God is the only one that knows the future.)Wow, sounds like you found the ticket to easy street. You got it all figured out Theats. But it also looks like your God loves Paris Hilton a lot more than you considering all of her good fortunes..

[Renquist]

Theats wrote:
(I find it rather funny that bannister hasn't posted since I made the predictoin that he would. Either I am correct in my prediction, or Human will has intervened and he is not posting, probably to spite me, but hey, im only human. God is the only one that knows the future.)

Did God know that you'd bother to make that so freaking small for no point?

I'd like to throw this into this debate at this time gentlemen.

If God determines all that happens, then he's one twisted puppy.

If God let's us determine what happens, but sees it all before it happens, then he stopped caring a long time ago.

Maybe God cancelled his cable subscription.

[Jotun]

I think a universal creator can decide what is right.Well good for him, but that doesn't really assist the human condition does it?

Well, there from my standpoint, there is almost no difference from coincidence and intervention.

I honestly think that there is no such thing as luck, and it is by divine intervention that I am able to experience uncountable fortunes along my journey. If it was truly probability, then I, just one in 7 billion, would not be so "lucky".
[size=7]

I'd like you to consider your original argument about the armed robbery and gay marriage but instead of inserting gay marriage use love.

It sounds a bit different when trying to decide the morality of whether it is OK to make laws against armed robbery or love.

Maybe the difference comes down the the classic theatrical wants and needs. A thief may want what you own, but what he needs is different and often unknown to the person who needs it. So laws are perhaps assurances that people are able to achieve what they need. Gay marriage is a need for some people in the exact same way as a straight couple needs marriage. And soon after that, they will probably want a gay divorce, just like straight marriages.

[jaques]

FRIEND: Not in the least. Our laws are quite valid. They are the sum of the majority's shared values. In a democracy, every law drafted is an attempt to legislate morality. So, in regards to your earlier question, yes America should ban gay marriage if it can pass through the majority. If the majority decides that homosexuality is a crime, just as they decided that murder, rape, and tax evasion is then it cannot be sanctioned by our government. That, my friend, is the anarchy of democracy.


So, all of you people who responded to me earlier, what do you think of his case? I do not know about you, but he has me pretty convinced.


Your friend is simply wrong. Societies exist because individuals choose to group together for their mutual benefit. The function of society is to balance the freedom of individuals with the accrued benefits of mutual interaction. There is no moral imperative involved in this function, except where people and political movements try to inject morality.

This is why we see certain universal values within societies throughout history (prohibitions on murder, theft, etc.), whereas other values (polygamy, homosexuality) vary from culture to culture.

There are certain actions which any sane person, educated or not, religious or not, understands to be incompatible with a functioning society.

[jaques]

You may ask, well why couldn't an all-powerfull/all-knowing God create a "perfect" world with free will right off the bat...? I would suggest that one possibility is that it simply isn't possible. It's kind of like saying that God should be able to make a perfectly square circle with 90 degree angles.... it's nonsensical.

And, as we know, the world God created is clearly free of things that are nonsensical. :wink:

[Snotwalker 8000]

You may ask, well why couldn't an all-powerfull/all-knowing God create a "perfect" world with free will right off the bat...? I would suggest that one possibility is that it simply isn't possible. It's kind of like saying that God should be able to make a perfectly square circle with 90 degree angles.... it's nonsensical.

And, as we know, the world God created is clearly free of things that are nonsensical. :wink:

Well, Al Gore is fairly nonsensical, I'll give ya that! :lol: But aside from politicians and Taelord's 180pt cost, there isn't one thing that is completely nonsensical in all creation, such as the aforementioned "square circle". There are some pretty quirky things that show the sense of humor and/or creativity of a Creator, but nothing that clearly contradicts itself. (at least not that I can think of....)

[jaques]

Well, Al Gore is fairly nonsensical, I'll give ya that! :lol:
:roll:

Glad to see you're smarter than the entire panel of Nobel Prize judges, the Oscar voters, and the flocks of moviegoers that made An Inconvenient Truth one of the most successful documentaries in recent years.

But aside from politicians and Taelord's 180pt cost, there isn't one thing that is completely nonsensical in all creation, such as the aforementioned "square circle". There are some pretty quirky things that show the sense of humor and/or creativity of a Creator, but nothing that clearly contradicts itself. (at least not that I can think of....)
You mean, nothing like the notion of an all-loving God who sends his creations to eternal torment if they don't do exactly what he wants?

[Chimpy]

FRIEND: Not in the least. Our laws are quite valid. They are the sum of the majority's shared values. In a democracy, every law drafted is an attempt to legislate morality. So, in regards to your earlier question, yes America should ban gay marriage if it can pass through the majority. If the majority decides that homosexuality is a crime, just as they decided that murder, rape, and tax evasion is then it cannot be sanctioned by our government. That, my friend, is the anarchy of democracy.


So, all of you people who responded to me earlier, what do you think of his case? I do not know about you, but he has me pretty convinced.


Your friend is simply wrong. Societies exist because individuals choose to group together for their mutual benefit. The function of society is to balance the freedom of individuals with the accrued benefits of mutual interaction. There is no moral imperative involved in this function, except where people and political movements try to inject morality.

This is why we see certain universal values within societies throughout history (prohibitions on murder, theft, etc.), whereas other values (polygamy, homosexuality) vary from culture to culture.

There are certain actions which any sane person, educated or not, religious or not, understands to be incompatible with a functioning society.

But that is not entirely true. Plenty of societies throughout time have done nothing- even supported- murder, slavery, and rape. I really do not buy into this universal values thing. For every supposed "universal" value, I can find several cultures that had no qualms about breaking the said value.


P.S. The amount a movie sells is hardly an objective way to judge a politician's sanity.

[theats]

Wow, sounds like you found the ticket to easy street. You got it all figured out Theats. But it also looks like your God loves Paris Hilton a lot more than you considering all of her good fortunes..

There is more to fortune than trinkets and paper with a persident printed on them. Me living to day is a fortune unto itself.

[theats]

You mean, nothing like the notion of an all-loving God who sends his creations to eternal torment if they don't do exactly what he wants?

Is it because they do not what he wants, or is it becasue in doing not what he wants, harm is caused to someone, or to god himself (like an emotional smack to the face)? Its not like he doesn't offer forgiveness. :roll:

[jaques]

Its not like he doesn't offer forgiveness. :roll:

Yes, it is like that -- once you're dead. I'd have no problem with God sending people to purgatory, where, with full proof of his existence, they had a chance to redeem themselves and gain his forgiveness for not believing.

It's the "You've got one chance, and I'm forcing you to make it in a world full of conflicting information" scenario that bothers me.

[Grungebob]

Wow, sounds like you found the ticket to easy street. You got it all figured out Theats. But it also looks like your God loves Paris Hilton a lot more than you considering all of her good fortunes..

There is more to fortune than trinkets and paper with a persident printed on them. Me living to day is a fortune unto itself.Excellent flip flop there Theats... Sanctimonious one minute, humble the next. First you separate yourself from the other "7 billion" as a receiver of fortune, and then claim to be just another member of the 7 billion you just claimed to be apart from. I get the sense you don't even know what you believe, and don't even believe what you know..

[jaques]

But that is not entirely true. Plenty of societies throughout time have done nothing- even supported- murder, slavery, and rape. I really do not buy into this universal values thing. For every supposed "universal" value, I can find several cultures that had no qualms about breaking the said value.

I did not include slavery or rape in my list. Please show me a historical example of a culture where murder or theft were fully permitted.



P.S. The amount a movie sells is hardly an objective way to judge a politician's sanity.

I didn't say it was. What my full list implies is that there is a body of opinion that strongly suggests that Al Gore is not "nonsensical." Note that he can be wrong without being nonsensical, especially in the context of logical impossibility that SW8k was discussing.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Hmm... Well there are, at least to some degree, universal values. People naturally want food, people naturally want water. People don't like to get hurt, and people naturally seek happiness

[Chimpy]

But that is not entirely true. Plenty of societies throughout time have done nothing- even supported- murder, slavery, and rape. I really do not buy into this universal values thing. For every supposed "universal" value, I can find several cultures that had no qualms about breaking the said value.

I did not include slavery or rape in my list. Please show me a historical example of a culture where murder or theft were fully permitted.





I think these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture) guys make the list. Oh, and I am pretty sure this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypteia) counts as murder too. Oh, and it would be pretty sad if we forgot about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust)- or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor), or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict).

This is just the tip of the iceberg- the groups I didn't even have to think about. I am quite sure I could find many, many more examples of government sanctioned murder. (One could carry this arguement even farther and say that war in general is little more than government sanctioned murder, but that is an entirely different ethics discussion.)


Hmm... Well there are, at least to some degree, universal values. People naturally want food, people naturally want water. People don't like to get hurt, and people naturally seek happiness

Those are not values, they are wants. There is a large difference between the two.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Hmm... Well there are, at least to some degree, universal values. People naturally want food, people naturally want water. People don't like to get hurt, and people naturally seek happiness

Those are not values, they are wants. There is a large difference between the two.

Ethics. any object or quality desirable as a means or as an end in itself.


values, Sociology. the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard. These values may be positive, as cleanliness, freedom, or education, or negative, as cruelty, crime, or blasphemy.

Hmm... What I was trying to say is that perhaps a set of universal values can be derived from these truly universal wants...

[Chimpy]

I don't think it would be inacurate to say that values are just what we want everybody else to want.

[Fezzikthedoor]

Well, Al Gore is fairly nonsensical, I'll give ya that! :lol:
:roll:

Glad to see you're smarter than the entire panel of Nobel Prize judges, the Oscar voters, and the flocks of moviegoers that made An Inconvenient Truth one of the most successful documentaries in recent years.

Jaques, you crack me up! Mentioning politics in any way that goes against your grain and you react like someone getting tapped in the knee--you leg flies up and boots the other poor slob in the crotch.

Deep breath, buddy. Ahhh....let it go. There we are.

What does global warming have to do with peace, though? And are these the same guys that gave the prize to Yasir Arafhat? Now THAT guy knew a thing or two about peace.

[Grungebob]

Environmental custodianship is a section of Universal Values as it is something that affects all of us. Universal values transcend regional beliefs and are the concern of all global citizens regardless of religion etc.. It is proof that there is a commitment to humanity that is larger than systems and ideology.

[jaques]

I did not include slavery or rape in my list. Please show me a historical example of a culture where murder or theft were fully permitted.





I think these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture) guys make the list. Oh, and I am pretty sure this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypteia) counts as murder too. Oh, and it would be pretty sad if we forgot about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust)- or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor), or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict).



You're muddying the waters here. Murder is the unlawful killing of an individual by another individual for personal reasons. Homicide and murder are not the same thing. Nor are genocide and murder. Nor are war and murder. Note also that I asked you to provide an example of a society in which murder was fully permitted. None of your links even remotely fulfills that request.

I respectfully ask that you try again, and this time produce an actual example of a society in which all individuals were freely and wantonly allowed to kill one another without legal repercussion. If murder is too hard, feel free to switch to theft, and demonstrate a society in which individuals would suffer no consequences, regardless of the circumstances, if they appropriated the property of other individuals.

[Fezzikthedoor]

Environmental custodianship is a section of Universal Values as it is something that affects all of us. Universal values transcend regional beliefs and are the concern of all global citizens regardless of religion etc.. It is proof that there is a commitment to humanity that is larger than systems and ideology.

I think that's directed at my small print ribbing of Jaques, but I'm not sure. I was going to go into why I don't think that it should be considered a Univeral Value, but I don't want to hyjack the thread as a result of a little good natured jab at my favorite Lefty on the site, Jaques. I'll just say that I understand what you're saying GB, but reserve the right to think that the Nobel Peace Prize has become nothing more than a statement of ideology, if it was ever anything more than that.

[jaques]

Jaques, you crack me up! Mentioning politics in any way that goes against your grain and you react like someone getting tapped in the knee--you leg flies up and boots the other poor slob in the crotch.


I'm not sure how my ribbing of SW8k differs from your ribbing of me, but in general I believe I've behaved pretty respectfully in this topic toward people expressing political opinions that are anathema to me (opinions on the presence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, opinions on the banning of Evolution or the teaching of Creationism in schools, etc.)

I concede that I may appear touchy when dismissive, derisive language is applied to figures or ideas I consider important. We live in a world in which the overwhelming consensus of experts on a subject can be squared off against ideologically blindered opinion or even outright willful ignorance, and it's then expected that we will all treat both sides as though they were somehow equal.

That phenomenon infuriates me. I'm constantly surprised by intelligent people such as yourself who somehow are not infuriated by it. I don't mean that as a dig against you; to some extent, I envy your apparent indifference. But it surprises me nonetheless.

[Chimpy]

You're muddying the waters here. Murder is the unlawful killing of an individual by another individual for personal reasons. Homicide and murder are not the same thing. Nor are genocide and murder. Nor are war and murder. Note also that I asked you to provide an example of a society in which murder was fully permitted. None of your links even remotely fulfills that request. .[/quote]


I don't know about you, but that your definition of murder and mine seem to be two very different things.

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice

Now I am starting to think your question is rather loaded. See, by murder's own definition, you can't have a society that supports murder because by its nature, murder is unlawful.

However, if we take the words "unlawful" out of the equation, we have a definition much eiasier to work with:

The of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice

Also of interest is this: the killing of one human being by another the definition of homocide. I have to conclude that for the purposes of this discussion, homicide and murder are the same thing. Furthermore, the genocidal accounts I have included also stand, as they are but the murder on a large and horrific scale.


respectfully ask that you try again, and this time produce an actual example of a society in which all individuals were freely and wantonly allowed to kill one another without legal repercussion. If murder is too hard, feel free to switch to theft, and demonstrate a society in which individuals would suffer no consequences, regardless of the circumstances, if they appropriated the property of other individuals.

Jauques, you are asking for something not physically possible. No matter what you do you are going to have at least one consquence for your actions, be they murder or the choice of cereal you ate this morning. Asking for an action in which there were no consquences following is akin to asking for asking for a religion in which there are no beliefs. You are attempting to warp the defintions of simple concepts to make your case impossible to bring down.


But if you want me to play your game, I will. Over the last couple of weeks I have been making my way through a book by Niall(?) Diamond: Guns, Germs, & Steel. In it he takes much time to discuss the attributes of several New Guninean hunter-gatherer tribes. In it he describes the new Guinean hunter-gatherer life style, and of particluar interest, the leading cause of New Guinean tribesman death: murder. Indeed, New Guinean life is a constant state of murder between bands, tribes, rivals, and brothers. Murder is literally not considered morally wrong- it is something one may due to avenge any little misdeed inflicted upon you. Diamond contniues and tales the tale of one woman who lost all three of her husbands to murder with in a ten year span. If this does not constitute a society in which murder is the norm, I don't know what does.

[jaques]

I'll just say that I understand what you're saying GB, but reserve the right to think that the Nobel Peace Prize has become nothing more than a statement of ideology, if it was ever anything more than that.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize): According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

I would expect the first clause to indicate the committee's rationale for awarding the prize to Gore and the IPCC. The idea that all nations have a common interest in and obligation toward stewardship of the environment certainly promotes fraternity.

As for statements of ideology, of course that's always been the primary purpose of the Peace Prize: to highlight an example of ideology that promotes peace as a desirable goal. Is something wrong with that?

[jaques]

But if you want me to play your game, I will. Over the last couple of weeks I have been making my way through a book by Niall(?) Diamond: Guns, Germs, & Steel. In it he takes much time to discuss the attributes of several New Guninean hunter-gatherer tribes. In it he describes the new Guinean hunter-gatherer life style, and of particluar interest, the leading cause of New Guinean tribesman death: murder. Indeed, New Guinean life is a constant state of murder between bands, tribes, rivals, and brothers. Murder is literally not considered morally wrong- it is something one may due to avenge any little misdeed inflicted upon you. Diamond contniues and tales the tale of one woman who lost all three of her husbands to murder with in a ten year span. If this does not constitute a society in which murder is the norm, I don't know what does.

The fact that you were able to produce an example shows that I was not playing a "game." Thank you for doing so; it certainly undercuts the notion of universal values if we include indigenous tribal cultures in our definition of "societies."

Fezzikthedoor probably likes the sound of these New Guineans -- they appear to have instituted a highly Libertarian system.

Just seeing if you can take it as well as you can dish it out, Fezzik. :wink:

[Chimpy]

Thank you for doing so; it certainly undercuts the notion of universal values if we include indigenous tribal cultures in our definition of "societies."

Well, I had always thought that universal values were a set of values that can be used universally. This does not mean that everyone uses them, or even that every one agrees with them, rather it means that they are applicable to people regardless of circumstance, time, or person. The only problem with this is that who gets to decide what those values are? And we are back at square one again, arn't we?

P.S. While examples for the killing were easy to find, I have been unable to find society sanctioned stealing. These New Guineans I used as example were quite strict on that. You repaid favors and didn't take things from others. If you wanted to live, that is.

[Dictatorbilbo]

... To that I say... Err... Curse it! Why do you all keep destroying my carefully constructed idealism? :x

:)

[Renquist]

... To that I say... Err... Curse it! Why do you all keep destroying my carefully constructed idealism? :x

:)

Get back in the kitchen you. :P

[Fezzikthedoor]

I'll just say that I understand what you're saying GB, but reserve the right to think that the Nobel Peace Prize has become nothing more than a statement of ideology, if it was ever anything more than that.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize): According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

I would expect the first clause to indicate the committee's rationale for awarding the prize to Gore and the IPCC. The idea that all nations have a common interest in and obligation toward stewardship of the environment certainly promotes fraternity.

As for statements of ideology, of course that's always been the primary purpose of the Peace Prize: to highlight an example of ideology that promotes peace as a desirable goal. Is something wrong with that?

I know you were ribbing him Jaq, that's why I did the same to you. Surely you couldn't have read it in any different way?

As for your assessment of manmade global warming sceptics, I take no offense as being declared an ideologically blinded or willfully ignorant individual. I would, however ask that you treat those that propose theories other than the orthadoxy--when backed up by scientific study--as something other than heratics that should be burned at the stake. I'm sure that you will agree that the moment science declares a single truth unchallengable, it has moved into the realm which this thread is dedicated to, religion and belief.

See, the thing is, I've been following politics and the news for the better part of 15-20 years, and I really don't remember people debating whether global warming might be attributed to an increase in solar activity, a natural cycle of warming and cooling that the Earth goes through, man-made CO2, or a combination somewhere in between. I've read studies that make an argument for one, then are discounted by the other side. Then I read the other side and they are lambasted by the first. Now the way people avoid even looking at the other side is to say that it is a done deal due to consensus, whatever the hell that means.

I'm simply made suspicious that MGW is nothing more than a cover screen for those that wish to push their own agenda under its name. Are you a vegitarian? MGW is for you--too many cows are farting and destroying the world! Are you a fan of ending urban sprawl? MGW is for you--commuters are destroying the earth! Hate free trade? MGW is for you, too--developing countries don't have the clean fuel requirements we do...buying from them is helping destroy the world! The list goes on and on. Don't think people in the 3rd world should be able to improve their standard of living by building "dirty" powerplants--MGW is for you! So yeah, I do take it with a grain of salt.

Finally, I guess I can't help but conceed that according to Wiki, the first reason must be the one they based the award upon. I guess the word "peace" just confused me, poor country hick that I am. Still, I'm curious, which of the criteria did Arafat fulfill?

P.S.--Thanks for correctly naming me a Libertarian! People on the left always think I'm a Republican, and people on the right always think i'm a Democrat. I think you mislabel the New Guineans, though. A libertarian believes in personal freedom only so far as it does not adversly infringe upon another person's life or property either through force or fraud. Of course, the social contract that we all adhere to limits that ultimate goal in the form of a consenual government, but even that should try first to adhere to the above principles.

P.P.S.--I love you.

[Jotun]

But if you want me to play your game, I will. Over the last couple of weeks I have been making my way through a book by Niall(?) Diamond: Guns, Germs, & Steel. In it he takes much time to discuss the attributes of several New Guninean hunter-gatherer tribes. In it he describes the new Guinean hunter-gatherer life style, and of particluar interest, the leading cause of New Guinean tribesman death: murder. Indeed, New Guinean life is a constant state of murder between bands, tribes, rivals, and brothers. Murder is literally not considered morally wrong- it is something one may due to avenge any little misdeed inflicted upon you. Diamond contniues and tales the tale of one woman who lost all three of her husbands to murder with in a ten year span. If this does not constitute a society in which murder is the norm, I don't know what does.

Chimpy, I believe the quote your referring to doesn't actually answer the question. There were two islands in the New Guinea story from the book. There's a peace-loving farming community, and there's the warring, we-like-killing community. Guess what happened? The farming community got trampled. I'm not sure that the book (I'm going from memory here) was saying that the killer community was a lawless, murder-for-fun society. It was just saying that they were pretty open to the idea of conquering the crap out of a neighbor with some resources.

[jaques]

Well, I had always thought that universal values were a set of values that can be used universally. This does not mean that everyone uses them, or even that every one agrees with them, rather it means that they are applicable to people regardless of circumstance, time, or person. The only problem with this is that who gets to decide what those values are? And we are back at square one again, arn't we?

P.S. While examples for the killing were easy to find, I have been unable to find society sanctioned stealing. These New Guineans I used as example were quite strict on that. You repaid favors and didn't take things from others. If you wanted to live, that is.

The New Guinean tribe sounds like it counts for both, because the individual was apparently free to decide upon murder as a repercussion for theft. So the society itself did not impose sanctions for stealing, unless I'm misreading your description.

There are two ways to conceive of "universal values." Mine is to look for values that have been present, historically, in all societies across the board. The New Guineans appear to show that there are no such universal values.

Your conception of universal values appears to imply values that should be universal, but aren't. I would submit that such a list of values would have to be derived from a source external to humanity, since almost every single human being has at least slightly different ideas about which values should be universal.

Given that religious texts are the only such external sources, and that religious texts disagree significantly about values, I agree that we're back to square one as far as universal values go.

[Onion Knight]

P.P.S.--I love you.

:rofl:

Fezzik is right. Go on... this is good...

:popcorn:

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

Is it because they do not what he wants, or is it becasue in doing not what he wants, harm is caused to someone, or to god himself (like an emotional smack to the face)? Its not like he doesn't offer forgiveness. :roll:
This is a statement on par with "the only way to be 100% happy is to believe in God" or whatever such silliness you said a few pages back - neither are anywhere close to true.

[jaques]

I know you were ribbing him Jaq, that's why I did the same to you. Surely you couldn't have read it in any different way?

Actually, I did, at least initially, because your "take a deep breath" comment seemed to imply that I should not have ribbed SW8k in the first place.

As for your assessment of manmade global warming sceptics, I take no offense as being declared an ideologically blinded or willfully ignorant individual. I would, however ask that you treat those that propose theories other than the orthadoxy--when backed up by scientific study--as something other than heratics that should be burned at the stake. I'm sure that you will agree that the moment science declares a single truth unchallengable, it has moved into the realm which this thread is dedicated to, religion and belief.

The statement that I bolded above puzzles me. I don't know that I've ever done anything remotely like this.

See, the thing is, I've been following politics and the news for the better part of 15-20 years, and I really don't remember people debating whether global warming might be attributed to an increase in solar activity, a natural cycle of warming and cooling that the Earth goes through, man-made CO2, or a combination somewhere in between. I've read studies that make an argument for one, then are discounted by the other side. Then I read the other side and they are lambasted by the first. Now the way people avoid even looking at the other side is to say that it is a done deal due to consensus, whatever the hell that means.

Unless you've been following the scientific journals and attending the conferences, your 15-20 years of experience probably haven't done you any good. Politics and the news are terrible venues for gathering an understanding of science. I personally don't have the time or inclination to read all the journals, and don't have the background to attend the conferences. So when the outcome of the conferences is a clear consensus that global warming is at least partly due to human activities, I simply have to go with that. To do otherwise is to place my own ignorant personal preference above the cumulative deliberations of professionals who know far more about the topic than I do.


Finally, I guess I can't help but conceed that according to Wiki, the first reason must be the one they based the award upon. I guess the word "peace" just confused me, poor country hick that I am. Still, I'm curious, which of the criteria did Arafat fulfill?

This is a silly question. If you've been following politics for 15-20 years, you're fully aware of the specific activities for which Arafat and his fellow Peace Prize winners were awarded that Nobel. The question implies that the prize was awarded to the man for his overall life, not to a group for their specific achievement. Maybe you think that the Nobel committee should have been prescient enough to know that the achievement would eventually be undone. If so, please make a statement to that effect instead of asking a loaded question that implies something untrue.

P.P.S.--I love you.

That's sweet, and from your avatar, you're a handsome, handsome man. It's a shame I'm already married.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

Unfortunately - the Nobel prize has largely been a "liberal of the year" award. And I say that as, if not a liberal, then at least a left leaner.

[jaques]

Unfortunately - the Nobel prize has largely been a "liberal of the year" award. And I say tha as, if not a liberal, then at least a left leaner.

But the fact is that the active promotion of peace is a fundamentally leftist idea, especially since 9-11. That's not to say that conservatives don't want peace; they just tend to have less faith that you can achieve it through means other having a big standing army and smacking down those who cross certain lines.

In point of fact, if you read over the list of Nobel Laureates for Peace, you find quite a few people who are far from liberal (Kissinger, de Klerk, Sadat and Begin, and of course Arafat).

[Fezzikthedoor]

Despite Onion Knight's enjoyment, maybe we should side board this?

But, to your response.

Jaques wrote:
We live in a world in which the overwhelming consensus of experts on a subject can be squared off against ideologically blindered opinion or even outright willful ignorance, and it's then expected that we will all treat both sides as though they were somehow equal.

That sounds pretty burn 'em at the stake to me. Or at least dismiss them as willfully ignorent ideologically blinded clods.

Regarding Scientific Journals: There's the thing, though. You're opinion is based, by your own admission, upon what is reported. For all we know, the panel that you mention might have had 10% disagree and had their voices shouted down, dismissed, or ignored. Scientists, as it turns out, are just as human, ideologically motivated, and bull headed as the rest of us. An interesting article I found here http://www.fumento.com/environment/globalwarming.html looks specifically at popular reporting which has been done that reports one set of statistics and conclusions that were later proven to be either wrong or flawed in their scientific method. No retraction forthcomming.

Now, specifically regarding my knowledge of the issue, I have made it a point to look at the printed summaries that are available online through various links, and the truth is...I'm pretty damned confused by the whole thing. But again, to simply say that the matter is decided when intelligent people can disagree about the way in which the answer was reached is nothing more than protecting the orthadoxy.

Finally, the Arafat question was a set up, sure. After all, you said:
As for statements of ideology, of course that's always been the primary purpose of the Peace Prize: to highlight an example of ideology that promotes peace as a desirable goal. Is something wrong with that?
Yet by 1994, Arafat had already ok'd (either passivly or actively) the use of suicide bombers, attempted several attacks against civilian targets, started the first Infintada, and routinely undermined his own people financially (it was already well known that he was surrounded by cronies and thieves). Of course, autocratic strongman that he was, he did begin to reform his image in the early 90's when he came to the table, pretty well beaten down but with international opinion on his side, to sign onto the Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements...so I guess that not directly upsetting the whole region as he had been doing for the previous 30 years counts as working towards peace. So no, I don't expect Oslo to be prescient, but it is also rather rediculous to afford the award any more status than the blue ribbon at the local pie eating contest when it is given to a man of that stature. The fact that he screwed the pooch later on by rejecting just about the best settlement the Palastenians could have hoped for just shows that they can't look to the future any better than they can the past.

P.S.--Married or not, no one can resist my charming curls.

[Fezzikthedoor]

Unfortunately - the Nobel prize has largely been a "liberal of the year" award. And I say tha as, if not a liberal, then at least a left leaner.

But the fact is that the active promotion of peace is a fundamentally leftist idea, especially since 9-11. That's not to say that conservatives don't want peace; they just tend to have less faith that you can achieve it through means other having a big standing army and smacking down those who cross certain lines.

In point of fact, if you read over the list of Nobel Laureates for Peace, you find quite a few people who are far from liberal (Kissinger, de Klerk, Sadat and Begin, and of course Arafat).

Hey, and I do hear that Rush Limbaugh was on the list this year too.

Heh.

[jaques]

Despite Onion Knight's enjoyment, maybe we should side board this?


Coming soon to a thread near you. (http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=409350#439851)

[Jotun]

Despite Onion Knight's enjoyment, maybe we should side board this?

But, to your response.

Jaques wrote:
We live in a world in which the overwhelming consensus of experts on a subject can be squared off against ideologically blindered opinion or even outright willful ignorance, and it's then expected that we will all treat both sides as though they were somehow equal.

That sounds pretty burn 'em at the stake to me. Or at least dismiss them as willfully ignorant ideologically blinded clods.

Regarding Scientific Journals: There's the thing, though. You're opinion is based, by your own admission, upon what is reported. For all we know, the panel that you mention might have had 10% disagree and had their voices shouted down, dismissed, or ignored. Scientists, as it turns out, are just as human, ideologically motivated, and bull headed as the rest of us. An interesting article I found here http://www.fumento.com/environment/globalwarming.html looks specifically at popular reporting which has been done that reports one set of statistics and conclusions that were later proven to be either wrong or flawed in their scientific method. No retraction forthcoming.

Even the atheists here will have to pray that the 10% are right. There is evidence for global warming, maybe not completely conclusive, but the stakes are so high that we need to err on the side of caution. If the 90% are wrong, then that sucks for scientific credibility. If the 10% are wrong, then as REM said, "It's the end of the world as we know it." Maybe not the world, but humans most likely will be extremely effected.

Unfortunately the 10% are winning at the moment, and as I've stated here before, I have friends who work in the plant biology department at Univ. of Illinois (a university known for its science programs). They have been studying the effects of ozone on soybean crops for many years, and have been trying to develop strains of soybean that are more ozone resistant. To generalize, these are people studying what food production is going to be like if global warming is right, which they ALL agree on. The scene there is very gloomy. Some heads of the program have actually decided against having children because they do not have any hope that humans are going to survive this.

The good news though is that even though the planet will rid itself of the "human disease" (from the planet's pov), conservatives agree that the economy will be booming. :(

[jaques]

Hey, and I do hear that Rush Limbaugh was on the list this year too.

Heh.

If that's true, we could have avoided the whole discussion in the first place if you'd just let me know of that particular travesty. The moment any organization actively considers Limbaugh for an award, it loses all credibility with me. (Unless maybe it's the Darwin Awards.)

[Renquist]

Since you're all so darned serious all the time...

http://www.allfunnypictures.com/images/church.jpg

[Jotun]

Despite Onion Knight's enjoyment, maybe we should side board this?


Coming soon to a thread near you. (http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=409350#439851)

Not this again.

Just let this thread be what it is, and let's stop trying to prune it into a specific discussion. The global warming debate will go on for a few days and then it will die out so that we can get back to the main issue at hand--the ridiculous idea that evolution isn't happening. :twisted:

[Chimpy]

Oh, don't worry, I won't let that thread die out.

:twisted:

[Revdyer]

Evolution causes global warming.

[robopesant]

Evolution is so stupid. There is no proof that it is real. It's just a bunch of assumptions.

[theats]

Evolution is so stupid. There is no proof that it is real. It's just a bunch of assumptions.


*prepares for barrage of hyper links

:unsure:

[Jotun]

Evolution is so stupid. There is no proof that it is real. It's just a bunch of assumptions.

Sigh. This world is so screwed.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Evolution is so stupid. There is no proof that it is real. It's just a bunch of assumptions.

Sigh. This world is so screwed.

That's why I've decided to stop caring!

[jaques]

Evolution is so stupid. There is no proof that it is real. It's just a bunch of assumptions.

Sigh. This world is so screwed.

Don't worry. It will eventually be over.

[Jotun]

Evolution is so stupid. There is no proof that it is real. It's just a bunch of assumptions.

Sigh. This world is so screwed.

Don't worry. It will eventually be over. :banana:

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

Evolution is so stupid. There is no proof that it is real. It's just a bunch of assumptions.
HAHAHAHA

[Dictatorbilbo]

Mathematics is so stupid. There's no proof that it's real. It's just a bunch of assumptions.

[Fezzikthedoor]

Mathematics is so stupid. There's no proof that it's real. It's just a bunch of assumptions.

What do you mean by, "Real", DB? There is no such thing as the number 2. Math is an arbitrary measuring system that works within a set number of assumptions based upon our interaction with physical reality.

What if we're not here man! What is the Matrix!

[Dictatorbilbo]

Exactly! What is our educational system doing teaching America's children guess-work and assumptions? It's a wacked-out conspiracy! :)

[jaques]

I wonder if God is up in heaven eating popcorn as he reads this thread.

[theats]

I wonder if God is up in heaven eating popcorn as he reads this thread.

:popcorn: -> "No, Jesus. You ate it all last time; go make your own."

(creates popcorn) :popcorn: "Dad, you make things too complicated"

[Bannister]

(I find it rather funny that bannister hasn't posted since I made the predictoin that he would. Either I am correct in my prediction, or Human will has intervened and he is not posting, probably to spite me, but hey, im only human. God is the only one that knows the future.)

It's called taking a long romantic weekend with your wife.

Bannister

PS. I'll take sex over responding to you any day. Don't worry one day you'll know what I'm talking about. :D

[theats]

(I find it rather funny that bannister hasn't posted since I made the predictoin that he would. Either I am correct in my prediction, or Human will has intervened and he is not posting, probably to spite me, but hey, im only human. God is the only one that knows the future.)

It's called taking a long romantic weekend with your wife.

Bannister

PS. I'll take sex over responding to you any day. Don't worry one day you'll know what I'm talking about. :D



So my prediction was correct? That was a little TMI, IMO. And to the derider that I may face from the scientific community, I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.