Poll: For those not believing in God

[wetwonder]

For those who do not believe in a higher power/God/"other names" here's a fun question I pose sometimes to folks

It's a bet. Would you be willing to bet the existence of the universe on their being no higher power. In other words you would be betting against an intelligent design, b/c you believe in only what you can see and touch. That nothing happens after death. Etc.

If you are correct, you will become known as the person who once and for all solved and proved that there is nothing else out there, thereby settling the populations mind about the most common question considered by mankind. You would be immortal. For this response, choose "Yes, I'd bet the Universe."

If you are incorrect and lose, the entire universe will be obliterated. All life, all molecules and particles that were part of everything that had existed, and would have been, are gone. You will be known, among the "higher power," to be that one infamous example of humanity that all others should be measured by. For this response, choose "No, I would not bet the Universe."

That's it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You know, there are some that Believe in God that also believe that nothing happens after you die, till the "end of days" and the Ressurection of the body.

[wetwonder]

That's true. But for the purposes of this question, that would be considered "after" death, albeit a while afterwards.

[MasterKiller]

If you are incorrect and lose, the entire universe will be obliterated. All life, all molecules and particles that were part of everything that had existed, and would have been, are gone.
Wouldn't obliterating the universe also obliterate "the higher power," thereby making me THE highest power, which means there was no power higher than me in the first place?

[Exadon]

I don’t believe in God. I like to think there is something spiritual in the world but I have no proof.

I see no harm in living your life as if you do not believe in god. You should be a moral person because it is the right thing to do…not because some big brother is watching over you (hey it rhymed)

as far as the OT question I would phone a friend.

[wetwonder]

No, the higher power here is actually at a so-called higher plane, outside the universe. The higher power is not made up of universe energy/particles and is not constrained by the laws of the universe/physics.

[wetwonder]

I don’t believe in God. I like to think there is something spiritual in the world but I have no proof.

I see no harm in living your life as if you do not believe in god. You should be a moral person because it is the right thing to do…not because some big brother is watching over you (hey it rhymed)

as far as the OT question I would phone a friend.


Well, than you in a sense would fall under "believing in a higher power" in this question. It doesn't have to be a man with a beard or a great buddha. It's just something outside the Universe that purposely created it. Proof is not necessary here.

[GreenCloudCLF]

If this is something that really interests you guys, you have to read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams. Talk about things that make you say "hmm..."

[David Jamieson]

Higher power isn't necessarily a god and not believing in god doesn't make one immoral.

betting is a sin however.

:p

[Exadon]

Higher power isn't necessarily a god and not believing in god doesn't make one immoral.

betting is a sin however.

:p

Yup I agree 100%...
but try telling that to the god freaks that shove it down one's throat.

ughhhh

[sanjuro_ronin]

Of course there's a God:

[David Jamieson]

Of course there's a God:

your god is HOT!

[1bad65]

Yup I agree 100%...
but try telling that to the god freaks that shove it down one's throat.

ughhhh

I believe in God, yet I believe gambling is each person's own choice to make.

[Exadon]

your god is HOT!

I agree, I will believe in that god anyday

[MasterKiller]

betting is a sin however.

:p

So is boiling a kid in its mother’s milk.


Fairytales....

[sanjuro_ronin]

Higher power isn't necessarily a god and not believing in god doesn't make one immoral.

betting is a sin however.

:p

Nope, not giving the Sanhedrin their cut was a sin.
LOL !

[MasterKiller]

Not to bow down on smooth stone Lev. 26:1

Men must not shave the hair off the sides of their head Lev. 19:27

Men must not shave their beards with a razor Lev. 19:27

Not to walk outside the city boundary on Shabbat Ex. 16:29

The rapist must marry the maiden (if she chooses) Deut. 22:29
He is never allowed to divorce her Deut. 22:29

The slanderer must remain married to his wife Deut. 22:19

Not to have sexual relations with a menstrually impure woman Lev. 18:19

Not to marry non-Jews Deut. 7:3

Not to let Moabite and Ammonite males marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:

Not to prevent a third-generation Egyptian convert from marrying into the Jewish people Deut. 23:8-9

[MasterKiller]

He must not eat raisins Num. 6:3

He must not eat grape seeds Num. 6:4

He must not eat grape skins Num. 6:4

He must not be under the same roof as a corpse Num. 6:6

Not to plant grains or greens in a vineyard Deut. 22:9

Not to pick the unformed clusters of grapes Lev. 19:10

To break the neck of the donkey if the owner does not intend to redeem it Ex. 13:13

Not to offer animals bought with the wages of a harlot or the animal exchanged for a dog Deut. 23:19

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not to bow down on smooth stone Lev. 26:1

Men must not shave the hair off the sides of their head Lev. 19:27

Men must not shave their beards with a razor Lev. 19:27

Not to walk outside the city boundary on Shabbat Ex. 16:29

The rapist must marry the maiden (if she chooses) Deut. 22:29
He is never allowed to divorce her Deut. 22:29

The slanderer must remain married to his wife Deut. 22:19

Not to have sexual relations with a menstrually impure woman Lev. 18:19

Not to marry non-Jews Deut. 7:3

Not to let Moabite and Ammonite males marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:

Not to prevent a third-generation Egyptian convert from marrying into the Jewish people Deut. 23:8-9

Yep, Moses was a freak.
:D

[David Jamieson]

Nope, not giving the Sanhedrin their cut was a sin.
LOL !

well, according to talmud, there's different degrees of sin

1. Chet — unknowingly sinning (example: peeing into a grave you didn't knwo was a grave)

2. Avon — emotional lack of control (screwing that girl at the party out of lust)

3. Pesha — intentionally defying god (blaspheming, deliberately going against the law, etc)

The sandhedrin/pharisees had nothing to do with it...well, they did, but not anymore.

[1bad65]

All the verses you quoted were Old Testament scriptures.

Christians are supposed to live under the New Testament. The Old Testament is looked at mostly as history by Christians.

The Old Testament calls for 'an eye for an eye', yet the New Testament says 'turn the other cheek'. There are huge differences between them.

[MasterKiller]

A woman who had a running (vaginal) issue must bring an offering (in the Temple) after she goes to the Mikveh Lev. 15:28-29

A woman who gave birth must bring an offering (in the Temple) after she goes to the Mikveh Lev. 12:6

A man who had a running (unnatural urinary) issue must bring an offering (in the Temple) after he goes to the Mikveh Lev. 15:13-14

Not to steal money stealthily Lev. 19:11

Not to rob openly Lev. 19:13

Not to ignore a lost object Deut. 22:3

Break the neck of a calf by the river valley following an unsolved murder Deut. 21:4

Purchase a Hebrew slave in accordance with the prescribed laws Ex. 21:2
Not to allow a non-Jew to work him oppressively Lev. 25:53

Canaanite slaves must work forever unless injured in one of their limbs Lev. 25:46

[sanjuro_ronin]

All the verses you quoted were Old Testament scriptures.

Christians are supposed to live under the New Testament. The Old Testament is looked at mostly as history by Christians.

The Old Testament calls for 'an eye for an eye', yet the New Testament says 'turn the other cheek'. There are huge differences between them.

Quite correct, the "new" law(S) ( not that it should be called that) is faith in Jesus and his ransom and his teachings.
They superceed the "tiresome yoke" of the old Laws or the Old testament.

[David Jamieson]

All the verses you quoted were Old Testament scriptures.

Christians are supposed to live under the New Testament. The Old Testament is looked at mostly as history by Christians.

The Old Testament calls for 'an eye for an eye', yet the New Testament says 'turn the other cheek'. There are huge differences between them.

You are wrong here. Gentiles are obliged to follow the laws of Noah and therefor teh old testament is part and parcel to Christianity.

also, Jesus was a Rabbi and taught the law. It was the corruption within his own community and the fact that he lived in the messianic period that caused the ruckus. You cannot deny the original covenant and the new testament is an amendment and not a redaction.

religious studies 101 my friend. :)

[MasterKiller]

All the verses you quoted were Old Testament scriptures.

Christians are supposed to live under the New Testament. The Old Testament is looked at mostly as history by Christians.

The Old Testament calls for 'an eye for an eye', yet the New Testament says 'turn the other cheek'. There are huge differences between them.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. "(Mat 5)

[sanjuro_ronin]

You are wrong here. Gentiles are obliged to follow the laws of Noah and therefor teh old testament is part and parcel to Christianity.

also, Jesus was a Rabbi and taught the law. It was the corruption within his own community and the fact that he lived in the messianic period that caused the ruckus. You cannot deny the original covenant and the new testament is an amendment and not a redaction.

religious studies 101 my friend. :)

Jesus brought the "new law" along with a "new gospel".

[MasterKiller]

Jesus brought the "new law" along with a "new gospel".

What was Jesus' stance on hom0sexuals?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. "(Mat 5)

Feel free to mention what he said BEFORE and after too...

[sanjuro_ronin]

What was Jesus' stance on hom0sexuals?

I'll ask him next time we chat.
I think he owes me 50 bucks from the Superbowl, he took Phoenix.
Sucker...

[MasterKiller]

I'll ask him next time we chat.
I think he owes me 50 bucks from the Superbowl, he took Phoenix.
Sucker...

Why no answer?

[David Jamieson]

Jesus brought the "new law" along with a "new gospel".

no, he didn't.

the gospels were written after he was gone. he upheld the law and added to it and spoke of the correction of earthly behaviours that would bring people back in line with god and not become distracted with earthly things.

this was an important message for people living under occupation and it's an important message now.

It apparently gets lost though over time.

the simple rule is this and it is written, love the lord thine god as you love yourself and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you follow these simple rules, everything will be well.

turns out they're not so simple, but if you can indicate where jesus makes reference anywhere to the laws of moses being wrong and in need of expulsion or full redaction, I would very much be interested in reading that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Why no answer?

Judge not... you know the rest...
Let he without sin...you know the rest
Only the Father in heaven will judge...
Etc, etc.

Is ****sexuality frowned upon?
Yes.
Will it cost you your soul?
Not for us to decide.

[David Jamieson]

What was Jesus' stance on hom0sexuals?

There is nothing written regarding it. We can assume what we like, but his first rule was apparently compassion (let those who have not sinned cast the first stone).

[MasterKiller]

Judge not... you know the rest...
Let he without sin...you know the rest
Only the Father in heaven will judge...
Etc, etc.

Is ****sexuality frowned upon?
Yes.
Will it cost you your soul?
Not for us to decide.

Where does Jesus say it's frowned upon?

[sanjuro_ronin]

no, he didn't.

the gospels were written after he was gone. he upheld the law and added to it and spoke of the correction of earthly behaviours that would bring people back in line with god and not become distracted with earthly things.

this was an important message for people living under occupation and it's an important message now.

It apparently gets lost though over time.

the simple rule is this and it is written, love the lord thine god as you love yourself and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you follow these simple rules, everything will be well.

turns out they're not so simple, but if you can indicate where jesus makes reference anywhere to the laws of moses being wrong and in need of expulsion or full redaction, I would very much be interested in reading that.

Not wrong, irrelevant perhaps?
Though he certainly didn't say it in those terms.
Certainly he made it clear a few times that the "laws" were not the crucial, as in the case of the Roman :legionaaire/offical who's servant he cured and when the Roman said the he didn't need to see, that he beleived, Jesus said that him, not only a gentile, but a "pagan" was blessed.
Or however that went,
:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Where does Jesus say it's frowned upon?

He doesn't say anything about that I recall.
I didn't say HE said it, I said IS IT frowned upon.
And in every religion ( topic of thread), I THINK it is.

[golden arhat]

suppose it matters how you define "god"

[MasterKiller]

He doesn't say anything about that I recall.
I didn't say HE said it, I said IS IT frowned upon.
And in every religion ( topic of thread), I THINK it is.

I don't think Shintoists or Zoroastrians have a stance on it, do they? Where did Buddha condemn it?

If Jesus never mentions it, why do Christians, who are not bound by the Old Covenant, say it's a sin?

[David Jamieson]

Not wrong, irrelevant perhaps?
Though he certainly didn't say it in those terms.
Certainly he made it clear a few times that the "laws" were not the crucial, as in the case of the Roman :legionaaire/offical who's servant he cured and when the Roman said the he didn't need to see, that he beleived, Jesus said that him, not only a gentile, but a "pagan" was blessed.
Or however that went,
:D

Moses laws were never irrelevant. Jesus taught those same laws. As a Rabbi, he would have had to.

the fact that Jesus wanted everyone to benefit from the love of god is made quite evident whereas the laws of moses specifically applied to the jewish peoples.

jesus pushed the gates open further to allow everyone access. :)

kind of like a patriarch of mahayana whereby all may gain enlightenment by virtue of their merits! :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't think Shintoists or Zoroastrians have a stance on it, do they?

If Jesus never mentions it, why do Christians, who are not bound by the Old Covenant, say it's a sin?

Don't know, but I don't think they do.
As for Christians, why do they say it is a sin?
****phobic perhaps?
Church Dogma carried over form the Old Testament.
Issues with getting it in the butt, who knows?

[1bad65]

****sexuality is a sin. And based on what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah, a pretty bad one.

Jesus basically gave a new way handle SOME things (like vengeance, that I mentioned earlier), yet nowhere does he condone ****sexuality or in any way contradict what was said about it in the Old Testament.

[David Jamieson]

suppose it matters how you define "god"

well, how do you define god?

how could something that is wholly incomprehensible be defined?

[David Jamieson]

****sexuality is a sin. And based on what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah, a pretty bad one.

Jesus basically gave a new way handle SOME things (like vengeance, that I mentioned earlier), yet nowhere does he condone ****sexuality or in any way contradict what was said about it in the Old Testament.

according to the bible, this is correct.

[MasterKiller]

Don't know, but I don't think they do.
As for Christians, why do they say it is a sin?
****phobic perhaps?
Church Dogma carried over form the Old Testament.
Issues with getting it in the butt, who knows?

Well, either the Old Coveneant applies, or it doesn't. Do you agree you cannot pick and choose?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Moses laws were never irrelevant. Jesus taught those same laws. As a Rabbi, he would have had to.

the fact that Jesus wanted everyone to benefit from the love of god is made quite evident whereas the laws of moses specifically applied to the jewish peoples.

jesus pushed the gates open further to allow everyone access. :)

kind of like a patriarch of mahayana whereby all may gain enlightenment by virtue of their merits! :D

Dude, there were Laws that were borderline ridiculus even in his day.
He whipped them moneylenders and reamed the sanhedrin a new one why?
They weren't doing anything aginst the laws of Moses.
And I think that is the issue, the Laws of MOSES.

[bawang]

i believe in Yaohushua son of Yaohu king of kings lord of lords the Lion of Yahuda

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well, either the Old Coveneant applies, or it doesn't. Do you agree you cannot pick and choose?

I think that people will believe what they want to believe, regardless.
EX:
People writing God Bless America ( or any other country) on a Bomb.
Christians fighting in "holy wars".
Selective interpretation.
I don't agree but no one cares what I think.
:D

[Exadon]

If Jesus never mentions it, why do Christians, who are not bound by the Old Covenant, say it's a sin?

Pretty good point.

There is a group around Baltimore … I forget their official name. But they wear T-shirts that say "God Hates F@gs". Pretty harsh.(I am not sure if they were trying to say phelps was gay? Or just trying to gather followers…maybe both)

They were wearing it when Phelps came back to town and had his little parade.

On semi joking note: I think it is funny that this is one of the few rules Christians take to heart from the old testament.

But all the other rules that seem to get in the way of their enjoyment (like eating shell fish) can be tossed out the window.

It would be cool if this forum had an OT section.

[David Jamieson]

The old covenant does apply, but did jesus not say that we should love the sinner while not agreeing with the sin?(sic)

in other words, while the act of h o m o sexualty is considered a sin under mosaic and christian law, it is not our place to judge and only our place to embrace and accept the sinner as a child of god who is not without sin like anyone else in the batch.

in other words, if you are without sin, then by all means step up and make your case, but if you have sinned, the stfu and let the powers that be make those judgements.

:)

[David Jamieson]

Dude, there were Laws that were borderline ridiculus even in his day.
He whipped them moneylenders and reamed the sanhedrin a new one why?
They weren't doing anything aginst the laws of Moses.
And I think that is the issue, the Laws of MOSES.

they were indeed defiling the temple and he whipped out the laws of moses as his reason for booting the moneylenders from the temple. he saw this as a corruption of the law and argued it til he was blue and finally just went berserk and that's when he started breaking the pharisees rice bowl and they got choked about it and then they choked jesus out after some rounds of careful planning.

[MasterKiller]

The old covenant does apply, but did jesus not say that we should love the sinner while not agreeing with the sin?(sic)

in other words, while the act of h o m o sexualty is considered a sin under mosaic and christian law, it is not our place to judge and only our place to embrace and accept the sinner as a child of god who is not without sin like anyone else in the batch.

in other words, if you are without sin, then by all means step up and make your case, but if you have sinned, the stfu and let the powers that be make those judgements.

:)

So if you eat shellfish, or have relations with your wife on her period, you have forgone all right to pass judgement on anyone?

[David Jamieson]

I think that people will believe what they want to believe, regardless.
EX:
People writing God Bless America ( or any other country) on a Bomb.
Christians fighting in "holy wars".
Selective interpretation.
I don't agree but no one cares what I think.
:D

Further corruptions. Human beings and sin go together like peanut butter and jelly.

no one has god in their heart when they wish death upon another. their eyes are turned towards their own agendas.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Lets also not forget that Jesus was clear about which acts and deeds warranted salvation:
When I need food you fed me.
When I need shelter, you sheltered me.
Need clothes, you clothed me
In jail and visited
Sick and you took care of me, etc,e tc.
That which we do to the least of his, we do to him.

Doesn't sound like an intolerant chap, does he?

[bawang]

The law of Musa was harsh because Israeli were a hard neck peoplet
the 10 commandments were absolute the law was ritual to make order
Yahushua continues the 10 commandments but abolish the law
the things wrong in the law are still wrong but you dont have to execute anymore
some other things were for ritual and health only

[sanjuro_ronin]

So if you eat shellfish, or have relations with your wife on her period, you have forgone all right to pass judgement on anyone?

Well, as long as you don't eat the wife on her period and have relations with the shell fish.
Gotta draw the line somewhere !
:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

The law of Musa was harsh because Israeli were a hard neck peoplet
the 10 commandments were absolute the law was ritual to make order
Yahushua continues the 10 commandments but abolish the law
the things wrong in the law are still wrong but you dont have to execute anymore
some other things were for ritual and health only

Dude, they had 100's of laws !

[David Jamieson]

So if you eat shellfish, or have relations with your wife on her period, you have forgone all right to pass judgement on anyone?

when you are born into the world, you have no right to pass judgment on someone in regards to their transgressions towards god.

bring no harm and the rest is for god to decide. that's the law. the law of men is different and deals with the bringing of harm to others.

transgressions against the laws of moses or the law of god cannot be judged by us at all. the new testament makes concrete the idea that we should not throw stones, that we are fallible and that we should take care of our own sinning before deflecting away from it by pointing at the transgressions of others.

the lords prayer makes it pretty clear i would think in terms of christianity.

[David Jamieson]

Lets also not forget that Jesus was clear about which acts and deeds warranted salvation:
When I need food you fed me.
When I need shelter, you sheltered me.
Need clothes, you clothed me
In jail and visited
Sick and you took care of me, etc,e tc.
That which we do to the least of his, we do to him.

Doesn't sound like an intolerant chap, does he?

He also said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's". Life in corporeal form was irrelevant to him. It was your eternal soul that interested jesus. It was important that you didn't wreck it by transgressions towards god or by bringing harm to others in this life.

[bawang]

the 10 commandments are holy laws the rest are to govern the people and add tradition, structure and ritual, Yaohu made them for the behefit of the Isreali people

before maybe someone say bad thing i want slit from throat to balls, but i not muslen, everyone have their own opinion, everyone have valid points, yhwh is perfect but religion is not

everyone must find their own destiney
i belive in god infinity immortality

[MasterKiller]

****sexuality is a sin. And based on what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah, a pretty bad one.

Jesus basically gave a new way handle SOME things (like vengeance, that I mentioned earlier), yet nowhere does he condone ****sexuality or in any way contradict what was said about it in the Old Testament.


Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.—Ezekiel 16:49-50

Here, God suggests he destroyed Sodom because they were greedy and inhospitable to strangers, not because of sexual indulgences.

So does Jesus:


If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.—Matthew 10:14-15

[MasterKiller]

in sodom god sent 2 angels to Lot and they tried to gang ass rape them


And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.—Genesis 19:5

The word "know" appears nearly 1,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, approximately 1% of those references have sexual connotation.

At any rate, the implication here is that these men were going to be inhospitable, so Lot, being hospitable to his guests, offers his daughters to the crowd instead, and he is rewarded by God for being hospitable to his guests.

[sanjuro_ronin]

He also said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's". Life in corporeal form was irrelevant to him. It was your eternal soul that interested jesus. It was important that you didn't wreck it by transgressions towards god or by bringing harm to others in this life.

David has smited the correct !

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here, God suggests he destroyed Sodom because they were greedy and inhospitable to strangers, not because of sexual indulgences.

So does Jesus:

Also Quite correct.

[David Jamieson]

David has smited the correct !

not bad for a secular humanist jew/ gnostic christian / zen buddhist / pseudo taoist / hindu interested guy from the prairies eh?!

right, well, I'm off to smite some inequities towards my fellow man. cheerio!

:p

[1bad65]

The word "know" appears nearly 1,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, approximately 1% of those references have sexual connotation.

At any rate, the implication here is that these men were going to be inhospitable, so Lot, being hospitable to his guests, offers his daughters to the crowd instead, and he is rewarded by God for being hospitable to his guests.

If the crowd wanted to 'know' the men in a nonsexual way, why did Lot then try and offer up his daughters?

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. -Genesis 19:8

[David Jamieson]

If the crowd wanted to 'know' the men in a nonsexual way, why did Lot then try and offer up his daughters?

you are again correct in your assertion that the reference was a sexual connotation by most interpretations of that event in the scriptures.

but still, sex in and of itself is not evil in any sense. "go forth and multiply" is hard to do with out it! :p

[sanjuro_ronin]

not bad for a secular humanist jew/ gnostic christian / zen buddhist / pseudo taoist / hindu interested guy from the prairies eh?!

right, well, I'm off to smite some inequities towards my fellow man. cheerio!

:p

OIVEY !!!
Something to take with you...

[sanjuro_ronin]

If the crowd wanted to 'know' the men in a nonsexual way, why did Lot then try and offer up his daughters?

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. -Genesis 19:8

Sodomy did come from somewhere, LOL !

Still, it was only ONE of the many things done wrong and probably not one of the worse either.

[1bad65]

you are again correct in your assertion that the reference was a sexual connotation by most interpretations of that event in the scriptures.

but still, sex in and of itself is not evil in any sense. "go forth and multiply" is hard to do with out it! :p

Thank you.

As for the 'go forth and multiply' part, you cannot do that with ****sexual acts, no matter how much of it you indulge in.

[MasterKiller]

If the crowd wanted to 'know' the men in a nonsexual way, why did Lot then try and offer up his daughters?

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. -Genesis 19:8

Lot is spared because he is hospitable to his guests. The implication is that it is WORSE to let people rape your GUESTS than your own daughters. He doesn't say it's wrong to rape men, only that these guys came...under the shadow of my roof and should therefore be protected.

Jesus apparently feels the same way.


If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.—Matthew 10:14-15

[David Jamieson]

Thank you.

As for the 'go forth and multiply' part, you cannot do that with ****sexual acts, no matter how much of it you indulge in.

yes, well that is not for you or I to judge according to the new testament.

[wetwonder]

in other words, while the act of h o m o sexualty is considered a sin under mosaic and christian law, it is not our place to judge and only our place to embrace and accept the sinner as a child of god who is not without sin like anyone else in the batch.

:)

I think I can help on the ****sexual question. The answer flows from the concept that sexual intercourse is always OK as long as there is the potential for creating a baby.

If you were to have hetero sex with a condom, that would be considered a sin, giving into temptation, which can be forgiven through sincere repenting.

From that, ****sexual sexual relations would be a sin to the extent that there would be no possibility of creating a baby. This sin would be treated the same way as above, as giving into a temptation, with forgiveness available for a sincere repent.

So, ****sexuals can live together, do whatever they feel is right, but are subect to temptations like anyone else and have the choice to repent like everyone else.

That is it. Pure and simple.

Folks that sin with contempt against God are types that wouldn't be able to sincerely repent. They sin and are satisfied doing it. They could be anyone with any temptation, including (1) the hetero using a condom, or (2) the ****sexuals engaging in sex. These types would be swimming in rough seas b/c of it.

[MasterKiller]

I think I can help on the ****sexual question. The answer flows from the concept that sexual intercourse is always OK as long as there is the potential for creating a baby.

If you were to have hetero sex with a condom, that would be considered a sin, giving into temptation, which can be forgiven through sincere repenting.

From that, ****sexual sexual relations would be a sin to the extent that there would be no possibility of creating a baby. This sin would be treated the same way as above, as giving into a temptation, with forgiveness available for a sincere repent.

So, ****sexuals can live together, do whatever they feel is right, but are subect to temptations like anyone else and have the choice to repent like everyone else.

That is it. Pure and simple.

Folks that sin with contempt against God are types that wouldn't be able to sincerely repent. They sin and are satisfied doing it. They could be anyone with any temptation, including (1) the hetero using a condom, or (2) the ****sexuals engaging in sex. These types would be swimming in rough seas b/c of it.
Do you believe that having sex with your wife and pulling out before orgasm is a sin?

Is your wife performing felatio a sin?

Is a handjob from your wife a sin?

[wetwonder]

Do you believe that having sex with your wife and pulling out before orgasm is a sin?

Is your wife performing felatio a sin?

Is a handjob from your wife a sin?

In Christianity, they would be sins that you could repent for. I'm a Christian but my beliefs undulate somewhat so I'm not totally sure. However, my best guess is that I would tend to agree that they are sins.

[David Jamieson]

well, according to talmud, there's different degrees of sin

1. Chet — unknowingly sinning (example: Peeing into a grave you didn't knwo was a grave)

2. Avon — emotional lack of control (screwing that girl at the party out of lust)

3. Pesha — intentionally defying god (blaspheming, deliberately going against the law, etc)

the sandhedrin/pharisees had nothing to do with it...well, they did, but not anymore.


do you believe that having sex with your wife and pulling out before orgasm is a sin?

Is your wife performing felatio a sin?

Is a handjob from your wife a sin?


in christianity, they would be sins that you could repent for. I'm a christian but my beliefs undulate somewhat so i'm not totally sure. However, my best guess is that i would tend to agree that they are sins.


It's important to understand severity of sins and meaning of sin. Not all sin is assuring you get your ass charred. some transgressions are minor and others are major.

stealing a chocolate bar is not the same as stealing a million dollars from a senior citizens home, but both are stealing.

let's not be so absolute with the word sin here.

[1bad65]

****sexuality is singled out many times in the Bible. Moreso than most other sins. It is called an "abomination", for example. God does not even use that word in condemning murder.

[1bad65]

yes, well that is not for you or I to judge according to the new testament.

The Bible says not to judge the person.

[David Jamieson]

The Bible says not to judge the person.

so, then it's important to separate that.
IE: don't go out there shoving it down peoples throats that what you think they're doing is wrong.

just know it in yourself and be that in yourself and you'll be fine according to your beliefs.

just ask Lot. :) He lived his life in a city where even he could not find one righteoous person. He lived there.

[1bad65]

so, then it's important to separate that.
IE: don't go out there shoving it down peoples throats that what you think they're doing is wrong.

I'm one of those people who lives my life a certain way, but believes others have the right to live their's how they please.

I have my vices, we all do. Just as long as they don't trample on someone else's rights, enjoy yourself. But you gotta take responsibility for your own choices.

[GreenCloudCLF]

If you guys are going to live your lives based on an archaic fictional text, choose Beowulf. It is way more realistic.

[wetwonder]

For those who do not believe in a higher power/God/"other names" here's a fun question I pose sometimes to folks

It's a bet. Would you be willing to bet the existence of the universe on their being no higher power. In other words you would be betting against an intelligent design, b/c you believe in only what you can see and touch. That nothing happens after death. Etc.

If you are correct, you will become known as the person who once and for all solved and proved that there is nothing else out there, thereby settling the populations mind about the most common question considered by mankind. You would be immortal. For this response, choose "Yes, I'd bet the Universe."

If you are incorrect and lose, the entire universe will be obliterated. All life, all molecules and particles that were part of everything that had existed, and would have been, are gone. You will be known, among the "higher power," to be that one infamous example of humanity that all others should be measured by. For this response, choose "No, I would not bet the Universe."

That's it.


. . . bump . . . .

[Reverend Tap]

****sexuality is singled out many times in the Bible. Moreso than most other sins. It is called an "abomination", for example. God does not even use that word in condemning murder.

Male ****sexuality only, and the hebrew word commonly translated in the passage you're referencing as "abomination" is the same word translated in other passages as "unclean."

[Water Dragon]

When I seriously began to study Christianity, what surprised me the most was the massive amount of texts that were NOT in the bible. There were quite a few differing ideas on what Christianity was and wasn't. It's pretty much established that the books that DID make it into the Bible were at least partly a political move of Constantine during the council of Nicea. Since when do politics establish divinity?

I'm not saying that the books in the Bible are all that are out there. I am saying that is extremely possible that we do not have the correct view of what Christ said or taught.

I've read a lot of the texts out there, and a lot of them make sense. If you seriously study the subject, you're gonna walk away with more questions than answers, but I think that's kinda the point. How do you find God wothout searching for Him.

Anyway, here's a link with some of those writings. There's a lot more out there.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

[Water Dragon]

Male ****sexuality only, and the hebrew word commonly translated in the passage you're referencing as "abomination" is the same word translated in other passages as "unclean."

Tap is correct. If you want to seriously try and argue what the Bible says, you really do need to be fluent in Hebrew and ancient Greek.

For example, the Gospel of John begins with the phrase, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Pretty straightforward, right?

Well, the Original Greek for 'word' was 'logos'. However, when referring to 'word' as it is understood in the English language, the term 'lexis' would have been used instead of 'logos', Logos can be more accurately defined as ' the principle governing the cosmos, the source of this principle, or human reasoning about the cosmos.' It's also been translated as 'Way', very similar to Tao.

So if you change that one word to reflect what the original Greek meant, you get something closer to:

In the beginning was the Way/Source and the Way/Source was with God, and the Way/Source was God.

This implies a signifigantly different meaning than the first translation.

[Mr Punch]

I haven't read more than the first post on this thread. Prob will do when I have time. I'm agnostic so this question doesn't apply to me. I have more things to worry about than the existance of god. And I don't believe in passing my responsibilities on to the possibility of higher beings. It is up to me, a human, to do good in my life.

So, I'm gambling the possibility of an afterlife: I can't gamble with the universe as it isn't mine to gamble, and I find that hypothetical point to be typical of those who do believe in god.

Now I'm gonna look really silly if this whole thread has turned into SJ posting tits. :D

[taai gihk yahn]

Of course there's a God:
where do we pick up the applications for abject woorship of this deity?


When I seriously began to study Christianity, what surprised me the most was the massive amount of texts that were NOT in the bible. There were quite a few differing ideas on what Christianity was and wasn't. It's pretty much established that the books that DID make it into the Bible were at least partly a political move of Constantine during the council of Nicea. Since when do politics establish divinity?
more like when do they not?

as someone with a warm, fuzzy atheist glow, it is continually astounding to me how people will bend their brains around a tree to try to "explain" the multitude of contradictions, inequities and outright silliness surrounding the whole issue of "god"; indeed, the fact that the alleged "creator of all things" is so concerned with the minutiae of human existence is testament only to humanity's unbelievable degree of self-absorption; true freedom is simple: the acknowledgement of things such as they are - no sky-daddy, no answers about "what happens when I die" (probably nothing, but even if there is, who cares? - you'll "know" when you get there, why obsess now?)

anyway, in regards to the hypothetical posed at the start of the thread, I believe the issue has already been discussed here at length:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBEP5c-SUEQ

[David Jamieson]

wow, we have a lot of scholars here. :eek:

lol.

[YouKnowWho]

Why does it matter that you believe in God or not? If he does exist then whether or not you believe in him won't bother him a bit. Do you believe someone named Joe Smith who live in Montanan somewhere in the mountain? Does Joe Smith care one way or another?

[sanjuro_ronin]

wow, we have a lot of scholars here. :eek:

Lol.

yeah, you know what that means?
More boobage !!

[SimonM]

You know, there are some that Believe in God that also believe that nothing happens after you die, till the "end of days" and the Ressurection of the body.

And (although I am not one of them) there are people who don't believe in a god and who believe quite strongly in a post-death existence.


If you guys are going to live your lives based on an archaic fictional text, choose Beowulf. It is way more realistic.

OMG! That is so great. :D


"believing in a higher power" <snip> great buddha. It's just something outside the Universe that purposely created it.

Um....

"The Buddha" was a man, very much WITHIN the universe.
"Buddha nature" is a part of every person.
There is no "great buddha" who created the universe

[wetwonder]

Um....

"The Buddha" was a man, very much WITHIN the universe.
"Buddha nature" is a part of every person.
There is no "great buddha" who created the universe

Ooops. I meant the Great Bubba. At a plane even higher than Bill Clinton.

[Exadon]

Ooops. I meant the Great Bubba. At a plane even higher than Bill Clinton.

I thought that was Obama :confused:

[Reverend Tap]

And (although I am not one of them) there are people who don't believe in a god and who believe quite strongly in a post-death existence.

What belief system would that be?

[GreenCloudCLF]

What belief system would that be?

Any that believe in reincarnation?

[Reverend Tap]

Any that believe in reincarnation?

That doesn't really fit the "not believing in a god" criterion.

[GreenCloudCLF]

That doesn't really fit the "not believing in a god" criterion.

Are you saying someone cannot believe in reincarnation without believing in a god?

[Drake]

Ok, how about this. god apparently knows everything, from beginning to end. Therefore, god already knows if you are going to be ****sexual or not. god would also know if you were going to change your ways, not change your ways, or whatever. In essence, you are screwed before you even get out of the gate. god knows if you'll repent or not long before it even happens. Therefore, either god is omnipotent and free will is a joke, or god isn't omnipotent and has absolutely no idea what is going to happen next.

Next, dealing with ****sexuality. Either go with the OT or not. You can't pick and choose what sections you wish to apply to modern society. Worse yet, you'd be choosing from sections of the OT that are pretty savage and uncivilized as far as laws go. Ok, ****sexuality is bad. What else do we have in that part of the bible? It's not exclusively by itself. You can't argue the reproduction bit, because we are overpopulated as is. That would be a death sentence for humanity. Is the goal of god to eventually wipe ourselves out due to overpopulation, or is it a man-made decision due to the tenuous nature of survivability back then?

I may be a godless heathen, but christianity seems like a watered down thunder god cult to me. :D

[GreenCloudCLF]

Ok, how about this. god apparently knows everything, from beginning to end. Therefore, god already knows if you are going to be ****sexual or not. god would also know if you were going to change your ways, not change your ways, or whatever. In essence, you are screwed before you even get out of the gate. god knows if you'll repent or not long before it even happens. Therefore, either god is omnipotent and free will is a joke, or god isn't omnipotent and has absolutely no idea what is going to happen next.

This is a flawed arguement. Just because someone knows the outcome, doesn't mean the other person didn't freely choose it. If I win the lotto I, to a certain extent, knew the outcome, that does not render the drawing a farce.


Next, dealing with ****sexuality. Either go with the OT or not. You can't pick and choose what sections you wish to apply to modern society. Worse yet, you'd be choosing from sections of the OT that are pretty savage and uncivilized as far as laws go. Ok, ****sexuality is bad. What else do we have in that part of the bible? It's not exclusively by itself. You can't argue the reproduction bit, because we are overpopulated as is. That would be a death sentence for humanity. Is the goal of god to eventually wipe ourselves out due to overpopulation, or is it a man-made decision due to the tenuous nature of survivability back then?

I may be a godless heathen, but christianity seems like a watered down thunder god cult to me. :D

My take on this subject: During the OT times, Jew were persecuted and small in number. And sexuality that did not result in pregnancy (hence "padding the jews numbers") was deemed immoral.

[TenTigers]

Any that believe in reincarnation?
yes. I believe that in a previous life, several people on this forum were some part of a horse.

[Drake]

This is a flawed arguement. Just because someone knows the outcome, doesn't mean the other person didn't freely choose it. If I win the lotto I, to a certain extent, knew the outcome, that does not render the drawing a farce.



My take on this subject: During the OT times, Jew were persecuted and small in number. And sexuality that did not result in pregnancy (hence "padding the jews numbers") was deemed immoral.


Because someone knows the outcome, it means it was determined in advance to happen. You cannot roll the dice, know the number, and then have it change simply due to wind. The wind would've already been factored into the original determination. god would've been responsible for the wind anyway, so it's kinda a double-whammy.
In other words, even if the person sinning might have decided to do something else, that event would have been known ahead of time anyway. It's an illusion of free will.

[taai gihk yahn]

yes. I believe that in a previous life, several people on this forum were some part of a horse.

some may have even carried that over into this one...(me, I'd like to think I'm a fetlock...)

[wetwonder]

Ok, how about this. god apparently knows everything, from beginning to end. Therefore, god already knows if you are going to be ****sexual or not. god would also know if you were going to change your ways, not change your ways, or whatever. In essence, you are screwed before you even get out of the gate. god knows if you'll repent or not long before it even happens. Therefore, either god is omnipotent and free will is a joke, or god isn't omnipotent and has absolutely no idea what is going to happen next.

Next, dealing with ****sexuality. Either go with the OT or not. You can't pick and choose what sections you wish to apply to modern society. Worse yet, you'd be choosing from sections of the OT that are pretty savage and uncivilized as far as laws go. Ok, ****sexuality is bad. What else do we have in that part of the bible? It's not exclusively by itself. You can't argue the reproduction bit, because we are overpopulated as is. That would be a death sentence for humanity. Is the goal of god to eventually wipe ourselves out due to overpopulation, or is it a man-made decision due to the tenuous nature of survivability back then?

I may be a godless heathen, but christianity seems like a watered down thunder god cult to me. :D


Hey Drake,

I'll give you how present Christianity works, and maybe some light will be shed.

God decided to design folks with free choice. In the Jesus model Christians presently follow, no choice is bad "in and of itself." For example, participating in a ****sexual act is not sinful in and of itself. Two people may both do the same act. Person 1 may have sinned. Person 2 may have not. Rather than the action determining sinfulness, it is the intent of the person that is determinative.

This contrasts with Old Testament thinking. In the OT, actions were the basis for judging sin. Everyone can see the surface action. It looks the same to each person. This makes it easy to judge. They had concrete rules of right and wrong that worked well with this method.

In Jesus, and the new testament, the intent of the actor is determinative of the sinfulness of the act. Who knows the intent of a person? The community can't know their intent. They can see the action, but they can't see the intent that gave rise to it. So who can see the intent? The person who did the action itself can see it. And Jesus can see it. This is why the new model is for people to pray to Jesus to ask for foregiveness. The matter is between the person and Jesus. People are human, and humans are tempted to do things that are wrongful. We all act out of emotion and make mistakes. After reflection on things, if you realize you make a mistake, you can ask for foregiveness.

****sexual acts are a temptation. Cheating on your wife is a temptation. Stealing insulin from a hospital is a temptation.

The act of stealing insulin is always the same. It doesn't belong the person, yet they take it without permission. But the important question in Christianity is "Why would the person steel insulin? Would it be to make money for one's own benefit. Or would it be to save his Grandmother's life, which he decides is more important than him going to jail? Or would it be to make money to buy food for his newborn who is starving? The person can tell us which reason he had. He can be tried in court, and tell the jury "that's why I did it, to save my newborn." The prosecutor may say, "don't believe him, he was going to buy heroin with the money." Who knows which in fact was the person's actual reason? The jury can't know for a certainty, nor the prosecutor. Only the person knows, and only Jesus knows. So the matter of sinning and repenting is between the person and Jesus. He may be convicted and sent to jail because the jury didn't believe him. But at the same time his purported reason may be known as the truth to Jesus, therefore not even requiring him to repent to anything.

So now, people become more individualized. They can reflect on their actions themselves. Other folks opinions of their actions are not important. This philosophy is more spiritual b/c it is not heavily tied to the physical world, to the actions themselves, nor to the consequences of the actions. What if people did overpopulate the world and cause their own destruction? That is the action. The consequence would be tragic to people. But would everyone be ****ed for contributing to the outcome? In Christianity, there are things much more important than the world. The choices people make, in acting and asking for foregiveness, are more important than the worst catastrophe the world could possible suffer.

To understand these concepts, one needs to do a lot of reading about the philosophy, and then do a lot of thinking to come to a personal understanding. It sounds, Drake, that if the road to thinking this through is 10 miles long, you are at mile 4 or so. Maybe you'll get to 10, maybe no. But even if you get to 10, you may come to understand this all sincerely, but decide that, in your heart, you don't subscribe to it. And maybe all of the above is false. Maybe there is no Jesus. A lot of good people don't think there is. Everyone decides for themselves.

But in either case, this is how Christianity works.

[TenTigers]

some may have even carried that over into this one...(me, I'd like to think I'm a fetlock...)

freakin guy, always makin me look s*** up....

[Drake]

1. Don't determine where I am in my walk of life based on a post. That is presumptuous, and makes you come across as arrogant and a bit ignorant yourself. I didn't assess you, yet you feel compelled to assess me? If I'm at mile 4, that would logically place you at mile 2. Or less. Do not judge others, especially based on a kung fu forum. It's ridiculous, immature, and really brings to the fore the limits of your logical reasoning.

2. You showed me the philosophy behind the move to NT, yet did not answer the question of free will. Stay on target, and don't fluff up your argument with irrelevant philosophy, because I already know it, and promptly discarded it since it wasn't relevant.

Regardless of reasoning behind the biblical layout from old to new T, the logical flaw behind free will and sin still remains the same. Intent makes ZERO difference if the layout was already in place. If you stick your hand in the cookie jar, god knew it would happen anyway, and knew this for years, no less. If you stop, resist temptation, and do not do it, it was known as well. So you can post a huge essay on the philosophy of sin and intent, but it is still on the same playing field of an all-knowing entity who already knew the outcome, hence making it unchangeable. It provides the illusion it can be changed, such as resisting temptation, but in reality, it has already been known what you would do anyway.

[wetwonder]

So you can post a huge essay on the philosophy of sin and intent, but it is still on the same playing field of an all-knowing entity who already knew the outcome, hence making it unchangeable. It provides the illusion it can be changed, such as resisting temptation, but in reality, it has already been known what you would do anyway.

I don't understand your point about free will vs. God knowing. What does it matter whether God knows or not. It is still free will. If it is the case that God knows the eventual decisions we make, it doesn't change the fact that those decisions were still made by us. I guess I don't understand what you are trying to get at with this. Perhaps you can restate it.

[Drake]

I don't understand your point about free will vs. God knowing. What does it matter whether God knows or not. It is still free will. If it is the case that God knows the eventual decisions we make, it doesn't change the fact that those decisions were still made by us. I guess I don't understand what you are trying to get at with this. Perhaps you can restate it.

If the decisions were not yet made by us, yet known already to god, hence knowing the outcome, then our decisions are not truly our own. god would have to know, before you are born, how your life would play out, or else that would make him incapable of being the beginning and the end, as this thing would have to know all the threads leading to the end. In other words, god knew hitler was coming, knew what hitler would do, and all the sin that would come along with it. Failure to know this would mean god could not know what the world would be today, hence making god a bit on the ignorant side as far as divine powers go. You can't have free will AND simultaneously know the outcome. Everything god knows would then have to stop at the point where a decision needs to be made, and this puts the divine power seriously in the dark.
In other words, when big bad satan rebelled against god, either god knew it was coming and let it all go down anyway, or he was caught off guard and we heard one huge, divine "WTF?!!?!?" echo through the cosmos.

[wetwonder]

If the decisions were not yet made by us, yet known already to god, hence knowing the outcome, then our decisions are not truly our own. god would have to know, before you are born, how your life would play out, or else that would make him incapable of being the beginning and the end, as this thing would have to know all the threads leading to the end.


Ok, I understand where you're coming from now. The confusion that I see concerns the concept of our decisions known already to god.

This is the way I see the rationale here. God has no power over our free will. That's how he designed people. We make all the decisions freely, with no direct influence by God. At the same time, based on the context of your assertions above, God knows everything we decide and the spiritual outcomes of our decisions.

God's capacity to know our decisions does not contradict that our decisions were freely made by us. Your assumption is that if God knows all the outcomes, than they could not have been feely arrived at. This is not the case.

Picture yourself watching a movie of another's life. All the decisions they made were by free will, yet if you were to watch that movie again then you would know all that persons decisions before they even occured. That's a fair analogy, with the understanding that God isn't actually sitting watching everything unfold with the knowledge of all that will unfold. God is not living in time like us. To God, the span of time and space is an 8x10 glossy. It's not a matter of "already knowing." Rather, it's just a matter of "what is." In God's dimension of time, all of our decisions occur at the same time. There is no "knowing already."

For us, we are stuck in this linear time dimension, so are drawn to thinking of God as sailing along with us.

[Reverend Tap]

Are you saying someone cannot believe in reincarnation without believing in a god?

Not at all, but it's not accurate to say that "any" belief system incorporating reincarnation fits the criteria, as those belief systems, by and large, also incorporate some form of higher power(s).

I'm mostly just curious, as the post I was originally responding to sounded like a reference to a specific religious tradition and I've not thus far encountered any tradition that believes in post-mortem existence but not a higher power.

[Drake]

Ok, I understand where you're coming from now. The confusion that I see concerns the concept of our decisions known already to god.

This is the way I see the rationale here. God has no power over our free will. That's how he designed people. We make all the decisions freely, with no direct influence by God. At the same time, based on the context of your assertions above, God knows everything we decide and the spiritual outcomes of our decisions.

God's capacity to know our decisions does not contradict that our decisions were freely made by us. Your assumption is that if God knows all the outcomes, than they could not have been feely arrived at. This is not the case.

Picture yourself watching a movie of another's life. All the decisions they made were by free will, yet if you were to watch that movie again then you would know all that persons decisions before they even occured. That's a fair analogy, with the understanding that God isn't actually sitting watching everything unfold with the knowledge of all that will unfold. God is not living in time like us. To God, the span of time and space is an 8x10 glossy. It's not a matter of "already knowing." Rather, it's just a matter of "what is." In God's dimension of time, all of our decisions occur at the same time. There is no "knowing already."

For us, we are stuck in this linear time dimension, so are drawn to thinking of God as sailing along with us.

Where does it mention the dimension of time god exists in as opposed to ours? In fact, where in the bible is this covered at all? No matter how you put it, in order for god to be omnipotent, he would have to know the outcome of the actions, as they affect everything around the person making the decision. How would god know billy was going to stick his hand in the cookie jar, or even know the cookie jar would be there, without first knowing mom would place it there? You can't jump out of linear time, because events happen sequentially. Event a leads to event b, and both cannot occur simultaneously, regardless of divine power, because regardless of how it may be seen or perceived, the reality is that it happens at two points in time. If seen simultaneously, that would mean again, god has no clue. If it occurs simultaneously, it would become a paradox.

Now we are saying god is sailing along with us? That's not what the bible teaches you. In fact, god already knows how many people are going to heaven, a feat that would be utterly impossible, regardless of power, without first knowing who would do what and why. You can't get that knowledge beforehand by just "sailing along". You also have the issue of judgment day, which is clearly listed as occuring at a linear point in time. This destroys the simultaneous logic, because clearly the bible speaks of time in linear fashion. You cannot rewrite a religious text to fit what we now know about the universe. You can't edit things out, factor things in, or retool concepts to make them make sense in the light of scientific research. That is bias, and it skews results.

[wetwonder]

I can kind of see what you're saying, but I still don't understand why you conclude that if God can know every outcome, that all those outcomes couldn't have been decided by free will. If God knows everyone's decisions beforehand, they are still, by your own description, those people's decisions. God's knowledge and people's free will are not mutually exclusive. For some reason you think they are. I don't understand your way of thinking, but I suppose we just disagree.

Thanks for talking.

[Drake]

I can kind of see what you're saying, but I still don't understand why you conclude that if God can know every outcome, that all those outcomes couldn't have been decided by free will. If God knows everyone's decisions beforehand, they are still, by your own description, those people's decisions. God's knowledge and people's free will are not mutually exclusive. For some reason you think they are. I don't understand your way of thinking, but I suppose we just disagree.

Thanks for talking.

It is all determined by whether or not god knows every outcome prior to it happening. If it doesn't, then it is not all-knowing, and certainly not all powerful. If it does know every outcome prior to it happening, then it is omnipotent, and the dice are loaded. You cannot be omnipotent and have to wait until what people do in order to know what happens next. Everything that we do is not isolated, and it affects everything around us. For example, the decision to drop the a-bomb on Nagasaki changed the decisions for millions. By your standard, god would have ZERO idea this was going on, and had all sorts of plans for those Japanese folks living there. A-bomb dropped, god is in the dark about it. Just sailing along. You can't *****-foot around this (no pics needed SJ!). Either god knows or god doesn't know. god can't know and not know and still know what it should know about what comes next.

[wetwonder]

Oh yes, that's all you were saying.

God chose to give up some of his authority to permit us free will. Absolutely. God has no influence over our free will. And God can take it away. That is understood. The way it goes, it was a "gift" God gave out. God also permits evil to inhabit the universe. God could quash evil if so desired.

Is that all you're saying, maybe I was just misunderstanding. If your point is that God is not "omnipotent" by virtue of giving man free choice, I suppose that could be one way to look at it.

[diego]

god shmod

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FluNM036_Qg

these guys taught our ancestors to draw therefore becoming gods themself with spaceships and dna mapping :)

[KC Elbows]

1) Sodom and Gomorrah's fates were because of the treatment of guests, an issue that is far more prevalent in many religions leading up to that time than ****sexuality as a "sin". In fact, there was a greek belief that man was actually part of a larger whole that was split up, out of fear, by the gods. Some were split in two, some in three, and the search for love is a need to heal that divide.

2) Christian intolerance of ****sexuality IS NOT confined to the OT. I believe there is quite a bit about it in Paul's letters. In fact, both sections speaking about it are written by small groups seeking to sustain their flock in the face of larger populations. Which in no way is comparable to modern christians, except a few very small groups. However, as a biological imperative, heterosexuality is not a requirement of all members of most species, only that members fit a place in the environment and that their place contribute to the survival of the species itself. There's plenty of examples of pairs of same-sex animals adopting the offspring of deceased "hetero" parents, directly contributing to the species' survival. Human same-sex pairs are also hardly guaranteed to involve pairs that each have never had children.

It is also worth noting that, given how vehemently a lot of modern christians view ****sexuality, and how most of the rest refuse to rock the boat, Jesus had zero to say about it worth preserving.

Finally, the final fall back, and weakest, of those intolerant of ****sexuality, is that it's "just not natural." Problem is, to our knowledge, it is a given fact of the human condition from day one. Every society, every group, either openly or hidden, had ****sexuality. Some research suggests a genetic component, and since our genes are a pretty good definition of what is a "natural" human, it's safe to say that within the normal range of human possibility are those leaning toward ****sexual behavior. Some research suggests that another contributor is hormones from the mother related to high stress conditions occurring to the pregnant mother. Since the early Christians were heavily persecuted, thanks to Paul's baby making needs, the science suggests that, whether they were safe to reveal it or not, many within that community were likely ****sexuals.

If the Apostles were genetically average humans, four of them were not interested in Mary Magdalene.

[KC Elbows]

Oh yes, that's all you were saying.

God chose to give up some of his authority to permit us free will. Absolutely. God has no influence over our free will. And God can take it away. That is understood. The way it goes, it was a "gift" God gave out. God also permits evil to inhabit the universe. God could quash evil if so desired.

Is that all you're saying, maybe I was just misunderstanding. If your point is that God is not "omnipotent" by virtue of giving man free choice, I suppose that could be one way to look at it.

One thing that gets me with what seems to have become mainstream with many christians relating to both the free will discussion and evolution is that they rush from an argument or point that is difficult, but hardly impossible, to reconcile with the texts, and, in opposition, cling to one that is in every way worse than what they rush from.

With free will, there seems to be two major needs, one of which is not specific to christians. One is the need for control over one's own destiny, and free will seems to answer this well, but, it creates a limit on God's power without some further explanation, and, for most Christians, this will not do. The simplest answer is that there is free will, but with perfect knowledge of the universe, including perfect knowledge of the character of those agents with free will, God is perfectly capable of knowing the decisions in advance, and thus there is no possibility of anything happening outside of his will or unexpected to him. The problem seems to be that this seems strangely reminiscent of not having free will, so some rebel against it. In my experience, many christians do not resolve this clearly, simply leaving the question alone, when, in fact, it is rather important to a Christian to understand that 1) Their choices are theirs, and have consequences, and 2) Regardless of your free will, you can make no choice that stymies the will of God.

With evolution, the mainstream of Christianity(at least in the US) has unintentionally created the most inelegant, weak, insufficient definition of perfection possible. Like free will, God, knowing the natures of all things perfectly, also knows the nature of their congruence perfectly. Given this, he could introduce two elements that result in a multitude more, and have perfect awareness of what the results would be without having to interfere past the introduction.

Let's say these were microscopic life, and you have random selection, in this case a perfect system he, by virtue of his abilities, could initiate while knowing the results would not only be amoebas and elephants and marmets and such, but Tim and Harvey and Carol and the rest of the cast. But because random selection did not come from clergy, and was at odds with the claims of many christians, (though less at odds with the Bible itself), many Christians stand against this, and cling to the idea that he not only made an initial act of creation, but is forever having to do more creation every time a new species comes up, something that is directly at odds with Genesis, and at odds with any definition of perfection. After all, they rush from a God who achieves multitudes from one act, and turn to one who is constantly having to fill gaps and create new things even though the Bible says he does not do that.

Bear in mind, I'm speaking of the sort of popular Christianity followed by many, there are plenty of Christians who have compelling cosmological and moral views. You just don't get to hear them because of the Intelligent Design sort, who are more about attacking some other view than actually examining their own view of God and finding where it is lacking in Grace, Perfection, morality, etc. Mind you, if the compelling Christians weren't so **** quiet about what their brothers are doing, maybe there'd be more compelling Christians, and less people out to feel better by judging who they think God loves less than them.

[Mr Punch]

Excellent points by Water Dragon and KC Elbows. Also great post by Tungmojingjung who clearly explains just how batty these old superstitions are.


I'm one of those people who lives my life a certain way, but believes others have the right to live their's how they please.

I have my vices, we all do. Just as long as they don't trample on someone else's rights, enjoy yourself. But you gotta take responsibility for your own choices.Nice to know you support h0mosexual marriage as long as the priest agrees.


What belief system would that be?Australian aborigines among other 'primitive' systems.


That doesn't really fit the "not believing in a god" criterion.Shinto.

Reincarnation (though admittedly it probably comes from Buddhism, it's now all part and parcel) is a predominant belief, and they are animist. Every place, every house, every tree, every rock has its 'Kami'. 'Kami' can be translated as God, sure, and that was the case by most of the missionaries who shaped our perceptions of Japan and continue to influence it through semantic distinctions. But more accurately, kami can be spirit. Again, the missionaries had us believe it was Spirit, so they could connect this multiplicity with an all-connected Trinity, which is the same as the Japanese Jesuit converts in the 16th-17th Century translating 'God' as 'dainichi' ('The Great Sun' or 'Sun God' or just 'Japan') - there were no converts to Christianity in Japan even in the heyday of Xavier: they had just absorbed Xavier's more benevolent views of afterlife into their religion to convince themselves that their horrible peasant lives got better when they died!

This backs up the importance of semantics and source languages even more.


God decided to design folks with free choice. ...
...
God chose to give up some of his authority to permit us free will. Absolutely. God has no influence over our free will. And God can take it away. That is understood. The way it goes, it was a "gift" God gave out. God also permits evil to inhabit the universe. God could quash evil if so desired...Models of Christianity change. Your discourse here would have been considered probably blasphemous, and almost certainly faithless by the predominant models of all but post-WW2. You realise you are putting words and thoughts into your creator's 'mouth' in an attempt to humanise 'His' 'thought process'? The point was to most in previous centuries: you had faith - you didn't second-guess God. That whole mysterious ways stuff was paramount to believing, not just some old cliche.


...
If the Apostles were genetically average humans, four of them were not interested in Mary Magdalene.13 apostles, 4 of them gay? While I agree with your argument this figure is vastly inflated.

There is a school of thought that argues that the whole male dominance of the church, structure of the priesthood and iconography of love was a Pauline attempt to subsume h0mosexuality which certainly before the 3rd century had been considered part of normal human existance.

[wetwonder]

Models of Christianity change. Your discourse here would have been considered probably blasphemous, and almost certainly faithless by the predominant models of all but post-WW2. You realise you are putting words and thoughts into your creator's 'mouth' in an attempt to humanise 'His' 'thought process'? The point was to most in previous centuries: you had faith - you didn't second-guess God. That whole mysterious ways stuff was paramount to believing, not just some old cliche.



Mr. Punch,
My reflections relate to my understanding of the general philosophy of Christianity. They do not relate to the religious rule or predominant beliefs of the faithful. My personal position is that there is one one truth out there for each person on the planet. And, even though all may differ, each in its own way can be right.

[Violent Designs]

What is the point of this thread?

Also, you forgot to make a third poll option. Specifically, "this thread is ****ing worthless."

[AdrianK]

The interesting and funny thing about this thread is - The people who specifically dont believe in God are exactly as the people who specifically do.

You're both believing in something without any supporting scientific evidence. The people who believe, don't have anything to back it up. And the people who specifically dont believe, have only the fact that our limited knowledge of the universe hasn't found a god.

I personally believe they're both equally wrong in what they represent - Blind faith.

The only logical idea regarding god, is that we cannot determine he/she/its existance. Not that it doesn't exist, and not that it does. As much as it kills people to do, just accept your gad**** ignorance of the subject. If your belief is in god, fine - But forcing it on other people or looking down on them for not seeing your scientifically unproven beliefs is wrong. Likewise, the people in the house preaching and looking down on people for specifically not believing in a god is just as wrong.

[Mr Punch]

Adrian, with respect I think you're missing the point: believing in God is supposed to be a matter of faith: if you have proof, you have no faith.

Furthermore, in terms of scientific method it would be impossible to prove that God exists without experimenting/talking to and recording such a being.

Unfair to the argument but both of these points still stand.

[wetwonder]

AdrianK has some good insight there.

The Point of this thread wasn't as much about whether there is a God. Rather, it was about people's sense of certainty in their thoughts. How certain can we be about anything? I'm very curious about people that unequivocally state what they consider a "truth" - without any room for uncertainty.

I'm pretty sure that members on this forum love their wife or husband or partner, but I'm also pretty sure they could never prove it to a scientific certainty. Being proveable or not is not the ultimate measure of whether something is true.

To flesh out certaiinty, there are not many subjects better than God.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

So is boiling a kid in its mother’s milk.


Fairytales....

i just made pants babies.

is that a sin?

[taai gihk yahn]

The interesting and funny thing about this thread is - The people who specifically dont believe in God are exactly as the people who specifically do.

You're both believing in something without any supporting scientific evidence. The people who believe, don't have anything to back it up. And the people who specifically dont believe, have only the fact that our limited knowledge of the universe hasn't found a god.

I personally believe they're both equally wrong in what they represent - Blind faith.

The only logical idea regarding god, is that we cannot determine he/she/its existance. Not that it doesn't exist, and not that it does. As much as it kills people to do, just accept your gad**** ignorance of the subject. If your belief is in god, fine - But forcing it on other people or looking down on them for not seeing your scientifically unproven beliefs is wrong. Likewise, the people in the house preaching and looking down on people for specifically not believing in a god is just as wrong.
no, sorry - this is totally wrong; look, take your day-to-day experience; you "exist" in the world that surrounds you, you have a certain set of experiences, etc.; and you get along just fine without an inkling of "god" and whatnot; sure, some things that you can't necessarily explain occur, but that in and of itself is not indicative of anything beyond that there are aspects of what we experience directly that we do not have full knowledge of; and every so often you experience things like fear and uncertainty; and sometimes you experience pain, and even death as it occurs around you; but you make do as you go through life, and enjoy the highs with the lows, despite the realization that one day you too will cease to "exist"; and then, one day, someone comes along and says, "hey, guess what? the reason that all of this stuff is here, is because some entity, that you cannot see, experience directly or even actually fathom with the faculties of your mind, is responsible for creating and controlling all of it; what's more, all that fear and uncertainty you have is not a big deal, because after you die, you will continue to "exist" in a different form, because 'god' wills it; trust me"; beyond that, no proof, other than a load of SUBJECTIVE experience on the part of themselves and / or other people, some of who decided to write down what they experienced (which, of course, makes it so much more reliable);

so that's it - there's your "argument" for "god"; and everything that has grown up around it is nothing more than elaborate justification for a concept which ultimately is about distracting people from their neurotic obsession with the concept of eternal existence of their subjective sense of themselves;

it's time for humanity to grow up


AdrianK has some good insight there.

The Point of this thread wasn't as much about whether there is a God. Rather, it was about people's sense of certainty in their thoughts. How certain can we be about anything? I'm very curious about people that unequivocally state what they consider a "truth" - without any room for uncertainty.

I'm pretty sure that members on this forum love their wife or husband or partner, but I'm also pretty sure they could never prove it to a scientific certainty. Being proveable or not is not the ultimate measure of whether something is true.

To flesh out certaiinty, there are not many subjects better than God.
I reject the premise; things are such as they are; certainty is "relative"; if someone proposes to me the existence of "god" without my having had the idea occur to myself spontaneously, why should I believe them without their providing proof? true, one can't "disprove" it, but remember, the null hypothesis is the proposition that "god" does exist; I can make the same assertion that "the Flying Spaghetti Monster (All Hail His Noodley Appendages!)" is in fact the Supreme Being - why is that any less credible inherently than some abstract jovian fellow existing outside of objective creation?

so as far as certainty, it's not the issue, because certainty is of itself a construct of mind, dependent upon the conditional aspect of mind; "suchness" is neither certain nor uncertain, it is self-evident; the only "certainty" is death, but only because we choose to define it as such based on a certain set of criteria - which is not necessarily valid or invalid, but it is conditional;

at bottom, I have my own sense of "certainty", and I "know" it because of how I feel when considering it; and as such, I find myself untroubled by the endless cyclical debates regarding the characteristics ascribed to "god"; baring my occasional foray into preaching the conditions of my personal apostasy, that is...

[wetwonder]

So you are certain that death is a certainty? And you are certain that there is no God.

[Drake]

So you are certain that death is a certainty? And you are certain that there is no God.

There is an equal chance of the christian god existing as much as there is Zeus, Zoroaster, Brahman, or Ra. And since I've written those characters off as fiction, therein lies my certainty.

Now, you can certainly "tailor" a god to fit what you thin a god should be, but honestly, that's nothing more than some imagination and a deep-rooted yearning for some sort of logic to everything, which may or may not exist. I think it'd break a few billion hearts to know that there may not be any reason whatsoever to our existance.

[Violent Designs]

The interesting and funny thing about this thread is - The people who specifically dont believe in God are exactly as the people who specifically do.

You're both believing in something without any supporting scientific evidence. The people who believe, don't have anything to back it up. And the people who specifically dont believe, have only the fact that our limited knowledge of the universe hasn't found a god.

I personally believe they're both equally wrong in what they represent - Blind faith.

The only logical idea regarding god, is that we cannot determine he/she/its existance. Not that it doesn't exist, and not that it does. As much as it kills people to do, just accept your gad**** ignorance of the subject. If your belief is in god, fine - But forcing it on other people or looking down on them for not seeing your scientifically unproven beliefs is wrong. Likewise, the people in the house preaching and looking down on people for specifically not believing in a god is just as wrong.

No.

Atheism is not a "belief that there is no god."

Atheism is just that - the opposite of THEISM.

Theism - the belief in one or a number of deities (or I guess, supernatural beings/creators).

Atheism - the position that god does not exist. It is opposite to what you state. Specifically, atheism is a LACK of a belief system.

I guess to put it better, we should say that atheism is the rejection of theism, the REJECTION of "faith and belief systems in supernatural deities."

[Violent Designs]

So you are certain that death is a certainty? And you are certain that there is no God.

Are you certain that Muhammad the Prophet was in fact wrong? Are you certain that Scientologists are wrong? What about Mormons? If they're right, you're going to hell too.

[taai gihk yahn]

So you are certain that death is a certainty?
yes


And you are certain that there is no God.
yes

[Reverend Tap]

No.

Atheism is not a "belief that there is no god."

Atheism is just that - the opposite of THEISM.

Theism - the belief in one or a number of deities (or I guess, supernatural beings/creators).

Atheism - the position that god does not exist. It is opposite to what you state. Specifically, atheism is a LACK of a belief system.

I guess to put it better, we should say that atheism is the rejection of theism, the REJECTION of "faith and belief systems in supernatural deities."

There is no definitive proof either way regarding the existence of any supernatural beings. Therefore, either position, regardless of the reasoning behind it, remains at the end of the day a position of personal opinion; ie, a belief.

Atheism is not the lack of a belief system. It is a specific belief in the NON-existence of god(s) and the supernatural. The correct label for an individual who does not have a belief system is agnostic, not atheist, as the term agnostic describes an individual who does not take a position on the question at all (more or less).

[wetwonder]

Are you certain that Muhammad the Prophet was in fact wrong?

No, I'm not.


Are you certain that Scientologists are wrong?

No, I'm not certain.


What about Mormons? If they're right, you're going to hell too.

No, I don't know. I try to do the best I can everyday with people and the world. That's all I can do. But perhaps, in spite of that, I will be going to hell - where I will continue trying to do the best I can.

[Drake]

No, I'm not.



No, I'm not certain.



No, I don't know. I try to do the best I can everyday with people and the world. That's all I can do. But perhaps, in spite of that, I will be going to hell - where I will continue trying to do the best I can.

Ok, you can't have it both ways. If you are christian, these religions are not true in any way shape or form. Simply acknowledging them as being potentially legitimate is pretty high up there on the sin-o-meter.

[wetwonder]

Ok, you can't have it both ways. If you are christian, these religions are not true in any way shape or form. Simply acknowledging them as being potentially legitimate is pretty high up there on the sin-o-meter.

Drake,

IMO, you don't understand what Christ is about. You may understand the rules and values of organized religions and sects and their congregations. And you may hear the words that those people say. But I don't think you understand the essence of Jesus's theology. It's about your intentions and what's in your heart in dealing with people and the world, rather than what book you study or what alter you kneel at. Your's is a common misconception. Jesus is too be learned on a personal level - it can't be taught to you specifically by another. There are as many different Jesus curriculums as their are people on this Earth.

[Violent Designs]

There is no definitive proof either way regarding the existence of any supernatural beings. Therefore, either position, regardless of the reasoning behind it, remains at the end of the day a position of personal opinion; ie, a belief.

Atheism is not the lack of a belief system. It is a specific belief in the NON-existence of god(s) and the supernatural. The correct label for an individual who does not have a belief system is agnostic, not atheist, as the term agnostic describes an individual who does not take a position on the question at all (more or less).

Atheism = rejection of theism.

Agnosticism is the proposition that one CANNOT know with certainty either the existence or non-existence of a god. Agnostics do not actively reject theism as impossible.

Atheism, once again, is NOT a "belief system." It is a logical proposition that the entity various religions claim as "god" or "gods" does not exist.

Perhaps I should go a little deeper? For me and many of my friends who are also atheists, the conclusion is that while the general position of atheism is that god DOES NOT exist, it should be changed to or include the proposition that god CANNOT exist.

Specifically, the POSSIBILITY of god's existence defies both logic and all current scientific theories in existence.

So once again, "logic" DOES NOT equate to "belief." If "belief" were to ever be muddled with logic, then it simply cannot be called logic anymore.

The question should actually be changed to:

"CAN god exist?" instead of "DOES god exist?"

You see, if god CANNOT exist, then the question of DOES he exist or not is already invalid and moot.

[Reverend Tap]

Atheism = rejection of theism.

Agnosticism is the proposition that one CANNOT know with certainty either the existence or non-existence of a god. Agnostics do not actively reject theism as impossible.
Agnosticism also covers the range of people who simply don't care one way or the other, or who just aren't sure. It's the fuzziest religious categorization out there. Unless you care to invent a new term to fill in the gaps or try to merge atheism and agnosticism, simple lack of a belief system necessarily fits within the "agnostic" category.


Atheism, once again, is NOT a "belief system." It is a logical proposition that the entity various religions claim as "god" or "gods" does not exist.
One that is unprovable and "taken on faith," as it were, and is, thereby, a belief.


Perhaps I should go a little deeper? For me and many of my friends who are also atheists, the conclusion is that while the general position of atheism is that god DOES NOT exist, it should be changed to or include the proposition that god CANNOT exist.
Which remains, again, unprovable as a positive assertion and thereby must be taken as an opinion or belief, no matter how logical or rooted in empiricism it may be.


Specifically, the POSSIBILITY of god's existence defies both logic and all current scientific theories in existence.
To suppose that we currently know enough scientifically about the base function of the universe to even begin to make claims about what can or cannot be, especially when discussing theoretical existences or beings outside the known universe, strikes me as arrogance to the utmost degree. Scientific paradigms change frequently, and it is quite normal within the scientific community for each successive generation of researchers to hold a generalized view of the function of the universe that bears little resemblance to that of the former generation. Do you really suppose we've got it all down now?


So once again, "logic" DOES NOT equate to "belief." If "belief" were to ever be muddled with logic, then it simply cannot be called logic anymore.
Red herring argument. Calling atheism a belief structure (and by extension, as it is a belief structure concerned with the existence of god, a religion) does not equate the logic or reasoning behind the position with the belief itself. The means by which one arrives at a particular opinion or belief has no impact upon the nature of said opinion/belief AS an opinion/belief, regardless of whether you are talking about atheism or catholicism.


The question should actually be changed to:

"CAN god exist?" instead of "DOES god exist?"

You see, if god CANNOT exist, then the question of DOES he exist or not is already invalid and moot.
True enough, but it amounts to little more than a semantic game when the answer to either question is an unprovable unknown, and it's irrelevant to the categorization of atheism as a belief system, and thus a religion, anyway.

[Violent Designs]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a mule.

No matter how I put it, you still insist on telling the world that atheism is another "belief system." I guess it cannot be helped. Sheep (or mules, in this case) rarely manage to think for themselves or think logically for that matter.

I cannot put this any simpler - absence of faith, is not the same as a faith in absence.

It's quite obvious your agenda is to in a way "demonize" the position of Atheism and argue and/or promote the [false] opinion that atheists are just another group of "believers" in a different "dogma" than your beloved religion.

This has become a moot subject.

I have no argued about this subject on the internet (let alone a CMA forum, for crying out loud) for years and I think I will let this one go.

Enjoy your faith. I find such things rather lacking in both taste and reason (not to mention a massive waste of one's intellect, time, and mental stability).

[AdrianK]

Adrian, with respect I think you're missing the point: believing in God is supposed to be a matter of faith: if you have proof, you have no faith.

No, I'm not missing the point. When it comes to religion, the point of believing in god varies far and wide. Faith is a requirement with many religions because if people didn't have it, organized religion would crumble and die.

I understand the concept of faith being important to many religions. IMHO there are far better things to teach, such as compassion, empathy, generosity, and how to be a decent human being, but unfortunately the concept behind the faith that is taught and required by so many, is so incredibly misused in our society to manipulate millions of people on a daily basis.

It is this faith which teaches to not question things. I believe faith can be a constructive tool, but the ideas behind faith are just so misused and improperly taught that its not only become a joke but its become counter-productive to our way of life.




Furthermore, in terms of scientific method it would be impossible to prove that God exists without experimenting/talking to and recording such a being.

That'd be the idea. I don't think its impossible that if there is a god, someday we'll find him/her/it.



no, sorry - this is totally wrong;

You sound pretty sure!



look, take your day-to-day experience; you "exist" in the world that surrounds you, you have a certain set of experiences, etc.; and you get along just fine without an inkling of "god" and whatnot; sure, some things that you can't necessarily explain occur, but that in and of itself is not indicative of anything beyond that there are aspects of what we experience directly that we do not have full knowledge of; and every so often you experience things like fear and uncertainty; and sometimes you experience pain, and even death as it occurs around you; but you make do as you go through life, and enjoy the highs with the lows, despite the realization that one day you too will cease to "exist"; and then, one day, someone comes along and says, "hey, guess what? the reason that all of this stuff is here, is because some entity, that you cannot see, experience directly or even actually fathom with the faculties of your mind, is responsible for creating and controlling all of it; what's more, all that fear and uncertainty you have is not a big deal, because after you die, you will continue to "exist" in a different form, because 'god' wills it; trust me"; beyond that, no proof, other than a load of SUBJECTIVE experience on the part of themselves and / or other people, some of who decided to write down what they experienced (which, of course, makes it so much more reliable);

Wow, thats a huge response. I'm not going to break anything down or respond to any of your points specifically because I get the gist of what you're saying.

The problem is, you're putting your ideas of god in the hands of those that run organized religion - Which is a profitable enterprise, and history has shown us that business people tend to be just as manipulative as lawyers and salespeople.

A God can't be defined as any one particular thing. Don't let organized religion confine this idea to their, in my opinion, ridiculous, off the wall, manipulative idiocy.

A God could be what they say, an all-controlling, all-knowing, all-creating being. Or it could be a collective consciousness. Or it could be a highly evolved alien being or beings.

The belief in god is equivilent to the ideas of intelligent alien life, or any such thing we don't yet understand or may never understand. It remains an undefinable possibility. Meaning a staunch belief against a "God" is ridiculous simply because there is no specific definition of god. Just as you could say you don't believe in alien life prior to our ability to go into space - You'd have been wrong, because there is life on other planets. We haven't found intelligent life, but its life nonetheless.



so that's it - there's your "argument" for "god"; and everything that has grown up around it is nothing more than elaborate justification for a concept which ultimately is about distracting people from their neurotic obsession with the concept of eternal existence of their subjective sense of themselves;

I don't disagree that organized religion has turned the idea of god into this. I very much agree.



Ok, you can't have it both ways. If you are christian, these religions are not true in any way shape or form. Simply acknowledging them as being potentially legitimate is pretty high up there on the sin-o-meter.

Based on organized christianity.



Atheism is not a "belief that there is no god."
Atheism is just that - the opposite of THEISM.

It is either a rejection of theism, or more commonly(in my experience), a specific belief in the nonexistance of a deity.. It can be defined as either, or both.

[taai gihk yahn]

It's quite obvious your agenda is to in a way "demonize" the position of Atheism and argue and/or promote the [false] opinion that atheists are just another group of "believers" in a different "dogma" than your beloved religion.
here's the difference, at least to me: there is no "system" to disbelief, no "dogma" to it; it is not of any concern to me if someone believes or not, they are free to do as they like, and I respect every person's right to believe whatever they want, although I may not respect the belief itself on it's inherent merits; fundamentally though, I don't care to try to convince anyone that I am right or they are wrong - although I may argue it when it suits me as an exercise of sorts, I don't care to belabor it; so unlike a large percentage of believers, I don't feel the urge to try to convert; what's more, someone's belief does not unsettle me in my disbelief, where, apparently, disbelief doesn't sit well with the majority of believers...

[SimonM]

I couldn't care less if religious people are comforted by calling my lack of faith a belief system.

It doesn't hurt me at all.

It doesn't change the fact that I have no faith in their gods.

The subtext is an attempt by the religious to claim that if atheism is a belief system rather than a logical application of reason it is invalidated as atheists argue that faith based systems are invalid.

However leading down that road is then to say that any paradigm rooted in belief is invalidated.

Which is exactly what atheism is largely saying anyway.

So, go ahead, call atheism a belief system if it helps you to sleep at night. I'm not going to bother arguing about it with the goddies.

[sanjuro_ronin]

LIVE AND LET LIVE.


or die.

Its all good.

[David Jamieson]

I couldn't care less if religious people are comforted by calling my lack of faith a belief system.

It doesn't hurt me at all.

It doesn't change the fact that I have no faith in their gods.

The subtext is an attempt by the religious to claim that if atheism is a belief system rather than a logical application of reason it is invalidated as atheists argue that faith based systems are invalid.

However leading down that road is then to say that any paradigm rooted in belief is invalidated.

Which is exactly what atheism is largely saying anyway.

So, go ahead, call atheism a belief system if it helps you to sleep at night. I'm not going to bother arguing about it with the goddies.

Atheism is a belief system by definition though. It asserts that there is no god.
This is merely diametrical opposition to the mainstream religious construct and ergo is a belief system as well. It does have dogma and doctrine all it's own.

I think you may fall into a category of secular humanism moreso than atheism?

[taai gihk yahn]

Atheism is a belief system by definition though. It asserts that there is no god.
only after the assertion that there is has been made by someone else - what would be the point of asserting that something that had never been proposed doesn't exist? meaning that someone comes up with a belief system in "god", explains it to me, and gives me "evidence" to support that belief; I think about it and say, "no, I don't believe in the possibility of that, I reject it"; that's not a belief system - it's rejection of a proposition by someone with a belief system; I mean, if I organized my thoughts and went out into the world and preached non-belief, maybe; but in terms of a direct response to the initial proposition, no, it's not;

[sanjuro_ronin]

only after the assertion that there is has been made by someone else - what would be the point of asserting that something that had never been proposed doesn't exist? meaning that someone comes up with a belief system in "god", explains it to me, and gives me "evidence" to support that belief; I think about it and say, "no, I don't believe in the possibility of that, I reject it"; that's not a belief system - it's rejection of a proposition by someone with a belief system; I mean, if I organized my thoughts and went out into the world and preached non-belief, maybe; but in terms of a direct response to the initial proposition, no, it's not;

Well, if you say "no, I don't believe in the possibility of that," doesn't that make it a "belief" system ?

[SimonM]

LOL!

In my life I've been called a zen buddhist, a secular humanist, an atheist and a godless heathen. I prefer the latter. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

LOL!

In my life I've been called a zen buddhist, a secular humanist, an atheist and a godless heathen. I prefer the latter. ;)

I got one for you:
Safe for work by the way.

[taai gihk yahn]

Well, if you say "no, I don't believe in the possibility of that," doesn't that make it a "belief" system ?

well, in the sense that one has an opinion about anything it does - but not in the same way that belief in "god" does - belief in "god" takes one's range of experience and then makes a "leap of faith" and posits something on top of that that is outside one's range of experience; atheism takes one's range of experience such as it is and says "I have no reason to believe in that";

BTW, belief in the possibility of something is not the same - belief in possibility means that if someone demonstrates evidence to the contrary of my non-belief, I will take it as it comes, and it may change my mind - but my experience to date has shown me no indication that "god" is anything but a construct of the human mind "supported' by a range of normal albeit uncommon set of subjective experiences that lead people to falsely believe that they have experienced something "other";

[SimonM]

i got one for you:
Safe for work by the way.

rotflmfao!

[David Jamieson]

well, in the sense that one has an opinion about anything it does - but not in the same way that belief in "god" does - belief in "god" takes one's range of experience and then makes a "leap of faith" and posits something on top of that that is outside one's range of experience; atheism takes one's range of experience such as it is and says "I have no reason to believe in that";

BTW, belief in the possibility of something is not the same - belief in possibility means that if someone demonstrates evidence to the contrary of my non-belief, I will take it as it comes, and it may change my mind - but my experience to date has shown me no indication that "god" is anything but a construct of the human mind "supported' by a range of normal albeit uncommon set of subjective experiences that lead people to falsely believe that they have experienced something "other";

so, your jury is still out. :p

[taai gihk yahn]

so, your jury is still out. :p

oh yeah, I am plagued by indecision on the matter :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

clearly. :)

btw and fwiw...just to clear things up:


a⋅the⋅ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

[Reality_Check]

Main Entry:
athe·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

[taai gihk yahn]

clearly. :)

btw and fwiw...just to clear things up:


a⋅the⋅ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

I think so-called "western" mind has this penchant for either / or as opposed to neither (or "differance" as our dearly departed friend Jaque might have said...); the underlying basis for my perspective is that of "ch'an" or suchness; K's. "choiceless awareness" would also fit the bill - and in context of this, my apostasy finds its home...

[Reverend Tap]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a mule.

No matter how I put it, you still insist on telling the world that atheism is another "belief system." I guess it cannot be helped. Sheep (or mules, in this case) rarely manage to think for themselves or think logically for that matter.
I'm being perfectly logical here. Just applying the correct definitions of the terms used.


I cannot put this any simpler - absence of faith, is not the same as a faith in absence.
You just reiterated MY point; simple absence of faith, correctly defined, is agnosticism. Active faith in absence defines atheism.


It's quite obvious your agenda is to in a way "demonize" the position of Atheism and argue and/or promote the [false] opinion that atheists are just another group of "believers" in a different "dogma" than your beloved religion.
Why on earth would I want to demonize atheism? My brother is an atheist, as are many of my friends. I just want people to use the terminology in a way that's actually accurate, and I'd do the same to followers of any other religious belief. Indeed, about the only thing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth regarding atheism is some of its' adherents' militancy in putting forward the claim that they're the only ones on the planet with functioning intellectual capabilities, even to the extent that there is apparently a movement within atheist circles to drop the name "atheism" altogether and call themselves "Brights."


Enjoy your faith. I find such things rather lacking in both taste and reason (not to mention a massive waste of one's intellect, time, and mental stability).
Don't let the "reverend" in my name fool you. I don't adhere to any organized religion and was just ordained through ULC (http://www.ulc.org) so as to be able to perform legal weddings. My spirituality is my own and not something I share publicly.

[David Jamieson]

I think so-called "western" mind has this penchant for either / or as opposed to neither (or "differance" as our dearly departed friend Jaque might have said...); the underlying basis for my perspective is that of "ch'an" or suchness; K's. "choiceless awareness" would also fit the bill - and in context of this, my apostasy finds its home...

I don't think it's a "western" mind thing at all.
I believe that it's a human thing.

Dualism binds us all in our attempts to understand.
We cannot comprehend without reference points that show us the opposite of that which we are observing.

We cannot understand light without knowledge of dark, man without woman and so on.

There is no profound and true objectivity in us, although, we may be able to look at some things in such a manner in the thick of it, all becomes subject. We are certainly unable to clearly articulate any given thing without pointing out it's perceived polar opposite.

so, while we may know with some intimacy, within our own minds a given thing, we cannot express it to another properly without applying it's opposite or it's familiar kindered.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Personally I don't think that God and Organization go hand-in-hand, truth be it told, they are more at odds than anything else.

[David Jamieson]

Personally I don't think that God and Organization go hand-in-hand, truth be it told, they are more at odds than anything else.

fractals trumps that. :p

[sanjuro_ronin]

fractals trumps that. :p

I don't know what you mean....

[taai gihk yahn]

Don't let the "reverend" in my name fool you. I don't adhere to any organized religion and was just ordained through ULC (http://www.ulc.org) so as to be able to perform legal weddings. My spirituality is my own and not something I share publicly.
Holy Cr@p - I did that like 15 yrs. ago for some reason I now forget; but in NY State, you need to have an active "flock" or it don't count, I seem to recall, LOL


I don't think it's a "western" mind thing at all.
I believe that it's a human thing.

Dualism binds us all in our attempts to understand.
We cannot comprehend without reference points that show us the opposite of that which we are observing.

We cannot understand light without knowledge of dark, man without woman and so on.

There is no profound and true objectivity in us, although, we may be able to look at some things in such a manner in the thick of it, all becomes subject. We are certainly unable to clearly articulate any given thing without pointing out it's perceived polar opposite.

so, while we may know with some intimacy, within our own minds a given thing, we cannot express it to another properly without applying it's opposite or it's familiar kindered.
of course; the convention of language is ultimately divisive / dualistic; and I agree that subj./obj. is ultimately relative; which is why I find K's "choiceless awareness" to be of merit in terms of being both active and passive at the same time, a pathway through the dualism; at the same time, we cannot simply eschew dualism, for it is the way of things such as they are; personally, I find the whole concept of "god" to be a massive distraction from awareness of suchness, as it draws the mind towards an truly artificial certainty and detracts from the work of mindfullness; but that's only an opinion, of course

[David Jamieson]

of course; the convention of language is ultimately divisive / dualistic; and I agree that subj./obj. is ultimately relative; which is why I find K's "choiceless awareness" to be of merit in terms of being both active and passive at the same time, a pathway through the dualism; at the same time, we cannot simply eschew dualism, for it is the way of things such as they are; personally, I find the whole concept of "god" to be a massive distraction from awareness of suchness, as it draws the mind towards an truly artificial certainty and detracts from the work of mindfullness; but that's only an opinion, of course


I agree with this. I believe it is another trait of humans though. IE: laziness that prevents us for the most part from collectively adhering to that principle.

[taai gihk yahn]

I agree with this. I believe it is another trait of humans though. IE: laziness that prevents us for the most part from collectively adhering to that principle.

well, it's like anything - when you get the system to function at a certain level of energy, it's "easier" to be of that perspective - getting there takes more energy than maintaining it, so to speak; although it's not just as easy as saying "I'll do it" - there is a lot of conditioning to let go of and also living in relatively prosperous circumstances can make it easier as well - trying to survive by eking out a meager living is not particularly conducive to the practice of equanimity, no matter what one might think, IMPE

[AdrianK]

Personally I don't think that God and Organization go hand-in-hand, truth be it told, they are more at odds than anything else.

Pffth, organized religion is one of the most profitable types of business you can run :p
Its unaffected by our failing economy too!

[David Jamieson]

Pffth, organized religion is one of the most profitable types of business you can run :p
Its unaffected by our failing economy too!

It should boom in a failing economy. All that fear and desperation and such...

[Reverend Tap]

It should boom in a failing economy. All that fear and desperation and such...

Churches, bars, drug dealers and Walmart.

[taai gihk yahn]

Churches, bars, drug dealers and Walmart.

psychologists also tend to do rather well...;)

[Drake]

Hey, check it out. This thread just did a Jesus. :D

[taai gihk yahn]

Hey, check it out. This thread just did a Jesus. :D

well, it took a bit longer than three days, so not as impressive; although after such a long time it would have much less to work with...:D

[Drake]

well, it took a bit longer than three days, so not as impressive; although after such a long time it would have much less to work with...:D

You know what they say... a zombie is a zombie is a zombie... :D

[MasterKiller]

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/images/zombie%20jesus%20jared%20hindman.jpg

[taai gihk yahn]

You know what they say... a zombie is a zombie is a zombie... :D

Who says that?!? Tell me, I demand to know!!!

[SPJ]

For those who do not believe in a higher power/God/"other names" here's a fun question I pose sometimes to folks

It's a bet. Would you be willing to bet the existence of the universe on their being no higher power. In other words you would be betting against an intelligent design, b/c you believe in only what you can see and touch. That nothing happens after death. Etc.

If you are correct, you will become known as the person who once and for all solved and proved that there is nothing else out there, thereby settling the populations mind about the most common question considered by mankind. You would be immortal. For this response, choose "Yes, I'd bet the Universe."

If you are incorrect and lose, the entire universe will be obliterated. All life, all molecules and particles that were part of everything that had existed, and would have been, are gone. You will be known, among the "higher power," to be that one infamous example of humanity that all others should be measured by. For this response, choose "No, I would not bet the Universe."

That's it.

1. higher being than people, yes. there are other higher intelligent being than people.

2. there are certain rules/laws of nature. they are called physics, chemistry, geology, biology etc etc

3. there are also random events or things that do not follow laws/rules of nature.

----

whether it is explainable with science or beyond science

--

[SPJ]

science has flaws.

it sets up a rule/limit, then there are things within and without the rule/limit

things may be inside or outside the rule

since the truth or nature is all encompassing or universal.

---

thus Fu Xi designed tai chi to explain the all the encompassing events of nature including life---

---

[SPJ]

1. everything is in a constant flow or change

the existence of things including life are temporary or transcient

2. everything is relative in space and time.

3. stars/sun dies out, black hole amassing huge masses (inplosion), big explosion.supernova-> particles and new stars--

existence of energy and mass may be totally the same----

or we may explain everything is just the work of god.

----

[kfson]

If it hasn't already been said, there are some middle eastern religions that say the universe was made by a demi-god. I can't remember those organizations at the moment; they might be termed "gnostic".

[IronWeasel]

Wouldn't obliterating the universe also obliterate "the higher power," thereby making me THE highest power, which means there was no power higher than me in the first place?




Typical Mod thinking...:D

[IronWeasel]

Do you believe that having sex with your wife and pulling out before orgasm is a sin?

Is your wife performing felatio a sin?

Is a handjob from your wife a sin?



What about sex with your wife when she's already 6 months pregnant...?


Same?

[David Jamieson]

what about sex with your wife, then sex with yourself, then sex with the wife again and then a switch up where you watch her have sex with herself while you eat a bag of crisps and watch the footy.

Is it a sin then?

which part?

which part can I do again without sinning.

why is there so much focus on what I do with my ***** when it comes to determining what a sin is?

[Lokhopkuen]

Of course there's a God:

OMG!:D:rolleyes::cool:

[Lokhopkuen]

what about sex with your wife, then sex with yourself, then sex with the wife again and then a switch up where you watch her have sex with herself while you eat a bag of crisps and watch the footy.

Is it a sin then?

which part?

which part can I do again without sinning.

why is there so much focus on what I do with my ***** when it comes to determining what a sin is?

Writing " *****" is a sin bud:rolleyes:

[ghostexorcist]

I saw a funny motivational poster the other day with a picture of the Norse God Thor. The caption read:

"My god has a hammer. Your god was nailed to a cross. Any questions?"

[ghostexorcist]

If it hasn't already been said, there are some middle eastern religions that say the universe was made by a demi-god. I can't remember those organizations at the moment; they might be termed "gnostic".
There is an off shoot of Karaite Judaism that believes the world was created by angels.

[ghostexorcist]

I saw a funny motivational poster the other day with a picture of the Norse God Thor. The caption read:

"My god has a hammer. Your god was nailed to a cross. Any questions?"
found it:


http://img.moronail.net/img/2/5/1725.jpg

[David Jamieson]

For 23 p, what is the fundamental diference between Presbyterians and Episcopalians?

they are both protestant churches.

But when you look for the answer, you'll find a couple of more questions and you will come to realize that church is more about politics than it is about church.

[Merryprankster]

Reverend, I think that whether or not atheism constitutes a system of belief depends entirely on how you come to it.

If you are an atheist because the existence of God cannot be proven from observable, repeatable experiments, then I don't think that makes you much more than an empiricist. It could be possible to "believe" (I use the word colloquially here) in only things that are demonstrably factual (vice true).

Note that being an empiricist in this sense is fraught with its own problems....nor does being one imply a greater or lesser sense of reality or reason than somebody with a different viewpoint.

Folks are certainly free to disagree with my comments above. Such is the nature of argumentation.

However, the most accurate explanation of faith and belief has always seemed to me to be Kierkegaard's; belief is something you maintain in SPITE OF THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, or EVIDENCE AGAINST IT.

I realize this all butts up against the absence of evidence/evidence of absence argument, but, ultimately, really, who cares?

Only apologists and atheists ;-)

[Merryprankster]

For 23 p, what is the fundamental diference between Presbyterians and Episcopalians?

they are both protestant churches.

But when you look for the answer, you'll find a couple of more questions and you will come to realize that church is more about politics than it is about church.

This; BTW, I would wager that God doesn't exist. If he doesn't, I've lost nothing. If he does, he's not going allow the universe to end because I'm being a putz.

Really, this is just a negative reformulation of Pascal's Wager. Kind of boring. Oh, and ultimately a really crappy, 'missing the point' sort of reason to believe in God.

[AJM]

I'm trying to justify in my mind why this thread is on a kung fu bulletin board and I'm completely striking out.

[Kpower]

Any god desiring worship is not worthy of worship.

[David Jamieson]

This; BTW, I would wager that God doesn't exist. If he doesn't, I've lost nothing. If he does, he's not going allow the universe to end because I'm being a putz.

Really, this is just a negative reformulation of Pascal's Wager. Kind of boring. Oh, and ultimately a really crappy, 'missing the point' sort of reason to believe in God.

Not sure what this comment means or how it relates to my post.

:p

[kfson]

I saw a funny motivational poster the other day with a picture of the Norse God Thor. The caption read:

"My god has a hammer. Your god was nailed to a cross. Any questions?"



I know that organization, it's called the Nietzcheism.


http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/nietzsche7.jpg

[David Jamieson]

Graffiti on a bathroom wall:

God is Dead ~ Nietzche

beneath it:

Nietzche is Dead ~ God

:p

[sanjuro_ronin]

graffiti on a bathroom wall:

god is dead ~ nietzche

beneath it:

nietzche is dead ~ god

:p

bbbwwaaahhhhh !!!!!!