View Full Version : Questions and thoughts from a realist regarding religion.
Before you read this, and more importantly, before you think to answer anything within, please ponder your words carefully, and truly consider the implications that your answers aim to provide.
EDIT: Wow.. this is long, I didn't realize how long until I looked upon it today. I modified it a little to make it easier to read, but regardless, If you actually take the time to read all of this you deserve a cookie!
Religious unknowns...
Why does religion claim to provide answers, when those answers only substitute one unknown for another. Am I to believe that the story of creation serves as a better revelation then the discoveries of science?
If not the Big Bang...
It is a fact that based on the color shift of extraterrestrial bodies, we can extrapolate that all deep space objects are traversing away from a single area of space. The most logical explanation for why has became known as the Big Bang, but this is only "the most logical explanation based on current scientific knowledge", and we know that science evolves with the advent of new information. Religion can make no such claims, and maintains traditions that are not always concurrent with science. So, if not something similar to the Big Bang, what is the religious explanation for all galaxies and other extraterrestrial bodies traversing away from a single point in space?
Religion for abiogenesis....
Is the sole point of religion to answer the how we came to exist on this planet? If not, then why is it such a cornerstone of doctrine? What relevance to the continued progression of humanity would knowing the origins of life truly serve? It doesn’t carry with it any tangible benefit, it only serves to satisfy a question that does nothing but exemplify mans curiosity. The only feasible purpose is to create a sense of obligation to God for his generosity and mercy of creating you. What other reason is there? I suppose one logical possibility would be to quell the incessant inquiries of inquisitive children.
Religion without religious notions...
So let us for one moment remove all the things from religion that serve no tangible purpose. Creation would be the first to remove. The second to go would be salvation. Since eternal life is generally either granted (grace) or asked for (born again) and rarely earned, plus the benefits of which are not evidenced until after death, let us dismiss it for a moment. What now are we left with? Morality? Are we so self diluted and inept that one would honestly believe that we cannot realize pain and suffering are products of negative sentiments without religion? People like Bill Mahar, Richard Feynman, Richard Dawkins and countless other outspoken Athiests suffer constant death threats from different religious sects, a vast majority coming from Christians, is that the type of morality religion represents? Obviously since nearly all systematized societies have a proverbial “code of morality” we cannot assume that any single religious entity has been the sole cause of moral standards. What then is left? I must conclude Stories. But most of these stories merely present some form of moral dilemma and satisfies the quandary using the perspective and beliefs of said dogma, and since we have already removed morality as a religiously exclusive dynamic. What now is left? Without these things there is no purpose in religion, so how can I not conclude that religion is inherently a system of control. Am I not forced to accept that it uses promises such as salvation and riches to promote dedication, which incurs debts that never need to be satisfied, because people believe those promises will be fulfilled upon death? Would that not be a notion bred by fear of the unknown?
What religion claims....
Why do people believe in free will and then contradict that belief implying that God can intercede into our lives? People claim that God can intervene based on certain criteria, that “we must allow him to work through us”, or that “we are compelled through his power”, or “by influence of an interceder [e.g. Holy Spirit]”, or because “a spiritual guardian [e.g. Angel] protects his followers”, but one must dismiss the belief of free will to accept any of these notions.
Versus the real world...
The concept of an interventionist God is inherently disproved by life, unless you are egotistical enough to believe that God had the willingness to manipulate the world around you to some fateful cause (girl of your dreams, admittance to an esteemed or accredited institution, surviving a situation with a high probability of death, avoiding a situation of great personal difficulty, inheritance, etc etc) and at the same time allow innocent people to die tragic and horrible deaths (JonBenet Ramsey, Haley Jordan Bobrowsky, the list is endless). How does the survival of one child through such a horrible situation somehow dismiss thousands of other cases where the children were not so lucky? People are so quick to attribute such rare instances as miracles, when a true miracle would be the survival of all innocent children in similar circumstances, not just a select few. Since God does not save all children whom pray to him for protection, we must conclude that a) Those children not saved have inherently less value b) Those children who were saved have some greater purpose in life c) God played no part in the saving of any of them, the people who spent countless hours toiling over clues, searching woods, talking with witnesses and other laborious tasks are ultimately the ones who saved them. Since no one would likely claim that one child has more or less value then another child, we can easily dismiss a. Since many of the children who did survive such experiences ended up committing suicide ( http://www.suicide.org/rape-and-suicide.html ) because they were unable to cope with their experiences, we must conclude that b is not true. Are we not forced to conclude that the answer is option c? Naturally there are believers who would attempt to rationalize a religious answer, but the truth is only that these situations do occur. Attempt to rationalize them tells me that you are capable of rational though, and that the seed of doubt is in you, for that I am grateful.
Does not compute...
If this is true, and God cannot intervene in life then the belief in a God is irrelevant, as there is no earthly consequence to believing in a God. It is nothing more than a "pascals wager", based almost exclusively on the promise of eternal life. This again affirms the notion that it is a selfish endeavor. I say that because if one is to assume that if God is all good, then they must be willing to accept that a righteous and moral person will get into heaven regardless of spiritual affiliation (or lack there of), to believe otherwise implies religious superiority which is impossible to justify if God cannot intervene.
There must be an answer...
So why then would people believe in religion despite the logical contradictions of doing so? I would say Fellowship. A sense of belonging, the joy of being around people who seem to understand you and whom you feel are like-minded. Ultimately I think that makes religion nothing more then a selfish endeavor... but I think the fear of being outcast by friends and family, despised, thought of as a baby eating immoral heathen, or worse... an atheist... I think these fears act as motivational catalyst to ignore logic and rationalize the questions that they know religion cannot answer.
Due to the overwhelming responces... I am beginning to think I should have split this up into more then one post. I apologize, perhaps I was freewriting a little, so I imagine it might ramble a bit. I tried organizing it some, but I imagine it is still a lot to take in at one time.
Unimportant
05-14-2008, 03:24 AM
I feel the need to preface this saying, I am mostly playing the Devil's advocate. I consider myself and atheist and it is likely therefor that my statements will be with very little bias in arguing from a theist standpoint.
Religious unknowns...
Why does religion claim to provide answers, when those answers only substitute one unknown for another. Am I to believe that the story of creation serves as a better revelation then the discoveries of science?
The answers provided by religion would typically be spoken from the mouth of their god, or gods. That is to say, in following a religion one must first believe that the originators of the religion speak truth in their revelations, and they have truly borne witness to the will of their god(s). It would therein be clear that a scientific doctrine proclaiming anything contradictory should be false, and the evidence must then have been misinterpreted or a lie. Following this belief one would come to the conclusion that the scientific theory would eventually be falsified, so there would be no need from the beginning to subscribe to such a claim.
If not the Big Bang...
It is a fact that based on the color shift of extraterrestrial bodies, we can extrapolate that all deep space objects are traversing away from a single area of space. The most logical explanation for why has became known as the Big Bang, but this is only "the most logical explanation based on current scientific knowledge", and we know that science evolves with the advent of new information. Religion can make no such claims, and maintains traditions that are not always concurrent with science. So, if not something similar to the Big Bang, what is the religious explanation for all galaxies and other extraterrestrial bodies traversing away from a single point in space?
It could also be an abstract orbital pattern of the terrestrial bodies which are not moving away due to the aftermath of an explosion, but based on their orbit. One could suppose a great many things about the current placement and velocities of various terrestrial bodies, and while there is evidence supporting many theories, we do not have all of the information required to form a definitive and concrete conclusion.
Cosmic background radiation, its rate of cooling, and general uniformity do indeed imply an expanding universe. However, does universal expansion in and of itself disprove any particular religious doctrine? The facts behind CMB fall in line with the big bang theory, but if we are interpreting its presence incorrectly to begin with, or its origin, then it is of little consequence.
Also, a universe propagated by the big bang does not necessarily have any bearing on a higher power. That is to say, while it may be contradictory to the doctrines of certain religion, it is not contradictory to religion in general.
Religion for abiogenesis....
Is the sole point of religion to answer the how we came to exist on this planet? If not, then why is it such a cornerstone of doctrine? What relevance to the continued progression of humanity would knowing the origins of life truly serve? It doesn’t carry with it any tangible benefit, it only serves to satisfy a question that does nothing but exemplify mans curiosity. The only feasible purpose is to create a sense of obligation to God for his generosity and mercy of creating you. What other reason is there? I suppose one logical possibility would be to quell the incessant inquiries of inquisitive children.
I do not think religion originated in order to answer questions regarding our origin, but rather our future. Most religions do indeed touch on the subject, but I find that they are not oriented around it. In terms of it being a cornerstone of the doctrines, this would be because in denying part of the validity of a religion, you deny the whole of it. If any part of a religion is falsified, this implies the words of the doctrine were not god spoken. It is important therefor to protect all of the beliefs of any religion, for only in complete faith may be a religion have strength.
It may also be of note that again, if indeed there is trust in the originators of a particular religion, there should be no need to doubt the truth it holds. It would be science and the various studies that were incorrect then, and in time they should find that their hypothesis was incorrect. Science is the art of seeking truth, religion is truth.
Religion without religious notions...
So let us for one moment remove all the things from religion that serve no tangible purpose. Creation would be the first to remove. The second to go would be salvation. Since eternal life is generally either granted (grace) or asked for (born again) and rarely earned, plus the benefits of which are not evidenced until after death, let us dismiss it for a moment. What now are we left with? Morality? Are we so self diluted and inept that one would honestly believe that we cannot realize pain and suffering are products of negative sentiments without religion? People like Bill Mahar, Richard Feynman, Richard Dawkins and countless other outspoken Athiests suffer constant death threats from different religious sects, a vast majority coming from Christians, is that the type of morality religion represents? Obviously since nearly all systematized societies have a proverbial “code of morality” we cannot assume that any single religious entity has been the sole cause of moral standards. What then is left? I must conclude Stories. But most of these stories merely present some form of moral dilemma and satisfies the quandary using the perspective and beliefs of said dogma, and since we have already removed morality as a religiously exclusive dynamic. What now is left? Without these things there is no purpose in religion, so how can I not conclude that religion is inherently a system of control. Am I not forced to accept that it uses promises such as salvation and riches to promote dedication, which incurs debts that never need to be satisfied, because people believe those promises will be fulfilled upon death? Would that not be a notion bred by fear of the unknown?
I'd just like to point out that I felt a strong anti-religious sentiment reading this question. You may want to re-word it, not to be picky but it just came off as something that could be easily offensive, when I think that is not your intention.
I really don't know how to respond to most of this because it is worded in such a biased and hateful way. I'm sorry, it's not that you didn't make a good amount of fair points (or even that I disagree, being an atheist), but really.
I would say that in the whole, humans accept death. Most do indeed feel that they are beyond mortality, or that they are deserving of eternal existence in the form of some afterlife. However, I would say it is not from fear that these feelings arise, but a lack of understanding. When one ponders of nonexistence from the standpoint of an existing being, no conclusion can be drawn. It is from this that the seed is planted, and nurtured into growth, the idea that one cannot simply cease to exist. Religion then provides an answer to this feeling, which is not fear but a lack of understanding.
What religion claims....
Why do people believe in free will and then contradict that belief implying that God can intercede into our lives? People claim that God can intervene based on certain criteria, that “we must allow him to work through us”, or that “we are compelled through his power”, or “by influence of an interceder [e.g. Holy Spirit]”, or because “a spiritual guardian [e.g. Angel] protects his followers”, but one must dismiss the belief of free will to accept any of these notions.
I disagree. Your analogy is similar to saying that if someone else murders you, you lack free will. I think temporary intervention is not contradictory to an overall picture of free will, as outside influences do not imply a lack of control on an individual level. The exception is of course if these influences are acting constantly, but I cannot think of a doctrine that claims such.
However, there is one paradox which I have come upon in my thinking:
In this we assume God is omnipotent
God would have created us knowing our intentions, and our actions throughout our life before we were created.
Why then, would we be judged at all, by a being who would have known deeply our motivations, intentions, and actions before they even occurred?
-------------------------------------------
This is all for now, as I am getting too distracted from work. I will likely come back later and finish my responses, sorry!
drache
05-14-2008, 03:34 AM
I've found this intereting but I think that you're trying to possibly do too much to quickly.
I have to go to bed but I'll finish reading this tomorrow and draft a proper reponse then.
martryn
05-14-2008, 03:40 AM
I thought it was too long and I didn't bother reading it, but I think any response worth mentioning to a thread like this can be summed up in one word: Faith.
The answers provided by religion would typically be spoken from the mouth of their god, or gods. That is to say, in following a religion one must first believe that the originators of the religion speak truth in their revelations, and they have truly borne witness to the will of their god(s). It would therein be clear that a scientific doctrine proclaiming anything contradictory should be false, and the evidence must then have been misinterpreted or a lie. Following this belief one would come to the conclusion that the scientific theory would eventually be falsified, so there would be no need from the beginning to subscribe to such a claim.
But could I not also say that a person who does not question the Bible has no right to question science or scientific literature? They would be skeptical of the works of science; something entirely based on verifiable rational knowledge attained through experimentation that can be repeated by anyone willing to take the time. Yet they would accept without question the teachings of a book that contains things that in many cases are neither rational nor verifiable, and all of which cannot be repeated simply because it claims to come from a “God”. Is that not the very definition of hypocrisy? To preach of the need for truth, and deny truths that can be verified. Would they be so quick to accept other books that also claim divinity? I think not.
It could also be an abstract orbital pattern of the terrestrial bodies which are not moving away due to the aftermath of an explosion, but based on their orbit. One could suppose a great many things about the current placement and velocities of various terrestrial bodies, and while there is evidence supporting many theories, we do not have all of the information required to form a definitive and concrete conclusion.
Unlikely, since orbits form an ellipse(or at least a curve) and not a straight line. Celestial bodies can be traced back to both the same point, and the same time. [Meaning the bodies farther from the galactic focal point are traveling faster, while closer ones are traveling slower, meaning if we worked backwards at their current positions and speeds they would reach the focal point at approximately the same time]
Cosmic background radiation, its rate of cooling, and general uniformity do indeed imply an expanding universe. However, does universal expansion in and of itself disprove any particular religious doctrine? The facts behind CMB fall in line with the big bang theory, but if we are interpreting its presence incorrectly to begin with, or its origin, then it is of little consequence.
It actually literally disproves all religious doctrines. It takes a lot of interpretation and apologetics to accept both religious doctrine and the Big Bang. But the point is not really about the Big Bang alone, but science in general. Science has shown that the things believed in the Bible were nothing more then logical conclusions made by human reasoning through observation. Science also admits its nothing more then the best explanation so far.
Also, a universe propagated by the big bang does not necessarily have any bearing on a higher power. That is to say, while it may be contradictory to the doctrines of certain religion, it is not contradictory to religion in general.
If the religion contains a creation story it does.
I do not think religion originated in order to answer questions regarding our origin, but rather our future. Most religions do indeed touch on the subject, but I find that they are not oriented around it. In terms of it being a cornerstone of the doctrines, this would be because in denying part of the validity of a religion, you deny the whole of it. If any part of a religion is falsified, this implies the words of the doctrine were not god spoken. It is important therefor to protect all of the beliefs of any religion, for only in complete faith may be a religion have strength.
I would venture to say that implying God made man is absolutely a cornerstone of any religion. You cannot owe God your life it he was not the one who provided it. Furthermore, You have to know where you came from to know where your headed. You cannot know direction without some frame of reference.
It may also be of note that again, if indeed there is trust in the originators of a particular religion, there should be no need to doubt the truth it holds. It would be science and the various studies that were incorrect then, and in time they should find that their hypothesis was incorrect. Science is the art of seeking truth, religion is truth.
Wrong, Science seeks truth, Religion claims to already have it.
I'd just like to point out that I felt a strong anti-religious sentiment reading this question. You may want to re-word it, not to be picky but it just came off as something that could be easily offensive, when I think that is not your intention.
I really don't know how to respond to most of this because it is worded in such a biased and hateful way. I'm sorry, it's not that you didn't make a good amount of fair points (or even that I disagree, being an atheist), but really.
I probably wanted a religious person to explain if/why they would believe in their religion if the things that cannot be proven were removed, and generally the best way to accomplish that on the internet is to be mildly confrontational.
I would say that in the whole, humans accept death. Most do indeed feel that they are beyond mortality, or that they are deserving of eternal existence in the form of some afterlife. However, I would say it is not from fear that these feelings arise, but a lack of understanding. When one ponders of nonexistence from the standpoint of an existing being, no conclusion can be drawn. It is from this that the seed is planted, and nurtured into growth, the idea that one cannot simply cease to exist. Religion then provides an answer to this feeling, which is not fear but a lack of understanding.
Generally a lack of understanding is the cause of fear. Understanding something creates confidence with respect to the subject of study. If you don’t understand your math, then you fear how well you will do on the test. The same is true of religion, the study of it breeds a false sense of understanding, [I say false, because you are only replacing an unknown with an unknown] which is why many religious people have a condescending tone when referring to their afterlife. This is why I stated that religion is based on “fear of the unknown”. They used salvation(an unknown) to replace the unknown (what happens after death), and thus alleviate the fear of dying (or at least the fear of not knowing what happens after death).
I disagree. Your analogy is similar to saying that if someone else murders you, you lack free will. I think temporary intervention is not contradictory to an overall picture of free will, as outside influences do not imply a lack of control on an individual level. The exception is of course if these influences are acting constantly, but I cannot think of a doctrine that claims such.
If someone else attempts to murder you, but God intercedes to prevent it in some way, then it is not the person who was saved that has lost their free will, but the person who attempted the murder who lost their free will. Gods intervention would always destroy someone’s free will, whether it’s the victim or the perpetrator is irrelevant. Just as if God granted you into a college that your grades should not have allowed as such, then the Deans free will has been compromised. If your car stalls which prevents you from having an accident had it not stalled, then it has compromised your own free will, and you have thus not learned the lesson that you would have learned had you had the accident (look both ways, don’t get distracted, etc etc). There is absolutely no way to intervene and not compromise the entire concept of free will.
However, there is one paradox which I have come upon in my thinking:
In this we assume God is omnipotent
God would have created us knowing our intentions, and our actions throughout our life before we were created.
Why then, would we be judged at all, by a being who would have known deeply our motivations, intentions, and actions before they even occurred?
Those are similar to a couple questions I proposed to a religious friend.
If God were truly omniscient, and knew that man would eat the apple before making man… even knowing all the atrocities that would be performed by man throughout the millennia’s… and yet still make man… Is that the type of God one wishes to follow into the after life?
How can God be omnipotent, as if God knew that I would die an Atheist before I was born, then he would not attempt to save me as there would be no point in the effort, to try when its known to be in vain would be nothing more a divine scapegoat. “hey... I tried…”
You already seem aware of the obvious problem omniscience has coexisting with the concept of free will, as its no longer “free will” if your decisions are known before they are made.
------------------------------------------------
Thank you for taking the time to play the Devils Advocate, and I look forward to your further posts.
I thought it was too long and I didn't bother reading it, but I think any response worth mentioning to a thread like this can be summed up in one word: Faith.
How can you assume to know what "type of thread" this is if you didn't read it?
Hugiboo
05-15-2008, 02:34 AM
I will not defend “religion” in general, because I don’t place much value in that term. I will try to provide brief answers to these questions, based on my beliefs. I am a Christian, which is a very problematic term because everyone, despite their beliefs, seems to want to be one. Nevertheless, I am a Christian, and if I need to further identify myself I will call myself a Bible-believing Christian and a fundamentalist; two terms that I fear will not help you understand where I’m coming from, but will likely give you an even worse picture.
Religious unknowns...
Sometimes one unknown is closer to the truth than another. However, in regards to your example of the story of creation, I’m going to hazard a guess that you are not a Biblical scholar. Neither am I, but that does not stop me from understanding that the Bible is not a science textbook, and is not intended to teach us about the things we can figure out on our own. Nor is a doctrine of creation theologically relevant. I understand your confusion though, as it is written very much as if the creation story is intended to convey the literal truth of creation. Those poetry books can be tricky, and many people (Christians and non-Christians) get caught up in the trivial details (the story) and miss the point (the theological message it is trying to convey). I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and as such is an infallible source of truth. Since truth cannot conflict with truth, I do not believe it can ever be in conflict with true science. However, I also understand that both Biblical interpretation and the scientific method are fallible sources of truth. Thus if they don’t agree, the fault may be found in one or both of those sources (but not in the facts that science derives its info from or the divine revelation recorded in the Bible – yes, I understand my biases; I think they’re good ones).
If not the Big Bang...
I understand the evidence for the Big Bang and I agree that it is the most logical explanation. I also believe that the Big Bang logically entails the existence of a transcendent, personal creator. I know of no Christian doctrines that are contrary to the Big Bang. Secondly, I think the concept of a religious explanation for the way the cosmos works is an oxymoron. Not that I don’t think God could explain how the cosmos works, I just wouldn’t call such an explanation a religious one.
Religion for abiogenesis....
This is an easy one. It is not the sole point of Christianity to answer how we came to exist on this planet, and it is not even doctrinally relevant, other than the fact that God created us and is ultimately responsible for us existing on this planet. But you could figure that out through philosophy and science.
Religion without religious notions...
If what you mean by “creation” is a six day miracle, then remove it by all means, but if you mean remove the fact that God created us, I would rather you didn’t. It has the purpose of allowing us to relate to our God as our creator.
Salvation is very important, because without it we would never be able to overcome our evil nature. This is not only important after death, where we will then be judged (it’s pretty sweet to have salvation when you are being judged, obviously), but also during our lifetime. This is because salvation does not only take away the consequence of our sins, but it also frees us from the oppression of our evil nature. Now, I’m not saying that Christians are better than non-Christians, but I am saying that a person is less controlled by their evil nature with God’s help (i.e. God makes you a better person, but you still might have a lot further to go in certain areas than someone who God isn’t helping to be a better person).
Morality is an interesting one. While I admit that everyone has morality, I believe that is only further evidence of God. Since everyone has an understanding of right and wrong that is more or less uniform throughout the world (though it can be twisted), morality is essentially a transcendent law. This points to a transcendent lawmaker; after all, what is a law without a lawmaker?
Finally, take those stories that you find after taking everything else away and what do you find? You find Jesus, who is undisputedly attributed to the following:
1) He attracted a large following and performed observable miracles.
2) He claimed to be God.
3) He was crucified to death on the order of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate on the urgings of a Jewish mob.
4) He was buried in a tomb, and three days later his body was missing. The Jewish authorities blamed his followers.
The fact is, resurrection is the most reasonable conclusion to why the body was missing and why his disciples suddenly became confident and gave their lives preaching something that sharply contradicted the known religion they grew up with, and which did not make them rich or famous, and in fact resulted in execution for all but one of his original disciples.
What religion claims....
Is it possible that I can use someone else’s free will actions to accomplish my own goals? Of course it is. Manipulation is all about doing this, and it does so without violating someone else’s free will. So if I can do it, why wouldn’t God be able to do it much better? I think Unimportant answered this well, but your answer does not accurately represent free will. If God frustrates someone’s action (i.e. a murder attempt, or keeping someone out of college), He has not frustrated their free will, but only their action that resulted from their free will. So the person who tries to murder someone has the free will to intend to murder, but God might foil their plan. Now, if God took the intent to murder away, that would be messing with free will. Notice the difference? For a good counterargument you might look to Exodus 9:12.
Versus the real world...
So, God doesn’t do anything in the world, and therefore it makes no difference if we believe or not? Well, first of all, God is not a magic genie to grant you wishes. There is another very important way that God interacts with us that you have neglected; relationship. God offers relationship with us, which, honestly is pretty cool considering who He is. Secondly, you are assuming that life is the most important thing a person has that God must protect it if we ask. God does not promise to protect us from physical harm, though He often does. You are very bold to claim to understand God’s possible motivation for saving some and letting others die (scenarios a and b). Also, your reason for dismissing b) is not sound, because you are assuming that God would override their free will and force them to fulfill the purpose He had in mind for them. So your example does not prove that God does not act in the world, and in fact there are many examples of miracles such as faith healing (and many many more shams I admit).
Does not compute...
Pascal’s wager is a good reason to re-evaluate one’s convictions, but it can never be sufficient motivation for one to actually commit one’s life to God. Now, I accept that a righteous person will “get into heaven” regardless of spiritual affiliation, however, there is no such thing as a righteous person. Who has never done something wrong? And once you have done something wrong, how can you make amends with God? What can you do that can make up for your sins? If you live a perfect life you are only doing your duty, so you can’t use good deeds to count against bad deeds, as many people think. The Bible says we will be judged based on our deeds; those who are righteous will get to be with God and those who have sinned will be condemned to hell (Believe it or not, Jesus talked more about hell than he did about heaven), and that means all of us will go to hell. That’s the bad news, but the good news is that Jesus sacrificed his life as a payment for our sins. Now I know that doesn’t make sense without understanding a bunch of other stuff, but the short version is: 1) God is perfectly holy and just. For him to forgive our sins for nothing would be great injustice (like a judge who never found anyone guilty – we would say he was a terrible judge). 2) Everyone sins all the time. The punishment for sin is death, therefore we deserve death. 3) Jesus (i.e. God) allowed himself to be killed. Because he was completely innocent (he never sinned), his death took the place of ours, so we don’t have to die for our sins. 4) Anyone who accepts Jesus as his lord is protected by his sacrifice. Anyone who wants to pay for his own sins can do so, for eternity in hell.
-----
Finally, I want to address Unimportant’s paradox:
However, there is one paradox which I have come upon in my thinking:
In this we assume God is omnipotent
God would have created us knowing our intentions, and our actions throughout our life before we were created.
Why then, would we be judged at all, by a being who would have known deeply our motivations, intentions, and actions before they even occurred?
How does God know our actions before they occur? How can someone know something that hasn’t yet happened? He does know, but not because He knows the future, because He is not contained within time. Therefore, God doesn’t experience time, moment by moment, but rather He sees everything, past, present, and future, all at once. So the reason God knows what you will do tomorrow, is because He sees you do it.
However, the second part of your paradox is not related to the first. Whether God knows the future in the way you said, or in the way I understand, the fact remains that you chose to do what you did by your own free will. It is not God’s fault that you chose to sin, whether or not He knew you would do it. Why would you think you would not be responsible for your own actions?
Unimportant
05-15-2008, 03:56 AM
Finally, I want to address Unimportant’s paradox:
How does God know our actions before they occur? How can someone know something that hasn’t yet happened? He does know, but not because He knows the future, because He is not contained within time. Therefore, God doesn’t experience time, moment by moment, but rather He sees everything, past, present, and future, all at once. So the reason God knows what you will do tomorrow, is because He sees you do it.
However, the second part of your paradox is not related to the first. Whether God knows the future in the way you said, or in the way I understand, the fact remains that you chose to do what you did by your own free will. It is not God’s fault that you chose to sin, whether or not He knew you would do it. Why would you think you would not be responsible for your own actions?
The point I was making was God would have created us in a specific way. At the time of creation before we had even been born, He would know exactly how we would come to be and could have affected this outcome had He created us differently. Thus, the concept of free will in regard to an omnipotent creator is nil. We cannot be free willed if we are created specifically to behave in a particular way (which as stated previously, would obviously be clearly known to the creator). I then see no point in a system of judgment as if He had wanted not for us to sin, why not create us without sin?
The problem with the paradox, I think, is that free will and how it would be handled by an omnipotent being is well beyond our understanding. The point I was making, was actually that we cannot hope to understand free will from a religious stand-point (not that it is incorrect in any doctrine necessarily).
Versus the real world...
The concept of an interventionist God is inherently disproved by life, unless you are egotistical enough to believe that God had the willingness to manipulate the world around you to some fateful cause (girl of your dreams, admittance to an esteemed or accredited institution, surviving a situation with a high probability of death, avoiding a situation of great personal difficulty, inheritance, etc etc) and at the same time allow innocent people to die tragic and horrible deaths (JonBenet Ramsey, Haley Jordan Bobrowsky, the list is endless). How does the survival of one child through such a horrible situation somehow dismiss thousands of other cases where the children were not so lucky? People are so quick to attribute such rare instances as miracles, when a true miracle would be the survival of all innocent children in similar circumstances, not just a select few. Since God does not save all children whom pray to him for protection, we must conclude that a) Those children not saved have inherently less value b) Those children who were saved have some greater purpose in life c) God played no part in the saving of any of them, the people who spent countless hours toiling over clues, searching woods, talking with witnesses and other laborious tasks are ultimately the ones who saved them. Since no one would likely claim that one child has more or less value then another child, we can easily dismiss a. Since many of the children who did survive such experiences ended up committing suicide (http://www.suicide.org/rape-and-suicide.html) because they were unable to cope with their experiences, we must conclude that b is not true. Are we not forced to conclude that the answer is option c? Naturally there are believers who would attempt to rationalize a religious answer, but the truth is only that these situations do occur. Attempt to rationalize them tells me that you are capable of rational though, and that the seed of doubt is in you, for that I am grateful.
I think the answer to this is relatively simple, no higher power is obligated to help anyone. I do not think one can rationally conclude anything from choosing which child is or is not saved, it is not possible to know whether or not a miracle occurred. You are approaching a theological question from a very scientific and factual standpoint, which I do not think will provide any reasonable answer. Rather, you are making assumptions as to the intent of a god, and also the value they may or may not place on any particular being; both of which are unknowns. In fact, if any higher power equally valued all of their creations, would it not make sense to lack intervention? After all, if sinners are included in those who a god values, why would that god choose to oppose their decision? Most doctrines have a posthumous system of punishment, be it Hell or karma.
Does not compute...
If this is true, and God cannot intervene in life then the belief in a God is irrelevant, as there is no earthly consequence to believing in a God. It is nothing more than a "pascals wager", based almost exclusively on the promise of eternal life. This again affirms the notion that it is a selfish endeavor. I say that because if one is to assume that if God is all good, then they must be willing to accept that a righteous and moral person will get into heaven regardless of spiritual affiliation (or lack there of), to believe otherwise implies religious superiority which is impossible to justify if God cannot intervene.
As I stated above, there is no requirement for any higher power to intervene, but that does not mutually exclude the concept of intervention in general. I also do not think pascal's wager is even in favor of a particular religious doctrine when rationally analyzed (other religions would condemn you to their hell also, for disbelief). I would say that one may follow a religion even without afterlife, simply for the sake of appreciating the time we are given by our creator. It will also, if correctly followed, have an impact on our lifestyle which may or may not be positive depending on the principles of any given religion. In short, it affects your path not only in death, but in life.
There must be an answer...
So why then would people believe in religion despite the logical contradictions of doing so? I would say Fellowship. A sense of belonging, the joy of being around people who seem to understand you and whom you feel are like-minded. Ultimately I think that makes religion nothing more then a selfish endeavor... but I think the fear of being outcast by friends and family, despised, thought of as a baby eating immoral heathen, or worse... an atheist... I think these fears act as motivational catalyst to ignore logic and rationalize the questions that they know religion cannot answer.
I do not feel a conclusion is necessary given the premise of the question and the points that [should have been] reached but were not completely quantified. Rather what I mean is, your question only makes sense if we reach the same conclusion.
People believe in religion due to faith, in their god(s), in the originators and writers, and in their peers.
People follow a religion for the positive impact in life, and [possibly] in death.
Fundamentalist christianity != all religion
Deimos
05-15-2008, 09:13 AM
You already seem aware of the obvious problem omniscience has coexisting with the concept of free will, as its no longer “free will” if your decisions are known before they are made.
The only obvious thing here is your misunderstanding. Omniscience and free will are independent. Just because a god, if such a being exists, knows what you're going to do doesn't mean you don't get a choice. When you decide to reply to this, you won't do it because that god knows you will. You have the choice. You are the only one who's going to decide which of the two possibilities is going to happen.
The point I was making was God would have created us in a specific way. At the time of creation before we had even been born, He would know exactly how we would come to be and could have affected this outcome had He created us differently. Thus, the concept of free will in regard to an omnipotent creator is nil. We cannot be free willed if we are created specifically to behave in a particular way (which as stated previously, would obviously be clearly known to the creator).
Again, even if our behavior is known to the creator, it doesn't mean we don't get to forge it. We decide how to behave, and no one else.
I then see no point in a system of judgment as if He had wanted not for us to sin, why not create us without sin?
What's the point of judging your actions if you're never given a choice?
martryn
05-15-2008, 10:34 AM
How can you assume to know what "type of thread" this is if you didn't read it?
Skimming it, man. You think you're the first to make a thread like this? Hardly. If this was a Battledome thread they'd be eight people already telling you to use the Search Button.
My point was that religion isn't supposed to be logical. Faith is a huge part of religion, at least mine.
Skimming it, man. You think you're the first to make a thread like this? Hardly. If this was a Battledome thread they'd be eight people already telling you to use the Search Button.
Again, I wonder how you can say either when you cant understand the substance of my post since you did not even read it. You even make assumptions and generalizations about the post based on a few key words. You then tell me eight other would make the same ignorant comments. I am not surprised, but ignorance in greater quantity is still ignorance.
My point was that religion isn't supposed to be logical. Faith is a huge part of religion, at least mine.
And my point is that faith has absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with spirituality.
Religion is based on the belief in an "interventionist God" whether systematic or otherwise, and has nothing to do with simply believing in "God". This is where an important distinction must be made.
The rest of the posts I will get to in a short while, and thank you for your responses (yes, even you Martryn).
The only obvious thing here is your misunderstanding. Omniscience and free will are independent. Just because a god, if such a being exists, knows what you're going to do doesn't mean you don't get a choice. When you decide to reply to this, you won't do it because that god knows you will. You have the choice. You are the only one who's going to decide which of the two possibilities is going to happen.
There is a huge difference between God predicting the most likely course of action based on calculating a million variables, and knowing as an absolute your decision. The latter is not conducive to the concept of Free Will.
To further complicate matters, the Bible itself makes references to God performing actions which demonstrate direct reactions, proposing questions or having feelings as a consequence. All of which exemplify an inherent lack of omniscience.
Again, even if our behavior is known to the creator, it doesn't mean we don't get to forge it. We decide how to behave, and no one else.
Making choices is not the same as following a script.
If God knows you are going to hell when you are born, then it is predestination no matter what way you slice it.
What's the point of judging your actions if you're never given a choice?
Exactly.
Fundamentalist christianity != all religion
Name a single "Religion" that does not lend credence to the concept of a God that has the ability to intervene in the affairs of man. Deism is classified as non-religious in case you think to make that claim (Its not systematic).
Uchiha Q
05-15-2008, 04:14 PM
Ill try to answer your Questions.
Religious unknowns...
Creationism to me is only to say God created us, I dont see MUCH about HOW God did so, if by creationism your thinking of a magical ghostly being using its hands to form the earth..ect then no i dont believe in that,
in ISLAM knowledge is a type of worship, If God already gave us the answers there would be no point in gaining knowledge,
We see a few verses talking about the heavens and the earth AKA everything.
(51:47) "AND IT IS We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."
(6:101) "the Originator of the heavens and the earth!..."
(21:30) "ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? – and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe?"
These are not realy answers in terms of we know everything we need to know, I dont believe in saying "It was God" and stopping there, like i said gaining knowledge is a sign of worship in islam thus gaining knowledge of HOW and WHEN or atleast trying to know HOW and WHEN is ok and is encouraged.
If not the Big Bang...
Quran is in total agreement when it comes to scientific FACTS.
and like i showed you above the EXPANSION of the universe is mentioned
(51:47) "AND IT IS We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."
Also there being other galaxies and probably other civilisations does not affect islam in anyway because other creatures do exist in other dimensions and in other galaxies,
(42:29) "And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the living creatures that He has scattered through them: and He has power to gather them together when He wills."
Religion for abiogenesis....
Well like i said lifes origin is mainly from God, weather it was thrue abiogenesis, Energy manifistation, who knows, either way it could not of happend out of chance,
The universe is a creation thus has a creator, the big bang doesent realy stress lifes origin much, it doesent start from the begining, the begining mite of been just a ball of mass or gasses or whatever, but whatever you say something physical had to exist in the begining, and that PHYSICAL thing could not of been created by itself since its imposible, because befour it there was nothing not even space nor time,
then you have some theories believing in energy manifistation assuming string theory is true, string theory being essentialy (everything is made out of energy) thus all that had to be done was energy to manifest since some say energy is not created or destroyed, but still you cant have something MANIFEST by itself also imposible.
God is to me and to billions the only logical way we came to exist, like the same way general relativity is the one widley accepted theory of gravity AKA the explenation of the gravity phenomena.
so to me the phenomena of us existing is God.
What religion claims....
im starting to notice your not talking about religion generaly but more christianity,
however, God gave us FreeWill, we have choices to make, we have diffrent roads to take, we have the choice to take the right way or the left way or jsut go straight,
predestination and freewill is a bgi story so i wont go into much detail but i hope you understood what i mean.
Versus the real world...
again your going into ground that needs pages to fully answer,
however, its a misconception that if something Good happends then God did it and if something Bad happends God had nothing to do with it,
you see in islam we believe nothing can heppnd without Gods approval,
but if i commit suicide does that make God responsible for allowing me to? no because God gave me freewill, i can shoot myself or i can renew my life, its my choice,
we need to remember that this is not REALITY, but the illusion of REALITY, the only reality we know is thrue our 5 senses , life in the hereafter is the REAL reality thats when our lives truly begin.
also we need to remember got is merciful and most JUST, so eventualy everyone will have justice served.
Does not compute...
God creating us is interverance in a sense,
however, God created us for two simple reason, and that is to worship him and live.
Worshipping does nto however mean just prostrating 24/7, no it means to obey God, God knows best.
I dont know who is going to hell no one can be sure nor am i able to tell who is or not.
There must be an answer...
To me the proof is clear God does exist and thats why i am a muslim, i submit myself to God,
ofcourse we have people who do despise atheists but we also have atheist who despise theists,
so to claimt hat only THEISTS are the ones who are afraid of getting despises is wrong, we have 1 billion non-religous/atheists today, your explenation can be applied to atheists too,
as we know some atheists believe theists are nothing but delutional people who are brain washed, then we have some theists who think the same about atheists,
to say thats the only reason why we have theists is not true
cygnus
05-15-2008, 07:54 PM
.........man......
There's no use using logic, just like there's no use trying to convince a woman to like you by stating all your abilities and talents (only theres no natural attraction to atheism that can be leveraged). Give up man. You aren't going to change their views just like they won't change yours. Even if a proof was created that was as absolute as death, theism would still exist. Utilise your obvious intelligence for some more worthwhile endeavours.
Hugiboo, I was to say before I respond, thank you for taking the time to type your thoughts and offer your perspective. I fear you may have sacrificed yourself to the wolves [in a manner of speaking] but I will try and be tactful and earnest in my reply. Though, on the attempt to save space and get to the very meat of the arguments you have presented, I will only reply to the lines which I find fault, and we can assume the rest either I find your thoughts reasonable or even agree with.
Sometimes one unknown is closer to the truth than another.
By what cause? A person cannot claim something to be more or less factual simply because it better represents and reinforces their own personal views. If the cause for something to be ‘closer to the truth’ is the abundance of ‘supporting evidence’ then religious books are already at a disadvantage, as a vast majority of the evidence used to support them is entirely internal. (i.e. something claimed on page 23 comes to pass on page 34)
Nor is a doctrine of creation theologically relevant.
You cannot claim a single aspect of a religious doctrine to be more or less relevant than another aspect of religious doctrine. To claim the Bible as infallible truth demands the assumption that all of it is true, even the creation story.
You seem to forget that these books were written by Moses, a person who allegedly had direct conversations with God. I must assume that it was written exactly like God had intended [since Moses was told directly what to write]. That this would have been the case, and remains scientifically erroneous removes likelyhood that it was directly from God.
I understand your confusion though, as it is written very much as if the creation story is intended to convey the literal truth of creation. Those poetry books can be tricky, and many people (Christians and non-Christians) get caught up in the trivial details (the story) and miss the point (the theological message it is trying to convey).
When trying to justify a claim of divinity or infallibility the HOW is equally important to the WHY. You cannot simply dismiss one or the other and still maintain credibility.
I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and as such is an infallible source of truth. Since truth cannot conflict with truth, I do not believe it can ever be in conflict with true science.
And yet it is. Even if a single line in the Bible is against scientific fact, then the whole thing is false. We are not talking about archaic men speculating about the world, we are talking about words from an omniscient being. This word means that not only does he have the knowledge to understand all the complexities of the universe, but also has the knowledge to explain it clearly and concisely. The Bible should represent that, but it does not. Instead it paints a picture of a flat disk earth, with a clear dome that supports a vast sea above the sky, which just so happened to be an incorrect, but popular belief of the time.
However, I also understand that both Biblical interpretation and the scientific method are fallible sources of truth.
There in lies the problem. The fact that the Bible requires interpretation makes in discreditable. Anything can be justified with enough interpretation.
Thus if they don’t agree, the fault may be found in one or both of those sources
You are forgetting that Science does not claim to be absolute, but only claims to be valid as far “universally persistent observations” are concerned. The “how” is generally explained not by science, but by math. Science only tries to bring a correlation between the observation, human understanding and the math.
I understand the evidence for the Big Bang and I agree that it is the most logical explanation. I also believe that the Big Bang logically entails the existence of a transcendent, personal creator.
I know of no Christian doctrines that are contrary to the Big Bang.
You mean besides Genesis? To say that Genesis is not contrary to the Big Bang requires a great deal of interpretation. (1 day to God could be 1 billion years etc etc)
This is an easy one. It is not the sole point of Christianity to answer how we came to exist on this planet, and it is not even doctrinally relevant, other than the fact that God created us and is ultimately responsible for us existing on this planet. But you could figure that out through philosophy and science.
Coming to the conclusion of is not the same as “figuring out”. Figuring out means that you can support your conclusion with evidence, much like a mathematical proof. Once again though, dismissing the “how” is nothing more then a religious cop out.
If what you mean by “creation” is a six day miracle, then remove it by all means, but if you mean remove the fact that God created us, I would rather you didn’t. It has the purpose of allowing us to relate to our God as our creator.
Hence why its not relevant to religion.
Salvation is very important, because without it we would never be able to overcome our evil nature.
This is where you are not only wrong, you are grossly so. You are willingly judging people who do not believe in salvation as inherently evil. History alone is enough to refute this; there are so many atheists who have placed effort into benefiting the human race above their own desires. That you would simply dismiss the work of people like Norman Borlaug, Ernest Hemingway, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine… the list is endless. Would you really imply Norman Borlaug, a man who has single handedly saved millions of starving families across the globe by genetically modifying Corn to grow in soil that has less favorable conditions, is an inherently evil person simply because he refuses the concept of Salvation?
This is not only important after death, where we will then be judged (it’s pretty sweet to have salvation when you are being judged, obviously), but also during our lifetime.
I hate to break this too you, but even in the Bible salvation is only achieved after judgment, not before (Ps 28:4, II Cor 5:10, Rev 20:12-13, Mat 12:31, Mat 7:31, I Pet 1:17). There is no “covered in the blood of Jesus” veil that will protect you from being judged. It requires a LOT of interpretation from a very few scriptures to come to such a conclusion. (1 Cor. 11:25)
This is because salvation does not only take away the consequence of our sins, but it also frees us from the oppression of our evil nature.
If that were true, why do the people whom we have sinned against still suffer from those sins.
Now, I’m not saying that Christians are better than non-Christians, but I am saying that a person is less controlled by their evil nature with God’s help (i.e. God makes you a better person, but you still might have a lot further to go in certain areas than someone who God isn’t helping to be a better person).
From what I have read, that’s exactly what your saying.
Morality is an interesting one. While I admit that everyone has morality, I believe that is only further evidence of God. Since everyone has an understanding of right and wrong that is more or less uniform throughout the world (though it can be twisted), morality is essentially a transcendent law. This points to a transcendent lawmaker; after all, what is a law without a lawmaker?
Actually, If I experience a pain, feeling or sensation that I do not enjoy, I tend to avoid the actions which led to that experience, and desire that others also avoid the actions that might otherwise lead to that experience. This only gives proof that morals are designed to minimalize the exposure to pain or seek retribution for the experience of pain.
Finally, take those stories that you find after taking everything else away and what do you find? You find Jesus, who is undisputedly attributed to the following:
Actually, those attributes are quite disputable.
1) He attracted a large following and performed observable miracles.
So did Apollonius of Tyana.
2) He claimed to be God.
David Koresh claimed to be God... Jesus did not, the closest he said was “I and the Father are one”(John 10:30), which was a common way of describing a covenant between two people [marriage for example, the wife and husband are ‘one’] and he even commonly referred to himself as the Son of God, but he also said we are all sons of God.
3) He was crucified to death on the order of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate on the urgings of a Jewish mob.
Do you really think Jesus was the only person in the history of humanity to be murdered under the pressings of a body of people? According to the ACLU, in the past 35 years alone there have been at least 129 cases of a person on Death row being found innocent. It begs the question how many were innocent but never found innocent.
4) He was buried in a tomb, and three days later his body was missing. The Jewish authorities blamed his followers.
So we are to assume that his was the only missing body in the existence of humanity?
The fact is, resurrection is the most reasonable conclusion to why the body was missing and why his disciples suddenly became confident and gave their lives preaching something that sharply contradicted the known religion they grew up with, and which did not make them rich or famous, and in fact resulted in execution for all but one of his original disciples.
So in any case where a body goes missing and is never found, I should likewise conclude that the most likely cause is resurrection?
--Continued on next post--
I think Unimportant answered this well, but your answer does not accurately represent free will.
Any such violation compromises free will, or it is not free.
If God frustrates someone’s action (i.e. a murder attempt, or keeping someone out of college), He has not frustrated their free will, but only their action that resulted from their free will.
That’s the same thing. You cannot modify the consequence of someone’s free will without invalidating their free will.
So the person who tries to murder someone has the free will to intend to murder, but God might foil their plan. Now, if God took the intent to murder away, that would be messing with free will. Notice the difference? For a good counterargument you might look to Exodus 9:12.
Yes… lets look at the hardening of Pharaohs heart for a second. All of the suffering that the Egyptians endured at the alleged hand of God, plagues, famine, even the death of innocent first born children, all consequence of God intentionally hardening Pharaoh’s heart… The entire fiasco could have been avoided, but to think that God would deliberately do something that would lead to such a consequence… Is that the type of God you wish to follow?
So, God doesn’t do anything in the world, and therefore it makes no difference if we believe or not?
Its not about whether it makes a personal difference, because it does. The point is about relevance. The belief in God is not relevant to actions taken in life, whether its relevant to the individual with respect to those actions is up to the individual.
God offers relationship with us, which, honestly is pretty cool considering who He is.
Such a one sided relationship would bear no more or less then what the single participant placed into it. It would be no more fruitful then the relationshop people have with other Gods. Allah, Gnasha, Zeus, Odin, Ahura Mazda, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, VahiGuru… how does the relationship you have with your God compare to the relationship others have with their Gods. Do you think your relationship is more valid then theirs?
You are very bold to claim to understand God’s possible motivation for saving some and letting others die (scenarios a and b). Also, your reason for dismissing b) is not sound, because you are assuming that God would override their free will and force them to fulfill the purpose He had in mind for them. So your example does not prove that God does not act in the world, and in fact there are many examples of miracles such as faith healing (and many many more shams I admit).
Actually, any examples of “faith healing” can be explained by nothing more the placebo effect, and do not prove anything more then can be proven by a double blind medicinal study. There is absolutely no example which has been scientifically verifiable. This is fact. Is it not interesting that amputees cannot be faith healed or receive miracles. Doesn’t that mean Gods power is limited to everything except the obvious?
Pascal’s wager is a good reason to re-evaluate one’s convictions, but it can never be sufficient motivation for one to actually commit one’s life to God.
So, have you re-evaluated why you are not Muslim, Hindu, Bahai, Shikism, etc etc….
Now, I accept that a righteous person will “get into heaven” regardless of spiritual affiliation, however, there is no such thing as a righteous person. Who has never done something wrong?
You state this as if that is somehow a secret known only to Christians, it would be foolish for anyone to assume that they, or anyone else, is above reproach for some action in their life. Stating this fact does not prove you have any greater understanding of human fault.
And once you have done something wrong, how can you make amends with God?
The only purpose that would serve would be to give myself the illusion that I had made amends. I would contend that those who seek to rectify their wrongs against whom they have been committed against carry more weight then those who seek nothing more then the forgiveness of a God who cannot ease the pain of those who have been wronged.
What can you do that can make up for your sins?
You cant, you can only seek the forgiveness of those whom you have wronged. Seeking the forgiveness of God in the stead of those who have been wronged is the weak mans chance at a false redemption.
If you live a perfect life you are only doing your duty, so you can’t use good deeds to count against bad deeds, as many people think.
By that assumption, we cannot use bad deeds as a judgment of character as there is no inherent obligation for humans to be good to each other, just as you claim there is no obligation by God to save all those who ask of it.
The Bible says we will be judged based on our deeds; those who are righteous will get to be with God and those who have sinned will be condemned to hell (Believe it or not, Jesus talked more about hell than he did about heaven), and that means all of us will go to hell.
Actually your misquoting the Bible, it states that “all come short of the glory of God”, there is no mention that Glory is equivalent to salvation, Romans 2:7 even refers to them as separate. So you have made the assumption that if you don’t have Gods glory, you cannot be righteous, your entire salvation rests on nothing more then a rather weak interpretation. Are you ok with that?
That’s the bad news, but the good news is that Jesus sacrificed his life as a payment for our sins. Now I know that doesn’t make sense without understanding a bunch of other stuff, but the short version is:
I could write you a dissertation explaining how Jesus died to fulfill the scriptures, bringing to a close Moses’ Law and forging a new covenant based on love. I could even go the other route and argue that by knowing forehand and willingly dieing, his death was nothing more then a self righteous suicide. You could not argue against either point without interpretation.
1) God is perfectly holy and just. For him to forgive our sins for nothing would be great injustice (like a judge who never found anyone guilty – we would say he was a terrible judge).
Guilt is not something that others can present to you. You can experience guilt regardless of whether or not others found you to be guilty. Supposing such an instance were true; you were declared not guilty yet you still felt guilt, would you seek atonement? You may have been vindicated by man, but have you still must answer to yourself.
2) Everyone sins all the time. The punishment for sin is death, therefore we deserve death.
Failing to help old ladies cross the street is selfish, and selfishness is a sin… should all those whom have not helped old ladies cross the street be put to death? You are using broad strokes with the term sin, and even broader strokes saying that the punishment is death. Sin is a perspective issue, and supposing that all things you currently think about when you think of sin were eliminated, new “sins” would take their place, and so the cycle would continue until so much as not removing your hat when entering a building would become the gravest of sins. You cannot use so broad of strokes when referring to sin.
3) Jesus (i.e. God) allowed himself to be killed. Because he was completely innocent (he never sinned), his death took the place of ours, so we don’t have to die for our sins.
Hence the earlier reference to a self righteous suicide. You cannot say he never sinned, the best you can say is that his sins were never written about. Suicide itself could be considered a sin, I could even say his verbal assault and abuse against the bird traders and moneylenders in the temple could be a sin. If he was half man, then he was still half sinful. [the Catholics get around this by saying that he went to hell for three days between his death and his resurrection - based on interpretations of Eph 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20]
4) Anyone who accepts Jesus as his lord is protected by his sacrifice. Anyone who wants to pay for his own sins can do so, for eternity in hell.
I would say both are highly debatable.
How does God know our actions before they occur? How can someone know something that hasn’t yet happened? He does know, but not because He knows the future, because He is not contained within time. Therefore, God doesn’t experience time, moment by moment, but rather He sees everything, past, present, and future, all at once. So the reason God knows what you will do tomorrow, is because He sees you do it.
First, that would not be omniscience. Second, the Bible refutes that by example, the actions that God performs are contingent on a progression of events. Third, there is no scriptural support to substantiate such a claim. Fourth, even if we remove the temporal limitations there is no way to create or be created without the contingency of time.
It is not God’s fault that you chose to sin, whether or not He knew you would do it. Why would you think you would not be responsible for your own actions?
If you knew as an absolute that your best friend was going to commit suicide and you chose not to intervene on the basis that knowing his actions alone does not make you responsible or even obligated to do the right thing, you might as well have pulled the trigger yourself, and should honestly consider yourself a murderer. Why would I absolve God from the same moral standard that I hold myself to?
------------
I apologize for my delay in responding, I also apologize if this post seems harsh or in any way mean. Such is not my intent.
Hugiboo
05-17-2008, 08:03 PM
The point I was making was God would have created us in a specific way. At the time of creation before we had even been born, He would know exactly how we would come to be and could have affected this outcome had He created us differently. Thus, the concept of free will in regard to an omnipotent creator is nil. We cannot be free willed if we are created specifically to behave in a particular way (which as stated previously, would obviously be clearly known to the creator). I then see no point in a system of judgment as if He had wanted not for us to sin, why not create us without sin?
The problem with the paradox, I think, is that free will and how it would be handled by an omnipotent being is well beyond our understanding. The point I was making, was actually that we cannot hope to understand free will from a religious stand-point (not that it is incorrect in any doctrine necessarily).
Ah, this is a different problem altogether, and a very good question. If God really wanted us to live perfect lives, why did he create us with freewill, knowing at least that we would be very likely to sin? However, your question asks, “why not create us without sin?” But you are assuming that God created us sinful. If that was the case, I could sympathize with your problem. The Bible says that humanity was created completely without sin, but with the potential to sin, our free will. Without this free will, we would be nothing more than pre-programmed robots, and our only actions would be those decided for us by God. God gave us the free will to choose to love Him or to reject Him, so that when we do choose to love Him it actually means something.
So is our rejection of God His own fault? Of course not. Is it my fault if my bike is stolen when I don’t lock it up? Maybe I should be smarter to protect my belongings, but if I don’t lock my bike up, I still cannot be blamed for someone else stealing it. My actions do not in any way cause someone else to steal it (even if I know that leaving it unlocked will result in it getting stolen). The thief has the choice to leave it or take it, and is acting on his own free will by taking it.
Can you think of any way that God could have created us differently so that we would never have sinned, while still being free willed beings? And if not, do you think it would have been better for Him to have created us without free will to protect us from the judgement of rejecting Him?
First, let me thank you for your response Uchiha Q, and thank you for taking the time to respond. I apologize for the amount of time it took me to respond to you, I have been pretty busy and didn’t mean to neglect your post. Let us get started.
Creationism to me is only to say God created us, I dont see MUCH about HOW God did so, if by creationism your thinking of a magical ghostly being using its hands to form the earth..ect then no i dont believe in that,in ISLAM knowledge is a type of worship, If God already gave us the answers there would be no point in gaining knowledge,
An interesting proposition, saving the fact that so much of the knowledge gained would be against the notion of worship.
(51:47) "AND IT IS We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."
At first glance such a scripture would most certainly demonstrate an eerily accurate scientific quality, however I must also say that I am uncertain of what version of the Qu’ran you speak of, because what you have written does not reflect the Qu’ran that I have.
51:47 And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.
51:48 And the earth, We have made it a wide extent; how well have We then spread (it) out.
These instead say to me when you stand upon a mountain and look up to the heavens or across the land you can see how vast and spread out the world is. It is only through desire and interpretation that we could even come close to the words you have written.
(21:30) "ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? – and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe?"
Once again I see a conflict between your version and mine. Here is what mine says.
21:30 Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?
To have something that was closed become opened no more equates to the big bang then it equates to your basic creation of the earth; it is just as likely to mean the world was once devoid of life and God brought forth life and allowed it to flourish. Thus us the inherent problem with interpretation.
These are not realy answers in terms of we know everything we need to know, I dont believe in saying "It was God" and stopping there, like i said gaining knowledge is a sign of worship in islam thus gaining knowledge of HOW and WHEN or atleast trying to know HOW and WHEN is ok and is encouraged.
There is nothing wrong with believing that your encouraged to seek knowledge through science, but trying to interpret the scriptures to support that science should then not be necessary, as to do so defeats the purpose of seeking it in the first place.
Quran is in total agreement when it comes to scientific FACTS.
Only with interpretation, no different then the Bible.
and like i showed you above the EXPANSION of the universe is mentioned
And I showed you that is nothing more then an interpretation, which is not the substance of a scientific argument.
Also there being other galaxies and probably other civilisations does not affect islam in anyway because other creatures do exist in other dimensions and in other galaxies,
(42:29) "And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the living creatures that He has scattered through them: and He has power to gather them together when He wills."
Nothing wrong with that, but if we were to make contact with Aliens, it would be through the effort of man, not the will of a God, save we assume that our choices are moot and reflect nothing more then the will of God.
Well like i said lifes origin is mainly from God, weather it was thrue abiogenesis, Energy manifistation, who knows, either way it could not of happend out of chance,
Abiogenesis and an energy manifestation would both be examples of chance. Whenever something occurs in which more then a single variable play a role in the eventuality of that event, there is a measure of probability (i.e. chance) involved.
The universe is a creation thus has a creator,
You cant state something as true based on an assumption. You are assuming the universe was created, when it could very well be nothing more then a manifestation.
the big bang doesent realy stress lifes origin much, it doesent start from the begining, the begining mite of been just a ball of mass or gasses or whatever, but whatever you say something physical had to exist in the begining, and that PHYSICAL thing could not of been created by itself since its imposible, because befour it there was nothing not even space nor time,
Or there was both space and time in a different form. We cannot simply assume there was nothing, nor can we assume it is impossible for nothing to simply come into existence because the same argument you apply to matter, energy, space and time also applies to God; if God has always just existed then so must matter, energy, space and time have always just existed.
then you have some theories believing in energy manifistation assuming string theory is true, string theory being essentialy (everything is made out of energy) thus all that had to be done was energy to manifest since some say energy is not created or destroyed, but still you cant have something MANIFEST by itself also imposible.
By your own argument, God cannot exist, as he would have manifested from nothing, which you imply is impossible.
--Continued on Next Post--
God is to me and to billions the only logical way we came to exist, like the same way general relativity is the one widley accepted theory of gravity AKA the explenation of the gravity phenomena. so to me the phenomena of us existing is God.
A strange choice of words. You apply assumptions to the universe and even the very act of existing, then exclude God from the implications of those assumptions. That’s not the definition of Logic.
im starting to notice your not talking about religion generaly but more christianity,
I suppose that in some ways is a fair assumption. It is my experience that a small portion of extremist Muslims give the whole of the peaceful Muslim community a bad name, while a vast majority of lethargic and complacent Christians are the ones who the small portion of earnest Christians a bad name.
however, God gave us FreeWill, we have choices to make, we have diffrent roads to take, we have the choice to take the right way or the left way or jsut go straight, predestination and freewill is a bgi story so i wont go into much detail but i hope you understood what i mean.
A will ultimately meant only to satisfy the will of a God is not free.
again your going into ground that needs pages to fully answer,
Am I to believe that a complex multi-paged answer is more likely then the simplest answer?
however, its a misconception that if something Good happends then God did it and if something Bad happends God had nothing to do with it, you see in islam we believe nothing can heppnd without Gods approval,
The concept that nothing happens without the approval of God is disharmonious to the concept that there is free will. Choices are not choices if their eventuality is dependent on the approval of a God.
but if i commit suicide does that make God responsible for allowing me to? no because God gave me freewill, i can shoot myself or i can renew my life, its my choice,
Assuming he approves?
we need to remember that this is not REALITY, but the illusion of REALITY, the only reality we know is thrue our 5 senses , life in the hereafter is the REAL reality thats when our lives truly begin.
Is that really what we need to remember? That we can simply dismiss the only reality we can prove by shared senses as a mere illusion replacing it with faith in the reality of an afterlife that cannot be proven to ourselves without complete dependence on that which we consider an illusion…
also we need to remember got is merciful and most JUST, so eventualy everyone will have justice served.
That could also be a frivolous hope.
God creating us is interverance in a sense,
As would not creating us…
however, God created us for two simple reason, and that is to worship him and live.
A very specific purpose coupled with a very vague and broad purpose. That’s like saying our purpose is to make pancakes and contemplate the mysteries of the universe.
Worshipping does nto however mean just prostrating 24/7, no it means to obey God, God knows best.
Prostrate as in to knock down, flatten, or level something? I don’t really see the correlation.
How can we say with an honest and full heart that God knows best, when the only way to come to understand what we believe to be Gods will is through pretense.
To me the proof is clear God does exist and thats why i am a muslim, i submit myself to God,
What is this evidence you speak of? And is it not safe for me to assume that the proof of God existing would be personal and devoid of any specific religious association, so coming to the conclusion that it automatically justifies the Muslim faith is a bit presumptuous.
ofcourse we have people who do despise atheists but we also have atheist who despise theists, so to claimt hat only THEISTS are the ones who are afraid of getting despises is wrong, we have 1 billion non-religous/atheists today, your explenation can be applied to atheists too,
But there are 6.6 billion people in the world, meaning if your numbers are correct, 85% of the world despises Atheists, meaning no matter how you slice it, Atheists are the most despised people on the planet.
If the explanation is so applicable to Atheists, then not counting America, how come the poorer a country is, the more likely it is to be religious. Religion preys on the poor and the meek.
as we know some atheists believe theists are nothing but delutional people who are brain washed, then we have some theists who think the same about atheists, to say thats the only reason why we have theists is not true
On what basis would a theist claim an atheist is delusional? One cannot be delusional for not believing in something that is improvable. The best that can be claimed is that the atheist is too objective.
Uchiha Q
05-22-2008, 05:31 PM
A will ultimately meant only to satisfy the will of a God is not free.
Well its not that our actions wether good or bad have any effect on God, Basically were here to worship and obey God and thats our purpose, well atleast in my opinion.
The concept that nothing happens without the approval of God is disharmonious to the concept that there is free will. Choices are not choices if their eventuality is dependent on the approval of a God.
Since God gave us free will then He will approve the choices we make or should i say ALLOW us to have free will. but does that mean he is incapable of doing anything about it? no.
Assuming he approves?
let me explain further, God gave me those choices, He will approve either way, I am limited to those choices, if there are two roads one on the right and the other on the left, I am limited to a few choices and thats either to stay and not move or go to one of those roads, I cant for example go up because i cant fly, There is gravity and laws that limit me.
Is that really what we need to remember? That we can simply dismiss the only reality we can prove by shared senses as a mere illusion replacing it with faith in the reality of an afterlife that cannot be proven to ourselves without complete dependence on that which we consider an illusion…
no we dont need to dismiss this reality. i didint say that.
But are you trying to say that our 5 senses are the ONLY reality there is ?
That could also be a frivolous hope.
can you ellaborate please.
A very specific purpose coupled with a very vague and broad purpose. That’s like saying our purpose is to make pancakes and contemplate the mysteries of the universe.
You misunderstood what i meant by worshipping God, i dont mean prostrating but also obediance wich includes Learning Working, doing good basically.
Its imposible for us to exist without a purpose, since the universe had a begning, before that there was nothing, not even space, absolutly nothing, then suddenly time began, God created us essensialy, But why ? there has to be a purpose, For us to live for no reason at all does not make sense because this being that started this BEGINING of time must of had a reason to do so.
Prostrate as in to knock down, flatten, or level something? I don’t really see the correlation.
Basically bowing down to God like putting your head on the ground.
How can we say with an honest and full heart that God knows best, when the only way to come to understand what we believe to be Gods will is through pretense.
God created us, its only logical to assume even without reffering to any book, that he knows best, if i make a VCR ill be the one who knows best about this VCR.
And its thru Gods revelations that we know what he wants from us, basically its the manual of the VCR to putt it in simple terms.
What is this evidence you speak of? And is it not safe for me to assume that the proof of God existing would be personal and devoid of any specific religious association, so coming to the conclusion that it automatically justifies the Muslim faith is a bit presumptuous.
Firstly its logical that something had to start the begining of time, then the question arises as to what was it and so we have religoun and i seen enough evidense that the Quran did infact come from no one but God,
ofcourse people varry, so what seems to be enough for me does not have to be enough for you.
But there are 6.6 billion people in the world, meaning if your numbers are correct, 85% of the world despises Atheists, meaning no matter how you slice it, Atheists are the most despised people on the planet.
NO, not ALL non-atheists dispise atheists, i said SOME do like SOME atheists do.
If the explanation is so applicable to Atheists, then not counting America, how come the poorer a country is, the more likely it is to be religious. Religion preys on the poor and the meek.
well if 85% of the population are theists then thats what you will expect,
Im trying to think of a country that is officialy atheist and i cant think of one.
On what basis would a theist claim an atheist is delusional? One cannot be delusional for not believing in something that is improvable. The best that can be claimed is that the atheist is too objective.
not realy the point but ok.
however, if im holding a pen and a guy comes to me and tells me that there is no pen, then i would think that person is delutional.
Imnot going to say anyone is delutional, but you will find people like that.
your assuming every theist is following blind faith, but thats not true, some theists do take things objectivly.
your assuming every theist is following blind faith, but thats not true, some theists do take things objectivly.
Neither atheism nor theism is quite objective as there is no evidence for the existence of God or gods and there can never be evidence of the non-existence of something, but it is logically possible for a god to exist or not to exist.
However, religion and dogma =/= theism. That's going a step beyond just believing God or gods exist and then unknowable claims of what God does and wants followers to do. Absolutely nothing objective about that.
Uchiha Q
05-23-2008, 05:41 AM
What sort of "proof" do you want of God ?
The fact that we had a begining is proof (to me atleast) that firstly there is a God someone or something that started or atleast sparked the begining of time, wether it be by manifesting energy or whatever there had to be something or someone to START it all, and that thing MUST be powerful to be able to MAKE something physical out of absolutely nothing, remember before our begining there was NOTHING in its purest meaning, so this being must be powerful, now why would this being create us ? for no reason ?
lets forget about all the other things like religoun and stuff first, and lets focus on the main thing here , is there a God.
GrimaH
05-23-2008, 06:20 AM
The fact that we had a begining is proof (to me atleast) that firstly there is a God someone
I dunno about you, but it is proof to me only that my mum exists.
Uchiha Q
05-23-2008, 06:48 AM
"I dunno about you, but it is proof to me only that my mum exists."
HUH ?
your mom created the universe ? :D
batanga
05-23-2008, 10:53 AM
wether it be by manifesting energy or whatever there had to be something or someone to START it all, and that thing MUST be powerful to be able to MAKE something physical out of absolutely nothing, remember before our begining there was NOTHING in its purest meaning, so this being must be powerful, now why would this being create us ? for no reason ?
First law of thermodynamics.
* The amount of energy in the universe is constant.
* Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
Uchiha Q
05-23-2008, 11:51 AM
so you believe in string theory ? AKA everything is made out of energy ?
if so, all that had to be done was for energy to MANIFEST to create something physical, your still left with the problem "did energy manifest by itself?" its imposible for energy to manifest itself, SO, there had to be SOMEONE that manifested that energy.
batanga
05-23-2008, 12:02 PM
so you believe in string theory ? AKA everything is made out of energy ?
Everything is made of energy, period. That has nothing to do with the string theory. Matter is energy too.
if so, all that had to be done was for energy to MANIFEST to create something physical, your still left with the problem "did energy manifest by itself?" its imposible for energy to manifest itself, SO, there had to be SOMEONE that manifested that energy.
Or the energy has always been there like the first law of thermodynamics seems to suggest and was the whole point of my post.
so you believe in string theory ? AKA everything is made out of energy ?
if so, all that had to be done was for energy to MANIFEST to create something physical, your still left with the problem "did energy manifest by itself?" its imposible for energy to manifest itself, SO, there had to be SOMEONE that manifested that energy.
You're missing the concept. If energy is neither "created" nor destroyed it stands to reason that it always existed. Origin, creation, beginnings, etc... all are contradictory to the fundamental nature of matter and energy. The concept of an origin comes from human perception of time, but has nothing to do with anything we can objectively observe in the universe.
Think about it. All the matter that makes up your body has been here since the universe first formed and will continue to be here after you are dead. You in that sense have always existed in some form and will continue to exist.
Uchiha Q
05-23-2008, 12:37 PM
no i havent allways existed as who i am today, but i know what you mean.
Did the universe have a begining yes or no ?
by universe i mean everything that exists today (physical)
no i havent allways existed as who i am today, but i know what you mean.
Did the universe have a begining yes or no ?
by universe i mean everything that exists today (physical)
In the other thread someone brought up "begs the question". Under the premise the universe was created by something you then have to ask where did that something come from. If you continue to use the premise that things are created to exist the chain never ends. Most people realize this and at some point something is just assumed to have always existed to end the chain. Religious people accept this for God.
Now the point I and others make is that the premise that the universe was created is not supported by any evidence and is actually contradicted by a fundamental law of physics that is mentioned earlier. So the most logical thing to assume is that the universe has always existed in some form and that the concept of creation and origin are subjective human terms and not something that physically happens.
Uchiha Q
05-23-2008, 03:53 PM
So are you saying since Energy is eternal then the universe is ?
and did the universe have a begining, if not then what is the big bang talking about ?
batanga
05-23-2008, 04:00 PM
So are you saying since Energy is eternal then the universe is ?
and did the universe have a begining, if not then what is the big bang talking about ?
Basically, yes.
Big Bang was an expansion of space and time, it just spread out the already existing energy and is considered the "beginning" because discussing what happens "before time" is pretty futile at the moment. If you want details google it.
Uchiha Q
05-23-2008, 06:16 PM
"existing energy "
you mean the already existing manifested energy ? AKA physical thing.
"existing energy "
you mean the already existing manifested energy ? AKA physical thing.
:facepalm
Where are you getting manifested from? Did you not understand the part about the concept of origins and creation of matter or energy having absolutely no observable evidence and contradicted by the fundamental laws of physics?
batanga
05-23-2008, 07:48 PM
"existing energy "
you mean the already existing manifested energy ? AKA physical thing.
What do you mean by that exactly? You sound like you don't understand anything I've tried to say here.
This convo might be better off in some other thread too.
Hugiboo
05-23-2008, 09:27 PM
Neither atheism nor theism is quite objective as there is no evidence for the existence of God or gods and there can never be evidence of the non-existence of something, but it is logically possible for a god to exist or not to exist.First of all, Theism believes in God, not god or gods; no exceptions. For god you want Pantheism or New Age; for gods you want Polytheism or Paganism. I don’t blame you for making the mistake, because I’m sure to you it doesn’t make much difference between different conceptions of deities. I will explain the difference for you so you don’t make the mistake again. God is a personal, transcendent, creator of the universe. Theists (Christians, Jews, Muslims) and Deists believe in God. Any form of god (spelled with a small “g”) is not transcendent, but is a part of the universe or is the universe itself. Now you know why Theists always capitalize “g” in God; it’s not simply a matter of respect, but it refers to a completely different concept than small “g” god.
Now to your point; no position is ever objective because humans are fallible. However, regardless of the existence of scientific evidence for the existence or non-existence of God, it may still be possible to determine the logical possibility or impossibility, or even certainty of the existence of God.
First law of thermodynamics.
* The amount of energy in the universe is constant.
* Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.The first law of thermodynamics is not a logical necessity of energy, it only describes what happens, not what can and cannot happen. Like all scientific laws, it describes how the universe works, not how it must work. Thus we can be certain that if the universe continues to go on as it has for billions of years, the first law of thermodynamics and all other scientific laws will continue to accurately describe the universe; that is, assuming there is no further evidence that may require the laws to be changed.
Or the energy has always been there like the first law of thermodynamics seems to suggest and was the whole point of my post.The first law of thermodynamics does not suggest anything of the kind. What it suggests is that without any outside influences, energy will remain constant. You are making an unjustified assumption that there was no outside influences. But maybe it is a good assumption to make, without evidence of outside influences. I’ll come back to this…
You're missing the concept. If energy is neither "created" nor destroyed it stands to reason that it always existed. Origin, creation, beginnings, etc... all are contradictory to the fundamental nature of matter and energy. The concept of an origin comes from human perception of time, but has nothing to do with anything we can objectively observe in the universe.If energy is neither created nor destroyed, it does not stand to reason that it never was created and never will be destroyed. Just because something has never been observed does not make it impossible; if it did, science could never progress except in explaining what was already observed (no new observations would be admitted). This is the biggest logical mistake you are making. You say that “origin, creation, and beginnings are all contradictory to the fundamental nature of matter and energy,” but you have no grounds for saying the fundamental nature of matter and energy exclude the possibility of creation and destruction. It is not the fundament nature of matter that we understand through thermodynamics, but the nature insomuch as we can determine from our experiences. Secondly, no system can logically exclude the possibility of an outside force bringing it into or out of existence. Now, like batanga, you still may be justified in concluding that since there is no good evidence of outside influence, you are justified in accepting that the universe was not created. I will get to that next.
no i havent allways existed as who i am today, but i know what you mean.
Did the universe have a begining yes or no ?
by universe i mean everything that exists today (physical)In the other thread someone brought up "begs the question". Under the premise the universe was created by something you then have to ask where did that something come from. If you continue to use the premise that things are created to exist the chain never ends. Most people realize this and at some point something is just assumed to have always existed to end the chain. Religious people accept this for God.You didn’t actually answer Uchiha Q’s question. Instead you brought up a problem with what a yes answer entails (I’ll take that as a “no” answer to the question). Now we come to whether or not there is good evidence that there was outside influence involved at some point in the universe.
Let me use the argument you just criticized (and I will try to be brief). 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise one is based on the logical principle of sufficient reason; which states that there must logically be an explanation of the existence of any being, and of any fact whatsoever. Premise two is based on three things: 1) The concept of an infinite past is a logical impossibility; 2) The second law of thermodynamics states that any closed system tends towards equilibrium; given an infinite past, the universe would already have reached equilibrium (no change); 3) Big Bang cosmology points to a beginning of the universe (this is virtually a consensus in the scientific community; those who argue against the existence of a creator do not even attempt to show that the universe did not have a beginning). This is only a rough outline of the argument, so I will further explain as needed.
Now let me defend against the criticism that I am begging the question by assuming God doesn’t need a cause. If you look back to the argument, premise one states that “everything that begins to exist had a cause”, but because God exists outside of time (being transcendent, and the creator of time), all of the arguments relevant to showing that the universe began to exist are not relevant to God, because the first two show the impossibility of an infinite past in time (not true of God – He is eternal, or timeless, not infinite), and the third follows the scientific evidence (which is not relevant in God’s case). You have one remaining hope to show that my argument is begging the question, but I’ll let you find it before defending against it (it’s much better than the criticism you used).
Since God gave us free will then He will approve the choices we make or should i say ALLOW us to have free will. but does that mean he is incapable of doing anything about it? no.
I would say yes to incapable, as it is not “free” if it follows criteria, has stipulations, or must meet the approval of.
let me explain further, God gave me those choices, He will approve either way, I am limited to those choices, if there are two roads one on the right and the other on the left, I am limited to a few choices and thats either to stay and not move or go to one of those roads, I cant for example go up because i cant fly, There is gravity and laws that limit me.
There are an infinite number of roads, and going up is just as much an option as any other road, you are not limited by gravity, you are limited only by the limits you place upon yourself.
no we dont need to dismiss this reality. i didint say that.
But are you trying to say that our 5 senses are the ONLY reality there is ?
Absolutely. It’s the only reality with any verifiable substance. Dreams are not reality any more then thoughts are. Reality is classified as the tangible or measurable, verifiable, and universally persistent world which is not only perceived by one person, but everyone. THAT is reality. How we interpret that reality to reinforce our own world view is not reality, that’s where perception comes in.
can you ellaborate please.
History would prove that not everyone has justice served in this world, and so it is left to “hope” that they receive their justice in the afterlife.
You misunderstood what i meant by worshipping God, i dont mean prostrating but also obediance wich includes Learning Working, doing good basically.
One does not need God for those things.
Its imposible for us to exist without a purpose,
Its entirely possible to exist without a preordained purpose, so long as you have personal goals.
since the universe had a begning, before that there was nothing, not even space, absolutly nothing, then suddenly time began, God created us essensialy, But why ?
Why do you keep assuming there was nothing?
Simple logic would tell you that for God to exist, then there must already exist matter, time and energy. If God can simply “always have existed” then so too must the universe, though in a different form. Because if the universe was created, then God must also have been created, in which Gods creator must also have been created, and subsequently Gods Gods Creator must also have been created… at which point would we finally say “ok this one has always existed”. If we settle with that, then we can simply erase the infinite loop of Gods creators and say that the energy and matter that make up the universe has always existed, in one form or another.
there has to be a purpose, For us to live for no reason at all does not make sense because this being that started this BEGINING of time must of had a reason to do so.
Assuming it had a beginning…
God created us, its only logical to assume even without reffering to any book, that he knows best, if i make a VCR ill be the one who knows best about this VCR.
Even if you make a VCR there is someone who knows how to make one better. Can I also say the same about God, considering the vestigial organs, useless body parts like the coccyx, poor design of the spine and knee joints, and just overall plain patchwork design of the Human Body? Its obvious to anyone with a biology background that IF the Human Body was designed.. it was done so rather inadequately.
Firstly its logical that something had to start the begining of time,
Assuming it had a beginning…
then the question arises as to what was it and so we have religoun and i seen enough evidense that the Quran did infact come from no one but God,
ofcourse people varry, so what seems to be enough for me does not have to be enough for you.
What evidence do you have that would prove to anyone other then yourself that the Quran did in fact come from God?
I am willing to bet that it is a deeply personal and completely subjective experience that makes you conclude such. I must then point out that most people who have those experiences do so because they want/need to have them, and in most cases there is a rational explanation for those experiences, people just choose to dismiss them for the explanation that affirms their beliefs.
Im trying to think of a country that is officialy atheist and i cant think of one
Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Czech Republic, Finland, France, South Korea and Estonia are among the most non-religious societies in the world. Ironically they also share low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of education, household incomes, and gender equality.
your assuming every theist is following blind faith, but thats not true, some theists do take things objectivly.
Faith is a necessity of religion, and faith is inherently blind.
so you believe in string theory ? AKA everything is made out of energy ?
Let me make this entirely too simple.
A proton has a mass of 0.938 GeV/c^2 and its made up of three quarks, two up quarks and one down quark. Up quarks have a mass of 0.004 GeV/c^2 and down quarks have a mass of 0.008 GeV/c^2, meaning the parts that make up the proton only add up to 0.016 GeV/c^2, yet its mass is 0.938 GeV/c^2. Where does the other 0.922 GeV/c^2 come from?
Energy.
Meaning that about 98.3% of everything you see in existence is nothing more then energy, with the last 1.7% of everything in the universe being the physical components that make up everything, and that’s on the assumption that Quarks are tangible physical particles, and not a similar energy/particle combination like protons.
Energy has always existed, in one form or another, it cannot be destroyed, only changed (potential to kinetic, kinetic to thermal etc etc).
and did the universe have a begining, if not then what is the big bang talking about ?
That which makes up the universe has always existed, just because something changes forms does not equate to a beginning.
Ultimately it sounds to me that much of your beliefs have rested on an assumption that you don’t truly understand, but simply took at face book value because in your eyes it vindicated your beliefs when in fact it does the opposite.
Hence the need for faith… and yes, even blind faith.
-------------------------
Hugiboo, you are repeating yourself from Page one, and yet havent responded to my responce... thats a little disrespectful. If you want to spout your beliefs without justifying them, then do not be angered when people respond cantankerously.
First of all, Theism believes in God, not god or gods; no exceptions.
You are wrong. Polytheism is still theism.
For god you want Pantheism or New Age; for gods you want Polytheism or Paganism. I don’t blame you for making the mistake, because I’m sure to you it doesn’t make much difference between different conceptions of deities. I will explain the difference for you so you don’t make the mistake again. God is a personal, transcendent, creator of the universe.
*psst* your perception of the meaning of god is highly personal and not the standard upon which all religious belief is constructed.
Also, see Einstein's god.
Theists (Christians, Jews, Muslims) and Deists believe in God. Any form of god (spelled with a small “g”) is not transcendent, but is a part of the universe or is the universe itself. Now you know why Theists always capitalize “g” in God; it’s not simply a matter of respect, but it refers to a completely different concept than small “g” god.
Once again, you're assigning limitations and definitions on language that don't exist to anyone but yourself. God, god and ogda (pig latin for "god") all mean the same thing unless the speaker more specifically defines it.
Now to your point; noall positions are osubbjective because humans are fallible.
Fixed
However, regardless of the existence of scientific evidence for the existence or non-existence of God, it may still be possible to determine the logical possibility or impossibility, or even certainty of the existence of God.
SO, even in the face of evidence, we can find evidence to the contrary? This is a 0 sum statement.
The first law of thermodynamics is not a logical necessity of energy, it only describes what happens, not what can and cannot happen. Like all scientific laws, it describes how the universe works, not how it must work. Thus we can be certain that if the universe continues to go on as it has for billions of years, the first law of thermodynamics and all other scientific laws will continue to accurately describe the universe; that is, assuming there is no further evidence that may require the laws to be changed.
The first law of thermodynamics does not suggest anything of the kind. What it suggests is that without any outside influences, energy will remain constant. You are making an unjustified assumption that there was no outside influences. But maybe it is a good assumption to make, without evidence of outside influences. I’ll come back to this…
Show me definite evidence of outside influence and I'll give you a cookie and your own new religion.
If energy is neither created nor destroyed, it does not stand to reason that it never was created and never will be destroyed. Just because something has never been observed does not make it impossible; if it did, science could never progress except in explaining what was already observed (no new observations would be admitted). This is the biggest logical mistake you are making. You say that “origin, creation, and beginnings are all contradictory to the fundamental nature of matter and energy,” but you have no grounds for saying the fundamental nature of matter and energy exclude the possibility of creation and destruction. It is not the fundament nature of matter that we understand through thermodynamics, but the nature insomuch as we can determine from our experiences. Secondly, no system can logically exclude the possibility of an outside force bringing it into or out of existence.
That would be the first law of thermodynamics. There can be no "outside force".
Now, like batanga, you still may be justified in concluding that since there is no good evidence of outside influence, you are justified in accepting that the universe was not created. I will get to that next.
You didn’t actually answer Uchiha Q’s question. Instead you brought up a problem with what a yes answer entails (I’ll take that as a “no” answer to the question). Now we come to whether or not there is good evidence that there was outside influence involved at some point in the universe.
Let me use the argument you just criticized (and I will try to be brief). 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise one is based on the logical principle of sufficient reason; which states that there must logically be an explanation of the existence of any being, and of any fact whatsoever. Premise two is based on three things: 1) The concept of an infinite past is a logical impossibility; 2) The second law of thermodynamics states that any closed system tends towards equilibrium; given an infinite past, the universe would already have reached equilibrium (no change); 3) Big Bang cosmology points to a beginning of the universe (this is virtually a consensus in the scientific community; those who argue against the existence of a creator do not even attempt to show that the universe did not have a beginning). This is only a rough outline of the argument, so I will further explain as needed.
Now let me defend against the criticism that I am begging the question by assuming God doesn’t need a cause. If you look back to the argument, premise one states that “everything that begins to exist had a cause”, but because God exists outside of time (being transcendent, and the creator of time), all of the arguments relevant to showing that the universe began to exist are not relevant to God, because the first two show the impossibility of an infinite past in time (not true of God – He is eternal, or timeless, not infinite), and the third follows the scientific evidence (which is not relevant in God’s case). You have one remaining hope to show that my argument is begging the question, but I’ll let you find it before defending against it (it’s much better than the criticism you used).
Explain timelessness more coherently.
Hugiboo
05-24-2008, 03:46 AM
Hugiboo, you are repeating yourself from Page one, and yet havent responded to my responce... thats a little disrespectful. If you want to spout your beliefs without justifying them, then do not be angered when people respond cantankerously.
I'm working on a response to your essay, don't worry. You gave me quite a bit to respond to, so I may respond to smaller posts in between working on it. I'm sorry if I am repeating myself, it's hard to remember everything I wrote before, but my main goal in my last response was to show the logical errors of Hwon and batanga. I didn't want to wait until I finished my response to you.
GrimaH
05-24-2008, 10:11 AM
"I dunno about you, but it is proof to me only that my mum exists."
HUH ?
your mom created the universe ? :D
If you think I = the Universe, sure.
I'm working on a response to your essay, don't worry. You gave me quite a bit to respond to, so I may respond to smaller posts in between working on it. I'm sorry if I am repeating myself, it's hard to remember everything I wrote before, but my main goal in my last response was to show the logical errors of Hwon and batanga. I didn't want to wait until I finished my response to you.
I see, thank you for clarifying. I look forward to your response.
Uchiha Q
05-25-2008, 02:17 PM
I would say yes to incapable, as it is not “free” if it follows criteria, has stipulations, or must meet the approval of.
God allowed us to have freedom to choose wich road we take.
There are an infinite number of roads, and going up is just as much an option as any other road, you are not limited by gravity, you are limited only by the limits you place upon yourself.
Ok your taking the example a bit too literaly , I can steal or i can get a job, I can kill or i can stop, I can worship God or choose to reject Him, of course sometimes situations don't allow you to choose the right path, like if your children are hungry and starving and noone accepts you for a job, then you will steal it sonly natural, however im talking about situations when you have a choice, HERE your in control of your actions.
In Islam we are dependant on God however he isint controlling our every action he simply gave us the choices or options.
so theres no infinite ammount of options thats incorrect our choices in a curtain situation is essentially do the good thing or bad thing, What is Good Or Bad ? who better to know then God
Absolutely. It’s the only reality with any verifiable substance. Dreams are not reality any more then thoughts are. Reality is classified as the tangible or measurable, verifiable, and universally persistent world which is not only perceived by one person, but everyone. THAT is reality. How we interpret that reality to reinforce our own world view is not reality, that’s where perception comes in.
Like you said about 98% of everything is basically energy, now could we see that or sense it with one of our 5 senses? no, thus our reality is not the only reality there is, hence whatever we see smeel hear taste feel is only our reality not the only reality.
History would prove that not everyone has justice served in this world, and so it is left to “hope” that they receive their justice in the afterlife.
There being a JUST God then its only logical that justice will be served eventualy.
One does not need God for those things
We can TRY and do good without Gods assistance, like if we got the VCR and ignored the instructions in the manual we will play around and most likley will break it or dont know how to use it basically.
after countless failed experiments they will eventualy get to the same conclution or answer that the manual already had.
like if a country had a problem with their women getting raped like 50%, they will come up with a solution like legalizing prostitution but doing that will only bring more problems although it solved the first problem it will also come up with a bunch of other problems like child prostitution and other things.
Its entirely possible to exist without a preordained purpose, so long as you have personal goals.
thats your opinion.
Why do you keep assuming there was nothing?
Simple logic would tell you that for God to exist, then there must already exist matter, time and energy. If God can simply “always have existed” then so too must the universe, though in a different form. Because if the universe was created, then God must also have been created, in which Gods creator must also have been created, and subsequently Gods Gods Creator must also have been created… at which point would we finally say “ok this one has always existed”. If we settle with that, then we can simply erase the infinite loop of Gods creators and say that the energy and matter that make up the universe has always existed, in one form or another.
God does not exist in the universe thus the LAWS of nature and physics of our universe do not apply to God,
if the universe is eternal, then it would have allready converted to other forms of energy infinite times, so it converted to HEAT also infinitly, the problem i have is that heat usually produces light which means its losing its energy, so if energy is constant then the light coming from it somehow came back to it. but if the light didn't or couldn't come back to it then the universe lost infinite amounts of energy and also gains infinite amounts of energy.
Assuming it had a beginning…
Big bang..
Even if you make a VCR there is someone who knows how to make one better. Can I also say the same about God, considering the vestigial organs, useless body parts like the coccyx, poor design of the spine and knee joints, and just overall plain patchwork design of the Human Body? Its obvious to anyone with a biology background that IF the Human Body was designed.. it was done so rather inadequately.
I believe in evolution of the human body, I believe that the human body does evolve in order for it to survive so there's no shock if there's some organs that lost their ORIGINAL function, but to say they always were dysfunctional is false,
the coccyx however has some functions i think you are able to look it up.
however I don't think the human body is flawed to survive , its actually perfect to survive in these circumstances , if we were flawed like your mentioning then by the theory of evolution we would be extinct by now or near extinction.
Assuming it had a beginning…
BIG BANG.
What evidence do you have that would prove to anyone other then yourself that the Quran did in fact come from God?
Well like i said everyone differs in terms of evidense or sufficiency of evidense, but if your asking for my experiance its simple,
I first established that there is a God then studied the religoun i was born in wich is Islam, and right now at this moment its the best religion out their, im also studying other religions but so far islam is the right thing for me, and how i came to that conclution is basically ive seen alot of stuff in the Quran that no man 1400 years aggo could of made up and yet not mess anything up,
Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Czech Republic, Finland, France, South Korea and Estonia are among the most non-religious societies in the world. Ironically they also share low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of education, household incomes, and gender equality.
Well if you mix non-believer ,atheism and agnostic together then sure.
if you look at the statistics for muslim countries they are also usualy in the bottom of the list.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
Also report percentages of those coutnries are quite high,
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rep_to_pol-crime-reporting-to-police
also the suicide rate in those countries are high,
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sui_rat_in_age_15_24-suicide-rates-ages-15-24
Faith is a necessity of religion, and faith is inherently blind.
but its not allways bling faith like i said,
if i research a doctor before he gives me an operation then i BELIEVE in him not blindly but because ive done my research and seen enough evidense to point that his opinion is trustworthy,
That which makes up the universe has always existed, just because something changes forms does not equate to a beginning.
ok well i have a few questions, is the universe being eternal a widely accepted idea among scientists ?
Ultimately it sounds to me that much of your beliefs have rested on an assumption that you don’t truly understand, but simply took at face book value because in your eyes it vindicated your beliefs when in fact it does the opposite.
Hence the need for faith… and yes, even blind faith.
I already talked about blind faith .
-------------
for me all of this life coming into existance by mere CHANCE is hard to believe,
even if we assume the universe is eternal, we cant assume we could of been created by chance, like if i saw a phone laying around somewhere i wont say this phone was created naturaly by mere chance even if you apply infinite time to it no matter how much time you give it it will never create itself.
batanga
05-26-2008, 03:10 AM
Like you said about 98% of everything is basically energy, now could we see that or sense it with one of our 5 senses? no, thus our reality is not the only reality there is, hence whatever we see smeel hear taste feel is only our reality not the only reality.
Everything is energy... some of it's "dark" though. Also, what you said is pretty wrong, everyone can calculate and "perceive" this stuff if they want to, you seem to miss the point of his dream analogy.
if i research a doctor before he gives me an operation then i BELIEVE in him not blindly but because ive done my research and seen enough evidense to point that his opinion is trustworthy,
But something outside this universe is as of now "non perceivable" so you can't make any claims about him, you know nothing about him. It's all blind faith. In the doctor analogy it's "trust based on evidence", not "faith".
ok well i have a few questions, is the universe being eternal a widely accepted idea among scientists ?
Don't know about that, but the first law of thermodynamics we've been discussing is. Also you asked about "if it's eternal why isn't everything illuminated" etc. see cyclic model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model) or the hyperdimensional membrane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#M-theory_and_membranes) theory. Most theories explaining the end/cycle of the universe(s) are pretty "far out there" because it's basically all math based and mostly unsupported by "hard" evidence.
Youtube is full of videos about the M-theory and the others if you want to learn more fast, it's a very interesting theory and one of my personal favourites.
//EDIT - actually, discard the M and the other stuff, that "this universe is infinite, big bang never happened so everything should be illuminated" doesn't really make sense
Uchiha Q
05-26-2008, 10:11 AM
Everything is energy... some of it's "dark" though. Also, what you said is pretty wrong, everyone can calculate and "perceive" this stuff if they want to, you seem to miss the point of his dream analogy.
everything being energy is due to mathematical equations, they didint observe or smell or feel or use their 5 senses to detect this, they came to that conclution thru other measn than the 5 senses.
But something outside this universe is as of now "non perceivable" so you can't make any claims about him, you know nothing about him. It's all blind faith. In the doctor analogy it's "trust based on evidence", not "faith".
Your assuming God didint sent down prophets that knew information about him,
If i have an apintment with a doctor thats in the Us and im in the UK, he's pretty popular, so i search his name in google and do my research about him, see whats his sucsess rates are and see if there are any complaints, as far as i know this guy exists because this information exists its only a fair assumption,
and the only way ill be able to see him is if i actualy go to the us and operate.
//EDIT - actually, discard the M and the other stuff, that "this universe is infinite, big bang never happened so everything should be illuminated" doesn't really make sense
well basically my question or problem with the universe being eternal is ;
If the universe is eternal and it changes to other forms of energy randomly, then today the universe had converted into diffrent types of energy INFINITLY because an infinite ammount of time has already passed, so,
We know that the universe can convert into heat wich produces LIGHT and that LIGHT is basically photons coming out of the HEATED universe, now we know photons are basically energy, now we have this INFINITE ammount of LIGHT AKA ENERGY that came out of the universe yet it still has ENERGY.
let me putt it in a example mite be poor one,
If i have a piece of wood, I burn it, then it will produce LIGHT that LIGHT is energy and the wood is slowly losing energy thru the light, now when it finishes the light has allready gone and your left with a burnt piece of wood, now can this piece of burnt WOOD BURN for an infinite ammount of times and never lose energy ?
the only explenation i have to this problem is if the ENERGY that the object loses is REDIRECTED to it someway.
Ok your taking the example a bit too literaly ,
And I would say your taking your own example a bit too myopically. The list of options is never only right or wrong, its never that simple. Let me elaborate upon your examples as a demonstration.
I can steal or i can get a job,
You can also barter for goods, trade a days labor for goods or services, scam (not the same as stealing, as it requires a great deal more effort), create by your own hand, forage, or even hunt.
I can kill or i can stop,
You can ponder the consequences of your actions, you can ponder the feelings of your actions, based on what you pondered you can decide to kill, you can decide to hurt, you can decide to humiliate, you can decide to ignore, you can decide to forgive, you can decide to abhor, you can decide to love.
I can worship God or choose to reject Him,
You can decide to accept the possibility of God, but accept that he cannot be proven to exist outside of an intrapersonal choice, you can accept the possibility of God, but not make a choice unless there comes some external evidence that has no other explanation, You can accept the possibility of God while still detesting the thought of a God, you can accept the impossibility of God but still desire there to be one, you can accept the impossibility of God and not care one way or the other, you can accept the impossibility of God and still worship him based on traditions or culture.
of course sometimes situations don't allow you to choose the right path, like if your children are hungry and starving and noone accepts you for a job, then you will steal it sonly natural, however im talking about situations when you have a choice, HERE your in control of your actions.
You have a choice even in those situations, sure its easier to forgive based on intent, but if you steal for the right reasons, its still theft and you would still receive a misdemeanor charge, or historically lose your hand.
In Islam we are dependant on God however he isint controlling our every action he simply gave us the choices or options.
That’s not being dependent, that’s an assumption of dependence. You are assuming you only have two choices when you have many, you are assuming there is only right and wrong where there is an infinite amount of choices. You are only seeing two because those are the two most common and most likely choices, its almost like your religion has made you incapable of thinking outside the box.
so theres no infinite ammount of options thats incorrect our choices in a curtain situation is essentially do the good thing or bad thing, What is Good Or Bad ? who better to know then God
There would be no statement to “take the higher road” if some roads were good, but not as good as the “higher” roads. One can never make the choice of absolute good because there is no such choice, every choice bears consequence, and we assume that the choice with the least consequence is best, when that isn’t always the case. Sometimes the right choice hurts someone, but needs to be made nonetheless.
Like you said about 98% of everything is basically energy, now could we see that or sense it with one of our 5 senses? no, thus our reality is not the only reality there is, hence whatever we see smeel hear taste feel is only our reality not the only reality.
Wrong, reality has nothing to do with the composition of the universe, reality has everything to do with the correlation between what I can perceive through my 5 senses, and what you can perceive through your 5 senses. Reality is only what everyone perceives identically, not how they interpret what they perceive on a personal level. Reality is anything that is universally persistent, meaning the same stimuli for everyone, devoid of interpretation.
It is your interpretation that since we cannot sense that everything is energy, there must exist another reality.
There being a JUST God then its only logical that justice will be served eventualy.
That’s blind faith, you don’t know and cannot prove he is just, meaning you have blind faith that they receive justice eventually.
Your argument for a JUST God is no different then the argument Atheists use against the Omni-whatever God. Atheists are told they cannot assume God is obligated to help people who ask, or help those in need. So what makes you right to assume he is obligated to bring justice to everyone who deserves it?
We can TRY and do good without Gods assistance, like if we got the VCR and ignored the instructions in the manual we will play around and most likley will break it or dont know how to use it basically.
Most are designed to be “fool proof” where you cannot destroy it simply by “playing”. Engineers know people generally like to learn through trial and error.
after countless failed experiments they will eventualy get to the same conclution or answer that the manual already had.
And yet there are some who never need the manual, and even then there are some problems people find that are not presented in the manual (which is why they leave a phone number in the manual for you to call if you find such a problem).
like if a country had a problem with their women getting raped like 50%, they will come up with a solution like legalizing prostitution but doing that will only bring more problems although it solved the first problem it will also come up with a bunch of other problems like child prostitution and other things.
It works for Nevada. Obviously the idea that “it will only bring more problems then it solved” is nothing more then fear mongering, you are assuming those problems would result when there is no evidence to support such an assumption, there is evidence against that assumption (looking at states/countries with legalized prostitution).
thats your opinion.
And saying that “everyone that exists has a purpose” is not an opinion? My “opinion” is supported by the statistical analysis of practical application, what is yours based on.. a book?
God does not exist in the universe thus the LAWS of nature and physics of our universe do not apply to God,
You point out that I presented an opinion (based on reality) and then present your own opinion (not based on reality)… That doesn’t help either of us.
How can you assume to know God has no limitations? Without limits means he is both Good and Evil; if he can do no evil, he is limited. If he must bring all people to justice as you claim, then he is limited because he has no choice. You cannot say he is limitless, and then apply limitations, thats hypocritical.
if the universe is eternal, then it would have allready converted to other forms of energy infinite times, so it converted to HEAT also infinitly, the problem i have is that heat usually produces light which means its losing its energy, so if energy is constant then the light coming from it somehow came back to it. but if the light didn't or couldn't come back to it then the universe lost infinite amounts of energy and also gains infinite amounts of energy.
Energy released by one object is absorbed into the system of another object, which is then released from that object and absorbed into the system of another object, eventually making its way back to either the original object, or possibly into a new object (such as the formation of stars and planets).
--continued on next post--
Big Bang…
Never claims to be a beginning from absolutely nothing, it comes from a single point which contained all that exists (meaning it existed already, just in a different form).
I believe in evolution of the human body, I believe that the human body does evolve in order for it to survive so there's no shock if there's some organs that lost their ORIGINAL function, but to say they always were dysfunctional is false,
the coccyx however has some functions i think you are able to look it up.
however I don't think the human body is flawed to survive , its actually perfect to survive in these circumstances , if we were flawed like your mentioning then by the theory of evolution we would be extinct by now or near extinction.
Only if those flaws were detrimental to survival, if we did not have the brain we have, then we would be long since extinct, as our bodies are incapable of survival in the wilderness without the knowledge we have gained by sentience.
BIG BANG.
As has been explained multiple times, and I will repeat, the Big Bang does not claim to come into existence from nothing, that everything existed in a single point and simply expanded, not that it never existed and suddenly came into existence from absolute nothingness.
Well like i said everyone differs in terms of evidense or sufficiency of evidense, but if your asking for my experiance its simple,
I first established that there is a God then studied the religoun i was born in wich is Islam, and right now at this moment its the best religion out their, im also studying other religions but so far islam is the right thing for me, and how i came to that conclution is basically ive seen alot of stuff in the Quran that no man 1400 years aggo could of made up and yet not mess anything up,
You established that there was a God… how did you establish that?
Also, as I have already demonstrated in my first response your claims that the Quran presents “knowledge that a man 1400 years ago couldn’t have known or messed up” is based entirely on interpretation, meaning its nothing more then your opinion of what the scriptures intend, and not based strictly on what they say. Furthermore, how can you assume that the people who lived 1400 years ago could not have known such things? They were not so stupid as your statement would make them seem. There are many cases where they could accomplish things that even we cannot accomplish today.
but its not allways bling faith like i said,
if i research a doctor before he gives me an operation then i BELIEVE in him not blindly but because ive done my research and seen enough evidense to point that his opinion is trustworthy,
Without verifiable proof it is always blind faith, no matter how much you justify it to yourself by interpreting the world around you, there is no evidence outside of personal experience, which means that the entire concept of religion is based on a false premise. Its entirely based on interpretation, be it interpretation of a book, interpretation of natural phenomenon, interpretation of the 5 senses, interpretation of personal experience… its all interpretation. There is nothing conclusive, you can only be convinced, nothing more.
ok well i have a few questions, is the universe being eternal a widely accepted idea among scientists ?
Think of the surface of a balloon, if you start at any point on the balloon and run your finger around the balloon, you will eventually reach the same spot you left from, and should you continue, you would travel eternally in any direction… so in that sense the surface of a balloon is eternal, yet there is a limited surface area of a balloon, so it is both eternal, and finite. Or do you mean with respect to time, which since most scientists believe all the matter in the universe existed in a single spot before the big bang, then it must have existed eternally with respect to time as well. So in either case… yes.
for me all of this life coming into existance by mere CHANCE is hard to believe,
even if we assume the universe is eternal, we cant assume we could of been created by chance, like if i saw a phone laying around somewhere i wont say this phone was created naturaly by mere chance even if you apply infinite time to it no matter how much time you give it it will never create itself.
Then I must say that people of science have more faith then you. For most of them, believing that there is a God is improbable but not outside of the realm of possibility (assuming a broad definition of God). Yet they believe that life could have come from chance, something you find hard to believe and so willingly deny. Instead you say there must have been a creator; as you see no other way, but this presents the question where the creator came from. For your concept to be true, either God must have always existed (which one could also say for matter/time/energy), or there must have existed an infinite loop of creators (at which one must have simply come into existence by… chance?). The likelihood of an infinite amount of time for matter/energy to come into an arrangement that became life is quite logical, unlike the assumption that it would be impossible without a creator. After all; an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters would eventually create all the works of Shakespeare (a chance word here a chance word there, it adds up).
Uchiha Q
05-26-2008, 06:45 PM
And I would say your taking your own example a bit too myopically. The list of options is never only right or wrong, its never that simple. Let me elaborate upon your examples as a demonstration.
Let's see it.
You can also barter for goods, trade a days labor for goods or services, scam (not the same as stealing, as it requires a great deal more effort), create by your own hand, forage, or even hunt.
All i see is some possible good things to do and some possible BAD things to do, so you see its essentially either doing the good thing or the bad thing.
It mite not be that simple in some situations or UNCLEAR what the good thing or bad thing is, but God wont judge you for what you didn't know.
You can ponder the consequences of your actions, you can ponder the feelings of your actions, based on what you pondered you can decide to kill, you can decide to hurt, you can decide to humiliate, you can decide to ignore, you can decide to forgive, you can decide to abhor, you can decide to love.
Again basically all I've seen is some possible GOOD things to do and some possible BAD things to do, but they are finite.
Unless you bring in math into it and say "I can count to 10" or "i can count to 100" or "i can count to 1000" however even in this situation you are limited to a curtain amount of numbers to count because your life span wont allow you to count infinite curtain amounts of numbers.
You can decide to accept the possibility of God, but accept that he cannot be proven to exist outside of an intrapersonal choice, you can accept the possibility of God, but not make a choice unless there comes some external evidence that has no other explanation, You can accept the possibility of God while still detesting the thought of a God, you can accept the impossibility of God but still desire there to be one, you can accept the impossibility of God and not care one way or the other, you can accept the impossibility of God and still worship him based on traditions or culture.
essentially its either accept or reject.
You have a choice even in those situations, sure its easier to forgive based on intent, but if you steal for the right reasons, its still theft and you would still receive a misdemeanor charge, or historically lose your hand.
Yeah, sadly today if people stole for the right reasons they get punished, however in Islamic sharia, although there being a law against theft there's also a STRICT rule of giving charity, for example, a person MUST give 2.5% of his valuables to charity annually and a person will be punished by God if he left his neighbors sleep hungry AKA be poor, basically charity is a big thing in Islam, so imagine you have a chain of neighbors making sure each neighbor is FED.
Also in Islam we don't believe in lending money and receiving it with benefits, if you are going to lend someone money do so but only get back the same amount you gave + the more time you give him the better.
That’s not being dependent, that’s an assumption of dependence. You are assuming you only have two choices when you have many, you are assuming there is only right and wrong where there is an infinite amount of choices. You are only seeing two because those are the two most common and most likely choices, its almost like your religion has made you incapable of thinking outside the box.
I do agree there's allot of GOOD choices to do and allot of BAD choices to do, however it all boils down to either doing the GOOD thing or the BAD thing.
There would be no statement to “take the higher road” if some roads were good, but not as good as the “higher” roads. One can never make the choice of absolute good because there is no such choice, every choice bears consequence, and we assume that the choice with the least consequence is best, when that isn’t always the case. Sometimes the right choice hurts someone, but needs to be made nonetheless.
Yeah of course sometimes doing the obviously GOOD thing may hurt someone, but like i said God does not punish you for what you didn't know, your intentions were to do Good and that what matters.
Wrong, reality has nothing to do with the composition of the universe, reality has everything to do with the correlation between what I can perceive through my 5 senses, and what you can perceive through your 5 senses. Reality is only what everyone perceives identically, not how they interpret what they perceive on a personal level. Reality is anything that is universally persistent, meaning the same stimuli for everyone, devoid of interpretation.
It is your interpretation that since we cannot sense that everything is energy, there must exist another reality.
Our reality is reality of course, however things like 4th dimensions and other incomprehensible things exist which we cant comprehend fully.
Like if i looked at a 4D object my brain will interpret it to look 3d because that's all I can comprehend, the 3d object I'm looking at is MY reality but its not the ONLY reality there is.
That’s blind faith, you don’t know and cannot prove he is just, meaning you have blind faith that they receive justice eventually.
Well since I believe that the Quran is Gods word then i can safely say he is most JUST. to me that's not blind faith because I had already established to myself that that book is from God, I didn't just TRUST in the book I actually proved it to myself until I was satisfied.
Most are designed to be “fool proof” where you cannot destroy it simply by “playing”. Engineers know people generally like to learn through trial and error.
yeah but life isn't that simple.
ok so your saying its logical for a person to ignore the manual or the book of how to for example make a car or a vehicle, and you want that person to go BACK in time where the first wheel was created and find out by himself from square one of how to make a wheel and then after millions of experiments he will be able to make a car, when he could of just read that BOOK that he ignored and learned everything he already did learn except he would of learned it by mere days.
It works for Nevada.
so you say..
Obviously the idea that “it will only bring more problems then it solved” is nothing more then fear mongering, you are assuming those problems would result when there is no evidence to support such an assumption, there is evidence against that assumption (looking at states/countries with legalized prostitution).
I was giving an example out of the top of my head, however lets see here,
in Netherlands child prostitution increased rapidly , from 4,000 to 15,000 (according to figures published by the Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization.)
And saying that “everyone that exists has a purpose” is not an opinion? My “opinion” is supported by the statistical analysis of practical application, what is yours based on.. a book?
your opinion is based on a bunch of books... doesn't sound right doesn't it.
However Like I said I already established to myself after countless of proof that the Quran is indeed from God.
You point out that I presented an opinion (based on reality) and then present your own opinion (not based on reality)… That doesn’t help either of us.
Just because my opinion doesn't go with YOUR reality (there not being a god) doesn't mean im not basing my opinion on reality.
How can you assume to know God has no limitations?
Your assuming that im assuming, when im not realy assuming anything, God has no limits according to the Quran, wich for me i already established it being from God.
Without limits means he is both Good and Evil; if he can do no evil, he is limited.
Your assuming he CANT be evil, im not saying that, im saying God WILL not be evil, there's a big diffrence here.
God already told us in the Quran what his WILL is and that is to be merciful and just and other 99 attributes (yes actual 99 )
If he must bring all people to justice as you claim
no he doeset HAVE to he only wills to do so.
, then he is limited because he has no choice. You cannot say he is limitless, and then apply limitations, thats hypocritical.
I never applied any limitations your assuming Islam is way too similar to Christianity. our idealogy differs in many aspects.
Energy released by one object is absorbed into the system of another object, which is then released from that object and absorbed into the system of another object, eventually making its way back to either the original object, or possibly into a new object (such as the formation of stars and planets).
yeah but your assuming the light will allways hit some other object, but since the universe is eternal its only fair to say space is also eternal, so if light travels thrue that eternaty of space and never hits an object then the energy is forever lost.
unless you say the light somehow is BENT slightly thus in billion apon billions of time it will eventualy hit the object it came from except from the other side, but light travels DIRECTLY at a 90 degrees angle so thats probably imposible.
Never claims to be a beginning from absolutely nothing, it comes from a single point which contained all that exists (meaning it existed already, just in a different form).
as far as I know the big bang is the start of this current state of energy, lets putt it at that ?
lets first see if the universe being eternal is possible.
Only if those flaws were detrimental to survival, if we did not have the brain we have, then we would be long since extinct, as our bodies are incapable of survival in the wilderness without the knowledge we have gained by sentience.
ok..
Uchiha Q
05-26-2008, 06:46 PM
You established that there was a God… how did you establish that?
I simply established that CHANCE couldn't of made all of this today.
lifes origin, I saw whether its possible for NON-life to create life that has the potential to evolve into all of this today.
The quran, Whether a man 1400 years ago in the middle of the desert could of possibly make up such a book.
Also, as I have already demonstrated in my first response your claims that the Quran presents “knowledge that a man 1400 years ago couldn’t have known or messed up” is based entirely on interpretation, meaning its nothing more then your opinion of what the scriptures intend, and not based strictly on what they say.
interesting claim but lets analyze,
51:47 AND IT IS We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.
now the verse is talking about the universe and somehow Mohammad PBUH mentioned that it EXPANDS,
first lets see if this is a translation thing,
I know Arabic and when i read the word used for EXPANDING it clearly says that
َمُوسِعُونَ
Even if you give it to any arabic speaking person doesent have to be muslim he will tell you that word means EXPAND.
the question arises, why would a man in the middle of the desert say such a thing ?
and thats just one verse out of hundreds wich have things in them that are amazing.
Furthermore, how can you assume that the people who lived 1400 years ago could not have known such things? They were not so stupid as your statement would make them seem. There are many cases where they could accomplish things that even we cannot accomplish today.
No one said anyone was stupid.
however, for them to make up these verses and scientific claims yet at the same time NEVER once do they make a mistake, we have people like the Greeks, Egyptians, who were all GREAT people very smart, but all had some sort of flaw or error in their findings, but never do you see such things in the Quran.
and just to asure you i have looked up on allot of anti-Islamic websites and analyzed their claims that the quran has some sort of error, and to this day i haven't found any verse that isn't taken out of context or misunderstood.
nor do they realize that they are finding errors in the translations of the meaning of the quran not the actual thing
Without verifiable proof it is always blind faith, no matter how much you justify it to yourself by interpreting the world around you, there is no evidence outside of personal experience, which means that the entire concept of religion is based on a false premise. Its entirely based on interpretation, be it interpretation of a book, interpretation of natural phenomenon, interpretation of the 5 senses, interpretation of personal experience… its all interpretation. There is nothing conclusive, you can only be convinced, nothing more.
what's "verifiable proof" exactly, because like i said people vary on what's proof or not, so its not really my problem when someone REJECTS evidence.
Think of the surface of a balloon, if you start at any point on the balloon and run your finger around the balloon, you will eventually reach the same spot you left from, and should you continue, you would travel eternally in any direction… so in that sense the surface of a balloon is eternal, yet there is a limited surface area of a balloon, so it is both eternal, and finite. Or do you mean with respect to time, which since most scientists believe all the matter in the universe existed in a single spot before the big bang, then it must have existed eternally with respect to time as well. So in either case… yes.
well with the balloon your not really going straight your just going in circles, which anyone can do, basically your direction is changing constantly which lead you to go to the same spot. you can never have a FLAT surface that goes on a loop, its either eternally long or has an end.
do MOST scientists today accept that the universe existed eternally and keeps changing types of energy. is it a scientific FACT today ?
Then I must say that people of science have more faith then you. For most of them, believing that there is a God is improbable but not outside of the realm of possibility (assuming a broad definition of God). Yet they believe that life could have come from chance, something you find hard to believe and so willingly deny.
well i haven't seen sufficient evidence to prove that non-living material can become something living but not only something living but also something that is alive and capable of evolving to all of the nature we see today.
but this presents the question where the creator came from. For your concept to be true, either God must have always existed (which one could also say for matter/time/energy), or there must have existed an infinite loop of creators (at which one must have simply come into existence by… chance?).
for me to say that God is eternal and always existed doesn't mean we can apply it to the physical universe because like i said God is not physical nor God is something WE as humans can measure.
so we cannot compare God to energy,
The likelihood of an infinite amount of time for matter/energy to come into an arrangement that became life is quite logical,
sure but there are PROBLEMS with that logic, like energy, that's constantly lost in the infinite space, your assuming every photon of light that is coming from one object is also going into another, and for that to possible we would must have INFINITE amounts of objects floating around, so no matter where the light goes from one object it is bound to hit another, which to me is a bit un logical, since its a big stretch for me.
an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters would eventually create all the works of Shakespeare (a chance word here a chance word there, it adds up).
sure that is a possibility however,
if i have a glass of water, and i drop it on the ground it breaks.
If i repeat that action INFINITLY, will i be able to drop the glass of water and produce 10 small glasses of water, the possibility of that happening = 0
laws of physics will not allow that.
Hugiboo
05-28-2008, 04:17 AM
Part 1 of 4
Thank you Amra for your response. I also must apologize for the delay and for the length of my post. I did not feel that you were being mean (don’t worry, I’m not overly sensitive), though you seem to have the tendency to reply to every single thing I said, even if you have nothing to say about it, which is kind of annoying with a reply this long. I hope I am not too mean in my response; I’m sure my annoyance at your claims about the Bible come through (mostly because it appears to me that you haven’t read much of it, yet make bold claims about it). This is really long, so take your time responding.
Sometimes one unknown is closer to the truth than another.By what cause? A person cannot claim something to be more or less factual simply because it better represents and reinforces their own personal views. If the cause for something to be ‘closer to the truth’ is the abundance of ‘supporting evidence’ then religious books are already at a disadvantage, as a vast majority of the evidence used to support them is entirely internal. (i.e. something claimed on page 23 comes to pass on page 34)My statement was not an argument, but a simple observation. An unknown can be better than another unknown when there is less about it that is unknown about the previous theory. A good example is scientific theories. Even though modern scientific theories may be largely unknown as to how they work, they explain more than previous ones, so we have an unknown (basis for modern scientific theory) that is closer to the truth (it appears) than another unknown (the previous theory that can no longer account for all the evidence).
I’m not going to debate the supporting evidence of the Bible right now because I simply don’t have the time, but it is not as you say. The Bible is remarkably well supported without relying on self-affirmation of the type you mentioned. A really good overview of this topic is Lee Strobel’s “Case for Christ”.
You cannot claim a single aspect of a religious doctrine to be more or less relevant than another aspect of religious doctrine. To claim the Bible as infallible truth demands the assumption that all of it is true, even the creation story.
You seem to forget that these books were written by Moses, a person who allegedly had direct conversations with God. I must assume that it was written exactly like God had intended [since Moses was told directly what to write]. That this would have been the case, and remains scientifically erroneous removes likelyhood that it was directly from God.First of all, the Bible is not a systematic theology. This means that it is not set up as a series of articles of doctrine. It is the communicated Word of God through a wide variety of mediums; history, poetry, wisdom literature, autobiography, pastoral letters, etc. To claim the Bible as infallible means that it cannot and does not err in its intended purpose. What is the purpose of the Bible? 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Its purpose is not to be a science textbook, but to communicate spiritual truths that cannot be learned apart from revelation from God.
Do you really believe that Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch? Including Deuteronomy 34 which describes his death? The final form in the Pentateuch as we know it was clearly not composed completely by Moses in the form we have it. There are clearly multiple sources for the final version of the Pentateuch (and many other books) Do you believe that God dictated to Moses exactly what to write? I don’t think you do, since you don’t believe in God, so why do you claim that I must believe this? Where in the Bible does it claim that scripture is useful to understand cosmology, or botany? If you are going to criticize the Bible, do so on something it affirms of itself rather than on what others affirm of it.
When trying to justify a claim of divinity or infallibility the HOW is equally important to the WHY. You cannot simply dismiss one or the other and still maintain credibility.When reading any piece of literature, the type of literature is fundamentally important in order to understand how to interpret it. When do you ever read poetry and assume every statement is literal? Maybe you should take a beginner’s class on ancient poetry and oral traditions. You have to interpret a piece of literature in the way that it was intended. You can’t read every book of the Bible the same: poetry books should not be read as history, history should not be read as wisdom literature or Pastoral guidance, etc. This should be common sense.
And yet it is [in conflict with science]. Even if a single line in the Bible is against scientific fact, then the whole thing is false. We are not talking about archaic men speculating about the world, we are talking about words from an omniscient being. This word means that not only does he have the knowledge to understand all the complexities of the universe, but also has the knowledge to explain it clearly and concisely. The Bible should represent that, but it does not. Instead it paints a picture of a flat disk earth, with a clear dome that supports a vast sea above the sky, which just so happened to be an incorrect, but popular belief of the time.Let’s look at your assumptions: First, the Bible is from an omniscient being; granted. Second, God is not only aware of scientific truth, but is able to explain it clearly; granted. Third, it is (or must be) God’s intention to communicate scientific truth along with His theological message; not granted. Fourth, God dictated the entire Bible, word for word; not granted. Your logic is faulty because you have no evidence for assumption three and four.
There in lies the problem. The fact that the Bible requires interpretation makes in discreditable. Anything can be justified with enough interpretation.This is not true. It would be more correct to say “anything can be justified with enough faulty interpretation.” Correct interpretation can only lead to a few possible meanings. Thus if I say to you that my house is green, proper interpretation will lead you to the understanding that a significant percentage of the exterior of my house is green, or that my house is energy efficient, while improper interpretation might lead you to believe that my house is green with envy. There are certain rules that we use all the time to interpret statements so that improper interpretations do not occur. So, if you are certain that you want to maintain that anything can be justified through interpretation, can you give me an example where opposing interpretations of a Bible passage are both justified?
You are forgetting that Science does not claim to be absolute, but only claims to be valid as far “universally persistent observations” are concerned. The “how” is generally explained not by science, but by math. Science only tries to bring a correlation between the observation, human understanding and the math.You are forgetting that Science attempts to understand (not absolutely, I admit) something that is absolute (the truth). In the same way, Biblical interpretation attempts to understand (not absolutely) something that is absolute (God’s intended message).
I know of no Christian doctrines that are contrary to the Big Bang.You mean besides Genesis? To say that Genesis is not contrary to the Big Bang requires a great deal of interpretation. (1 day to God could be 1 billion years etc etc)Again, you are using the term “interpretation” incorrectly. You mean to say that it requires faulty interpretation, but I’ve already looked at your reasons for interpreting it literally, and they are based on faulty assumptions. There are some almost convincing arguments that the Bible really does describe the Big Bang, but ultimately I think they fail. By the way, the argument from figurative language based on God’s time verses our time is not one of the better arguments. The word used for day is clearly not intended to be understood as an age.
On the other hand, how do you account for the fact that the Big Bang logically entails the existence of God? Let me quickly outline the argument: 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause; 2) the universe began to exist; 3) therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause (which I would further argue is God, but let’s leave it here for now).
Coming to the conclusion of is not the same as “figuring out”. Figuring out means that you can support your conclusion with evidence, much like a mathematical proof. Once again though, dismissing the “how” is nothing more then a religious cop out.Yes, I understand what “figuring out” means, and that is what I meant (see previous point above). Dismissing the “how” if it is not evident, makes a lot of sense to me, unless something depends on it. What would you say depends on it?
If what you mean by “creation” is a six day miracle, then remove it by all means, but if you mean remove the fact that God created us, I would rather you didn’t. It has the purpose of allowing us to relate to our God as our creator.Hence why its not relevant to religion.I don’t follow your reasoning.
continued…
Hugiboo
05-28-2008, 04:19 AM
Part 2 of 4
This is where you are not only wrong, you are grossly so. You are willingly judging people who do not believe in salvation as inherently evil. History alone is enough to refute this; there are so many atheists who have placed effort into benefiting the human race above their own desires. That you would simply dismiss the work of people like Norman Borlaug, Ernest Hemingway, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine… the list is endless. Would you really imply Norman Borlaug, a man who has single handedly saved millions of starving families across the globe by genetically modifying Corn to grow in soil that has less favorable conditions, is an inherently evil person simply because he refuses the concept of Salvation?You made two grave assumptions about what I was saying, let me correct you. 1) I am not judging people who do not believe in Salvation as inherently evil, I’m judging everyone as inherently evil, based on the authority of the Bible and confirmation from human experience. Thus Norman Borlaug is an inherently evil person, not because he refuses the concept of Salvation, but because he has an inherently sinful human nature, just like you, just like me. You seem to have a lot of assumptions about what Christians believe. I wonder where you get them, certainly not from the Bible. 2) Doing good works does not entail pure motives. There are many reasons people do good works; they want to be recognized, they have something to gain from it, they are trying to compensate for feelings of guilt, or God is working through them. I suspect that Norman received a lot of prestige as well as money for his wonderful act.
I hate to break this too you, but even in the Bible salvation is only achieved after judgment, not before (Ps 28:4, II Cor 5:10, Rev 20:12-13, Mat 12:31, Mat 7:31, I Pet 1:17). There is no “covered in the blood of Jesus” veil that will protect you from being judged. It requires a LOT of interpretation from a very few scriptures to come to such a conclusion. (1 Cor. 11:25)Only one of those verses was relevant (and one doesn’t exist). I don’t need to argue about salvation being imparted after death though, because it is true. Salvation occurs in the past, present, and future. But don’t take my word for it, read the Bible:
Romans 5:1-2 (past & present)
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.
Romans 3:21 (present)
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
Romans 5:9-11 (present & future)
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Romans 6:13-14 (present)
Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
Romans 6:18 (past)
You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
John 3:16 (future)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
This is because salvation does not only take away the consequence of our sins, but it also frees us from the oppression of our evil nature.If that were true, why do the people whom we have sinned against still suffer from those sins.I never said it takes away the consequences of our past sins. I was talking about the ability to resist the temptation to sin.
Now, I’m not saying that Christians are better than non-Christians…From what I have read, that’s exactly what your saying.That is why I clarified in case you misunderstood, by saying that’s not what I’m saying. I’m no better than you or anyone else. We are all sinful. The only difference as far as salvation goes, is that someone else has been punished in my place for all of my sins (Jesus).
Actually, If I experience a pain, feeling or sensation that I do not enjoy, I tend to avoid the actions which led to that experience, and desire that others also avoid the actions that might otherwise lead to that experience. This only gives proof that morals are designed to minimalize the exposure to pain or seek retribution for the experience of pain.How appropriate that you should say “morals are designed…” Regardless of how you think morals got here, you believe they correspond to some actual reality don’t you? In other words, do you think murder is actually wrong, or is it just something you avoid because you are worried about the consequences?
Actually, those attributes are quite disputable.I was talking about the professional community of Biblical scholarship (which includes Christians and non-Christians), not popular writers and tabloids. I didn’t say it was undisputable, just that it is undisputed, because even those scholars who don’t want it to be true can’t argue with the facts. If you disagree, maybe you would like to cite some credible scholars who dispute these facts.
1) He attracted a large following and performed observable miracles.So did Apollonius of Tyana.Good for him, did he also do #2-4?
David Koresh claimed to be God... Jesus did not, the closest he said was “I and the Father are one”(John 10:30), which was a common way of describing a covenant between two people [marriage for example, the wife and husband are ‘one’] and he even commonly referred to himself as the Son of God, but he also said we are all sons of God.Jesus’ claim to be God is relevant because he also claimed he would rise from the dead, and did. David Koresh did not do this, so his claim is irrelevant. If you are going to quote scripture, the least you can do is read it.
John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
This verse is especially significant because Jesus used God’s personal name for himself. Not only is he saying that he existed before Abraham was born, but he is saying he is God, which is why they try to stone him.
John 5:18
For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
This is pretty self-explanatory.
Luke 5:20-21
When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven." The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Jesus claims to do something that only God can do; forgive sins.
These three verses are all explicit declarations of deity by Jesus. There are many more examples, but I think you get the idea.
Do you really think Jesus was the only person in the history of humanity to be murdered under the pressings of a body of people? According to the ACLU, in the past 35 years alone there have been at least 129 cases of a person on Death row being found innocent. It begs the question how many were innocent but never found innocent.Are you just bringing this up as a point of interest? Again, this is relevant for Jesus, not for anyone else unless they allegedly rise from the dead.
4) He was buried in a tomb, and three days later his body was missing. The Jewish authorities blamed his followers.So we are to assume that his was the only missing body in the existence of humanity?Again, other missing bodies are not relevant unless someone is claiming they rose from the dead. Are you going to argue with every word I write, whether or not you have anything to say about it?
So in any case where a body goes missing and is never found, I should likewise conclude that the most likely cause is resurrection?In case you haven’t figured this out, all the evidence put together is what makes the argument. In any case where a person claims to be God, claims that he will be killed and will come back to life, is executed, has their body go missing right in front of an armed guard, and then his followers proclaim that he has come back to life even though they all get persecuted for it and eventually most are killed for it; then you should conclude that the most likely cause is resurrection. Tell me what is unreasonable about that.
If God frustrates someone’s action (i.e. a murder attempt, or keeping someone out of college), He has not frustrated their free will, but only their action that resulted from their free will.That’s the same thing. You cannot modify the consequence of someone’s free will without invalidating their free will.Ok, so just to get this straight, if you intend to walk across the street, and I hold you back, I am impeding your free will? If this is your understanding of free will, that is perfectly fine, but it’s not the Christian understanding so you shouldn’t criticize Christians based on something they don’t believe.
continued…
Hugiboo
05-28-2008, 04:20 AM
Part 3 of 4
Yes… lets look at the hardening of Pharaohs heart for a second. All of the suffering that the Egyptians endured at the alleged hand of God, plagues, famine, even the death of innocent first born children, all consequence of God intentionally hardening Pharaoh’s heart… The entire fiasco could have been avoided, but to think that God would deliberately do something that would lead to such a consequence…There are two separate issues here. First, did God interfere with freewill? Second, is God morally reprehensible for causing so much unnecessary death when it could have been averted?
To the first question I will use my definition of free will. Does God interfere with Pharaoh’s freewill? First let me point out that twice before the Bible says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and once after, it says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:15,32, 9:34). So it’s not like God didn’t give him ample opportunity to release the Hebrews and avert God’s judgment. Even so, I think there is merit in the argument that God interfered with Pharaoh’s freewill in order to ensure that he would not change his mind. Does this mean that Pharaoh had no freewill? I don’t think so; he had his whole life to choose to submit to God and he rejected God. God was well within His right to judge pharaoh at any time for his lifetime of sins. He is not required to give chance after chance after chance, or we could never die because He would be giving us infinite chances. He is not required to give us any second chances, but the fact that He does so shows how patient and forgiving He is. So no, I do not think this example, or any time when God interferes with freewill, is unjustified, because God has the right to judge us at any time and take away our freewill which we have already used to reject him.
Now the second question: is God morally reprehensible for causing so much “unnecessary” death? First of all, in order to say that God is morally lacking in any way, requires you to appeal to a universal standard of morality. After all, if there is no universal standard of right and wrong, you cannot say God did the wrong thing here, only that you don’t like what He did. You have no basis for judging Him. But if you do agree that there is a universal standard of right and wrong, where did it come from and by whose authority is it binding? The only possible answer is that it comes from God, as He is by definition the source of goodness. But if God is the source of morality, how dare you judge Him?
Is that the type of God you wish to follow?It is not a matter of God being the type of God I want to follow. There is only one God, and He is who He is. If I don’t like who He is that’s my problem, but wanting Him to be different is irrelevant.
God offers relationship with us, which, honestly is pretty cool considering who He is.Such a one sided relationship would bear no more or less then what the single participant placed into it. It would be no more fruitful then the relationshop people have with other Gods. Allah, Gnasha, Zeus, Odin, Ahura Mazda, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, VahiGuru… how does the relationship you have with your God compare to the relationship others have with their Gods. Do you think your relationship is more valid then theirs?I totally think my relationship with God is more valid than other people’s relationships with their gods for the following reason. My God is real. However, I won’t rule out the possibility that some gods are real beings, only if so then they are evil spirits of some kind. If that is the case, then I suppose one might have a genuine relationship of some kind with them. Obviously you don’t see any difference between my understanding of my relationship with God and my understanding of other people’s relationships with non-existent gods, and I don’t blame you. Again, this comes down to whether or not God exists. I think the evidence is overwhelmingly in His favour.
Actually, any examples of “faith healing” can be explained by nothing more the placebo effect, and do not prove anything more then can be proven by a double blind medicinal study. There is absolutely no example which has been scientifically verifiable. This is fact. Is it not interesting that amputees cannot be faith healed or receive miracles. Doesn’t that mean Gods power is limited to everything except the obvious?How can any example of faith healing be explained by nothing more than the placebo effect if not all examples have been tested? Can the placebo effect explain how a young boy who has been clinically dead for about 4 hours can come back to life after receiving prayer? I met that boy. Can it explain how a person can suddenly gain the ability to speak a foreign language fluently while sharing the gospel and not remember having spoken a foreign language? A friend of mine observed this. Can faith healing heal amputees? I have not heard of any examples, but this does not mean it can’t or hasn’t happened. It is obviously not outside of God’s power, assuming He exists. On the other hand, I would agree that the vast majority of faith healers today are sham artists trying to make an easy fortune off gullible people. I know how it works. They never try to heal someone who has an obvious physical deformity (those people are kept far away from the stage), and often the people who claim to be healed find out later they really are not, but the performers (healers) know how to manipulate their emotions so they think they had a religious experience, and they assume they have been healed.
Pascal’s wager is a good reason to re-evaluate one’s convictions, but it can never be sufficient motivation for one to actually commit one’s life to God.So, have you re-evaluated why you are not Muslim, Hindu, Bahai, Shikism, etc etc….Well, based strictly on Pascal’s wager, there is no need to evaluate religions that won’t condemn me to hell if I’m wrong, so I wouldn’t have to worry about most of those. The best Muslim arguments I have heard only amount to arguments for Theism, which I support. I have looked at Muslim arguments concerning Jesus, and they simply don’t hold water. As for Judaism, I support it wholeheartedly; after all, Jesus was a Jew. The only problem I have with Judaism is that it rejects the Messiah and his teachings. This is why Christianity considers itself the true Judaism (also why Islam considers itself true Christianity). I’ve looked at some beliefs and arguments of Christian cults like Jehova’s Witness and the Church of Mormon. More importantly though, I am continually studying Christianity; I look for problems and I look for answers to those problems. I am convinced that if Christianity is true, there will be no problem that has no answer, and thus I am not afraid of problems in Christianity. In fact I actively seek them out, and I’ll bet I could name more problematic aspects of Christianity than you could.
Now, I accept that a righteous person will “get into heaven” regardless of spiritual affiliation, however, there is no such thing as a righteous person. Who has never done something wrong?You state this as if that is somehow a secret known only to Christians, it would be foolish for anyone to assume that they, or anyone else, is above reproach for some action in their life. Stating this fact does not prove you have any greater understanding of human fault.You said, “if one is to assume that if God is all good, then they must be willing to accept that a righteous and moral person will get into heaven regardless of spiritual affiliation”. I accepted this but pointed out that it is kind of irrelevant because such a person does not exist. Do you disagree? Do you think there is such a thing as a righteous person? I think that whether or not I think Christianity has secret knowledge is irrelevant to our conversation.
You cant [make up for your sins], you can only seek the forgiveness of those whom you have wronged. Seeking the forgiveness of God in the stead of those who have been wronged is the weak mans chance at a false redemption.I see your point, but asking forgiveness from God is separate from asking forgiveness from people you’ve wronged. Whenever you do anything wrong, in addition to wronging any people, you also wrong God because you have disobeyed Him. So if you wrong someone, you really have two apologies to make; one to the person, and one to God. This is why the Bible tells us to make amends with each other and not to only ask God for forgiveness.
If you live a perfect life you are only doing your duty, so you can’t use good deeds to count against bad deeds, as many people think.By that assumption, we cannot use bad deeds as a judgment of character as there is no inherent obligation for humans to be good to each other, just as you claim there is no obligation by God to save all those who ask of it.That is an illogical argument. Just because God has no obligation to save us, doesn’t mean we have no obligation to be good to each other. Why would you think this would be so? You are treating God as an equal. He is not bound by the same law that binds us because he is the source of that law, which is our obligation to be good to each other.
continued…
Hugiboo
05-28-2008, 04:24 AM
Part 4 of 4
The Bible says we will be judged based on our deeds… Actually your misquoting the Bible, it states that “all come short of the glory of God”, there is no mention that Glory is equivalent to salvation, Romans 2:7 even refers to them as separate. So you have made the assumption that if you don’t have Gods glory, you cannot be righteous, your entire salvation rests on nothing more then a rather weak interpretation. Are you ok with that?I claimed that the Bible says we will be judged based on our deeds. I don’t know why you are talking about glory being equated with salvation, but your proof is shamefully obviously not what you think it is. In Romans 2:7, “glory” refers to “praise and esteem”, not the “glory of God”. The verse you seem to think I had in mind, Romans 3:23, does not equate glory with salvation (as you said), and neither did I, but let me do so now. Romans 8:18-30 is quite clear that those who have the glory of God also have salvation (particularly verse 30). Now let’s get back to what I did say before. The Bible says we will be judged based on our deeds. Here are a few examples, would you like more? Proverbs 24:12, Romans 2:6-10, Romans 2:13.
I could write you a dissertation explaining how Jesus died to fulfill the scriptures, bringing to a close Moses’ Law and forging a new covenant based on love. I could even go the other route and argue that by knowing forehand and willingly dieing, his death was nothing more then a self righteous suicide. You could not argue against either point without interpretation.Without interpretation I could not read and understand any book or writing, including what you just wrote. I don’t see why you think Biblical interpretation is such a magical form of this. Is it just because a lot of people resort to bad interpretation when they really want the Bible to support what they already think?
Guilt is not something that others can present to you. You can experience guilt regardless of whether or not others found you to be guilty. Supposing such an instance were true; you were declared not guilty yet you still felt guilt, would you seek atonement? You may have been vindicated by man, but have you still must answer to yourself.“Guilty” is a declaration that a judge can make (or a jury) which means you have been found to be “unrighteous” (or, you’ve done something bad). It can also mean feelings of guilt; which means that you feel like you are guilty (see first sentence). What if it happened to me? If I was guilty I hope that I would do the right thing and admit it (plead guilty). I hope I would also seek forgiveness from whoever I wronged, including God. If I was pardoned despite my guilt, I would be grateful, even though justice was not done. I think what you are talking about when you say I would have to answer to myself, is the self-understanding that I have sinned against God. Of course, many people don’t understand it to be that, and call it answering to oneself.
2) Everyone sins all the time. The punishment for sin is death, therefore we deserve death.Failing to help old ladies cross the street is selfish, and selfishness is a sin… should all those whom have not helped old ladies cross the street be put to death? You are using broad strokes with the term sin, and even broader strokes saying that the punishment is death. Sin is a perspective issue, and supposing that all things you currently think about when you think of sin were eliminated, new “sins” would take their place, and so the cycle would continue until so much as not removing your hat when entering a building would become the gravest of sins. You cannot use so broad of strokes when referring to sin.Your argument is not logical. Is it selfishness to go to work when you could be finding old ladies to help cross the street? Or to go to sleep knowing that on the other side of the world there are old ladies who could use help crossing the street? Of course not, which is why your argument fails. There are many reasons for not helping old ladies cross the street which are not selfish. You cannot use such broad strokes when referring to sin. Try a different example, I’m willing to play this game.
3) Jesus (i.e. God) allowed himself to be killed. Because he was completely innocent (he never sinned), his death took the place of ours, so we don’t have to die for our sins.Hence the earlier reference to a self righteous suicide. You cannot say he never sinned, the best you can say is that his sins were never written about. Suicide itself could be considered a sin, I could even say his verbal assault and abuse against the bird traders and moneylenders in the temple could be a sin. If he was half man, then he was still half sinful. [the Catholics get around this by saying that he went to hell for three days between his death and his resurrection - based on interpretations of Eph 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20]Firstly, I can say Jesus never sinned if I like until I am proved wrong. You could say many things he did were sins if you like, but that does not make them so. I confidently claim this based on the evidence that Jesus is God. Secondly, Jesus was not half-man. Christianity does not teach this. He was fully human, and fully God. You may see this as a contradiction if you like, but only if you assume that the two are mutually exclusive (I fully understand if you do).
4) Anyone who accepts Jesus as his lord is protected by his sacrifice. Anyone who wants to pay for his own sins can do so, for eternity in hell. I would say both are highly debatable.Anything is debatable, what is the point of saying that? I could debate that you are human if I like, but that doesn’t make it likely. I know you don’t agree when I say things like this, you don’t have to assure me of that; but if you have nothing to say, why make your post longer for no reason.
How does God know our actions before they occur? How can someone know something that hasn’t yet happened? He does know, but not because He knows the future, because He is not contained within time. Therefore, God doesn’t experience time, moment by moment, but rather He sees everything, past, present, and future, all at once. So the reason God knows what you will do tomorrow, is because He sees you do it.First, that would not be omniscience.Can you explain why you think that fails the definition of omniscience?
Second, the Bible refutes that by example, the actions that God performs are contingent on a progression of events.Can you give me an example where a progression of events proves that God experiences events in succession?
Third, there is no scriptural support to substantiate such a claim.First of all, I will point out that God’s transcendence logically entails that He exists eternally (i.e. outside of time). If He were to exist within time, He would be dependent on a part of His own creation, which would be self-refuting. But you want scriptural support in addition to reason, so let’s have some: John 8:58 (Jesus uses the present tense, claiming that before Abraham was born, he “exists” – not “existed”); 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 (both of these verses indicate God’s transcendence to our temporal experience); Titus 1:2 and 2 Timothy 1:9 (both of these verses explicitly refer to the beginning of time, making God’s transcendence to temporality even more explicit).
Fourth, even if we remove the temporal limitations there is no way to create or be created without the contingency of time.There is no way that you know of to create or be created without time. But can you explain how to create logically entails a before and after in time? Or how the concept of a timeless being creating the universe is logically impossible? What logical principles do you appeal to?
If you knew as an absolute that your best friend was going to commit suicide and you chose not to intervene on the basis that knowing his actions alone does not make you responsible or even obligated to do the right thing, you might as well have pulled the trigger yourself, and should honestly consider yourself a murderer. Why would I absolve God from the same moral standard that I hold myself to?One reason, God is the source of that moral standard; He is superior to you in every way imaginable. God has given us the free will to decide for ourselves if we will follow Him or not, and He is not obligated by any stretch of the imagination to save even one of us from the consequences of our own actions. In the situation you gave, I can only be responsible for my own actions. I agree that it would be my responsibility to help my friend as much as possible, but if I chose not to I would be guilty of abandoning a friend in need, not murdering him. No matter how you spin it, his action would be his own responsibility, how can you justify taking it away from him?
I apologize for my delay in Posting, I have been consumed with work and it has left little time for other tasks. So on to the response for Uchiha Q.
All i see is some possible good things to do and some possible BAD things to do, so you see its essentially either doing the good thing or the bad thing.
Not so at all, you only see things as black and white to satisfy your own viewpoint, in reality there are an infinite spectrum of grey, with no absolute black and white.
It mite not be that simple in some situations or UNCLEAR what the good thing or bad thing is, but God wont judge you for what you didn't know.
You /assume/ he wont judge you for what you don’t know, but you cannot know for certain. If your statement is true, then you will be sharing heaven with all the Atheists as well, because they do not believe in God because they honestly don’t know, and thus cannot be judged based on your own decree.
Again basically all I've seen is some possible GOOD things to do and some possible BAD things to do, but they are finite.
Again you try and oversimplify to serve your own purpose.
Unless you bring in math into it and say "I can count to 10" or "i can count to 100" or "i can count to 1000" however even in this situation you are limited to a curtain amount of numbers to count because your life span wont allow you to count infinite curtain amounts of numbers.
That wouldn’t be free will then, telling someone to count to a specified number is completely against the entire concept of free will, which is what we were discussing. So are we choosing or being forced, its either free or its not.
essentially its either accept or reject.
Opinion.
Yeah, sadly today if people stole for the right reasons they get punished, however in Islamic sharia, although there being a law against theft there's also a STRICT rule of giving charity, for example, a person MUST give 2.5% of his valuables to charity annually and a person will be punished by God if he left his neighbors sleep hungry AKA be poor, basically charity is a big thing in Islam, so imagine you have a chain of neighbors making sure each neighbor is FED.
Also in Islam we don't believe in lending money and receiving it with benefits, if you are going to lend someone money do so but only get back the same amount you gave + the more time you give him the better.
The Christians have the same thing (tithe), only its 10% of your earnings, and there are required offerings on top of this. Charity is nothing more then an excuse, all religions and non-religions have demonstrated various forms of charity. Pointing out the charity of your religion is nothing more then the sin of pride.
I do agree there's allot of GOOD choices to do and allot of BAD choices to do, however it all boils down to either doing the GOOD thing or the BAD thing.
Are you implying that there is no “better” or “worse” choice, that’s its all just GOOD and BAD? So by that logic, the holocaust was no worse then a single hate crime. By that logic, actions that save the lives of millions is no greater then actions that save none but your own life. I doubt you would say that, yet you are trying to boil everything down to a black and white when its just not possible.
Yeah of course sometimes doing the obviously GOOD thing may hurt someone, but like i said God does not punish you for what you didn't know, your intentions were to do Good and that what matters.
The crusades, the attack of 9-11, the wars that have been fought for thousands of years to reclaim the holy lands… all had the best of intentions by the people who committed those actions. If intent was truly the deciding factor, then almost no one would go to hell.
Our reality is reality of course, however things like 4th dimensions and other incomprehensible things exist which we cant comprehend fully.
Like if i looked at a 4D object my brain will interpret it to look 3d because that's all I can comprehend, the 3d object I'm looking at is MY reality but its not the ONLY reality there is.
The fourth dimension is just time. In a spatial context it is nothing more then the axis orthogonal to the each current dimensional axis’. One would be capable of seeing an object from all sides at once, but it doesn’t change that reality or even open up a new reality. You are simply seeing the same object (reality) from a different vantage point at the same time as all other vantage points. If you are instead referring to some sort of entirely different universe that we cant see, then your talking sci-fi and there is nothing but speculation about such dimensions, no evidence whatsoever. That being the case, you cannot refer to them as though they are an established fact.
Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of reality itself, since you refer to it as “MY” and “not the only”. Despite your perceptions and my perceptions, there is only one reality (anything that ALL people can sense [as in perceive using at least one the 5 senses] ). Your interpretation of reality does not change reality it only changes your perceptions.
Well since I believe that the Quran is Gods word then i can safely say he is most JUST. to me that's not blind faith because I had already established to myself that that book is from God, I didn't just TRUST in the book I actually proved it to myself until I was satisfied.
Thus supporting my point. Proven and “proven it to myself” are not the same thing. You have convinced yourself, nothing more. That makes your assertions entirely subjective. Anyone else can come to their own conclusions.
ok so your saying its logical for a person to ignore the manual or the book of how to for example make a car or a vehicle, and you want that person to go BACK in time where the first wheel was created and find out by himself from square one of how to make a wheel and then after millions of experiments he will be able to make a car, when he could of just read that BOOK that he ignored and learned everything he already did learn except he would of learned it by mere days.
Actually, there are engineers that do almost exactly that. They are given the task to build something given no prior knowledge of what they are building. The thought behind it is that there are many different paths to accomplish the same end, and so having someone who is not knowledgeable may come up with a clever or ingenious method of accomplishing the task assigned to them. This is how innovation works.
I was giving an example out of the top of my head, however lets see here,
in Netherlands child prostitution increased rapidly , from 4,000 to 15,000 (according to figures published by the Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization.)
One skewed example of a negative does not negate the countless situations where no such negative has occurred. You even had to admit that it was already an established phenomenon, how do you know that the numbers prior to the legalization are accurate considering how discrete the actions would have been. (you don’t is the correct answer).
your opinion is based on a bunch of books... doesn't sound right doesn't it.
However Like I said I already established to myself after countless of proof that the Quran is indeed from God.
You never stated how you established the parameters of what was considered proof, as for it to be “proof” then it must be consequence of a repeatable and verifiable experiment. Or do you not mean proof as in real proof, but instead “evidence on a personal and subjective level”. In which case, anyone can do that about any God they choose.
Just because my opinion doesn't go with YOUR reality (there not being a god) doesn't mean im not basing my opinion on reality.
I never said there wasn’t a God, I said that if God exists then he/she is not an interventionist, and so Gods existence is entirely irrelevant.
Your assuming that im assuming, when im not realy assuming anything, God has no limits according to the Quran, wich for me i already established it being from God.
Yet you claim he has a will, and a moral code of adherence.
Your assuming he CANT be evil, im not saying that, im saying God WILL not be evil, there's a big diffrence here.
God already told us in the Quran what his WILL is and that is to be merciful and just and other 99 attributes (yes actual 99 )
Those would appear to be self imposed limitations.
no he doeset HAVE to he only wills to do so.
I dont see how this is not a limitation either.
-- Continued on Next Post --
yeah but your assuming the light will allways hit some other object, but since the universe is eternal its only fair to say space is also eternal, so if light travels thrue that eternaty of space and never hits an object then the energy is forever lost.
unless you say the light somehow is BENT slightly thus in billion apon billions of time it will eventualy hit the object it came from except from the other side, but light travels DIRECTLY at a 90 degrees angle so thats probably imposible.
Who said anything about light? Heat is another form of energy and is transferred three different ways, conduction, convection and infrared radiation.
Secondly you seem to forget that light is subject to the inverse square law, the same amount of light is present at any given distance from a light source, but the further from the light the more area that that light covers, so that any single point gets only a miniscule amount of the original light.
as far as I know the big bang is the start of this current state of energy, lets putt it at that ?
It would still be inaccurate, but ok.
I simply established that CHANCE couldn't of made all of this today.
No you made the assertion that it couldn’t, when it is actually quite possible.
lifes origin, I saw whether its possible for NON-life to create life that has the potential to evolve into all of this today.
The quran, Whether a man 1400 years ago in the middle of the desert could of possibly make up such a book.
A man absolutely could have made up the Quran. The knowledge contained within is not outside of the realm of possibility for man to know. They were not so naïve as we would claim them to be.
51:47 AND IT IS We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.
now the verse is talking about the universe and somehow Mohammad PBUH mentioned that it EXPANDS,
first lets see if this is a translation thing,
I know Arabic and when i read the word used for EXPANDING it clearly says that
َمُوسِعُونَ
Even if you give it to any arabic speaking person doesent have to be muslim he will tell you that word means EXPAND.
the question arises, why would a man in the middle of the desert say such a thing ?
and thats just one verse out of hundreds wich have things in them that are amazing.
I already went over this, but let me get a little more in depth.
None of the early translations said this (see my first response to you for what was actually said in all early translations (which is from the one I have). The translation you are trying to use came about in the late 20th century, and so it is important to point out that modern translations are nothing more thenhypothetical and are not likely what was originally meant. To put it simply, it was changed because the word expand (though a weak translation) would present a more accurate view giving the Quran more scientific authority. The fact is that most of the science of the Quran is based on the work of Aristotle, and even then some of it is incorrect [I remember the Quran stating the sun sets in a lake of water, that the sky was a dome raised by God not supported by pillars or poles, that animals can talk to humans, that Fire is matter that makes up Jinnis, that humans are made from Mud/water, that stars are missiles to fire at devils… ]
Point being that to believe it is accurate to science requires interpretation.
No one said anyone was stupid.
Then why would you assume that the science contained in the Quran is outside of the realm of possible human knowledge? Like I stated, much of the science in the Quran is based off of (or strikingly similar to) the works of Aristotle, which predates the Quran. Coincidence? Or should we then assume that Aristotle was given his knowledge from some divine influence?
however, for them to make up these verses and scientific claims yet at the same time NEVER once do they make a mistake, we have people like the Greeks, Egyptians, who were all GREAT people very smart, but all had some sort of flaw or error in their findings, but never do you see such things in the Quran.
Given enough interpretation, all religious books meet this qualification.
and just to asure you i have looked up on allot of anti-Islamic websites and analyzed their claims that the quran has some sort of error, and to this day i haven't found any verse that isn't taken out of context or misunderstood.
Which is the same claim the Christians make, and the same claim the Hindu’s make, and the same claim the <insert religious sect here>.
nor do they realize that they are finding errors in the translations of the meaning of the quran not the actual thing
Such is a possibility, but even then there isn’t a single scripture that presents knowledge completely impossible to know, or that doesn’t require interpretation to make divine allegations of such. Which leaves us at square one.
what's "verifiable proof" exactly, because like i said people vary on what's proof or not, so its not really my problem when someone REJECTS evidence.
Easy. Proof is something that remains the same devoid of personal perceptions, interpretations and desires. If I toss up a ball, it comes down. If I find a way to accurately measure the time between where it reached its highest point till when it hits floor, and accurately measure that distance, I can and will find its speed to be 32fps^2, or 9.8ms^2, this is proof that the acceleration towards the earth exists and is constant (we call this acceleration Gravity)
well with the balloon your not really going straight your just going in circles, which anyone can do, basically your direction is changing constantly which lead you to go to the same spot. you can never have a FLAT surface that goes on a loop, its either eternally long or has an end.
But such is not the shape of the universe, the universe is not flat, its akin the surface of a balloon, not neglecting the area inside the balloon as well. That which exists outside of the balloon is only hypothetical and speculating about it is purposeless until we attain knowledge about it, so until such time, I will not entertain conjecture about it.
well i haven't seen sufficient evidence to prove that non-living material can become something living but not only something living but also something that is alive and capable of evolving to all of the nature we see today.
Yet you have enough evidence to assert that heaven and God exist, and created mankind …despite the obvious problem that your above statement also applies to God, since we can consider him “living” and that at some point he must have come from “non-living material” since even God, to exist, cannot exist without the material he is composed of existing first.
So basically, you haven’t seen sufficient evidence to prove that non-living material can become living, yet that’s exactly what you do when you believe in God.
for me to say that God is eternal and always existed doesn't mean we can apply it to the physical universe because like i said God is not physical nor God is something WE as humans can measure.
so we cannot compare God to energy,
And this is easier to believe then common organic molecules and amino acids when in close proximity and near catalysts such as heat (deep sea hydrothermal vents for example) or lightning couldn’t, given enough time, join in a chains forming into proteins which became the building blocks of life.
sure but there are PROBLEMS with that logic, like energy, that's constantly lost in the infinite space,
Its not lost, that’s a mistake on your part.
your assuming every photon of light that is coming from one object is also going into another, and for that to possible we would must have INFINITE amounts of objects floating around, so no matter where the light goes from one object it is bound to hit another, which to me is a bit un logical, since its a big stretch for me.
The systems don’t need to be identical. You also seem to not understand that light is just one of a great many forms of electromagnetic radiation, the same as radio waves, x-rays, cosmic rays, etc etc.
sure that is a possibility however,
if i have a glass of water, and i drop it on the ground it breaks.
If i repeat that action INFINITLY, will i be able to drop the glass of water and produce 10 small glasses of water, the possibility of that happening = 0
laws of physics will not allow that.
Actually, that’s Entropy. Pulling patterns out of random letters is the opposite of entropy.
Things inherently get closer to their natural state of randomness and cannot inadvertently revert to a state of order, you have to understand that the “natural state” of a brick wall is a pile of bricks on the ground, not in a form of a wall. However, with a catalyst (hurricane/tornado for example) the bricks could attain some sort of “order” even if by entirely random consequence. People find patterns/order in chaos/randomness all the time, its chance, but it happens. And yet you imply that this is more difficult to believe then a God that exists from a hypothetical dimension with no substance or proof and can create energy and physical reality out of absolutely nothing... thats interesting.
---------
I will respond to yours ASAP Hug, I will read it now and respond probably tomorrow.
Brent
06-09-2008, 11:34 PM
Simply put religion exists because people want clear and simple yet sensemaking answers even when they are complicated and even when there are none. In order to provide such answers there is religion. Of course the answers no matter how carefully embedded in theistic rantings social groups and rituals etc, when looked close upon make no sense. However most religious minded people are either to stupid to recognize this (that is not saying that being religious is being stupid), or to indocrinated to think freely regarding the subject or simply don't really care about the sensemaking part that much (theese are the people that tend to think that faith should not be held subject to logic, but why is that? Well...) they simply enjoy feeling of meaning and safeness that their religion grants them.
My apologies for such a delay in posting a response Hug, I will spare you all from the details but suffice it to say that sometimes life gets in the way. I wouldn’t have been able to devote the amount of time to your response that I feel it demanded, so I put it off until such time that I had the time to respond properly.
My statement was not an argument, but a simple observation.
However, if I were to let it pass then I would be affirming it as accurate when I must disagree. There is a significant difference between an unknown and something that is unknowable. The difference being that an unknown can have tangible, measurable and verifiable supporting evidence, where something that is unknowable is only supported through perceptions and conjecture. This is an important distinction.
Science does have unknowns, but it would be more akin to the missing pieces of an intricate puzzle (of life). As with most puzzles, we can attain a general idea of what goes in the empty spots based on the puzzle as a whole and more importantly the shape of the piece needed by the surrounding pieces of puzzle. The more pieces missing from any single spot, the more difficult it is to predict what is in the middle of that area, though not impossible. However, the puzzle as a whole reflects the accomplishments of mankind with respect to the world around us, and is the same for all to admire and appreciate.
Religion on the other hand I cannot compare to a puzzle, it is more akin to an incomplete work of art. As a composition it entirely reflects the original artist, but it also largely reflects the individual who completes it. Because of this, It is different for each person, though with obvious similarities. People have an investment of time and effort into their work of art, and thus have a personal bond and sentimental value on it. Other people think their own composition is superior to others in some way, and try to flaunt their masterpiece. Because of this, the value and purpose of any single work of art is entirely subjective and cannot be known.
An unknown can be better than another unknown when there is less about it that is unknown about the previous theory. A good example is scientific theories. Even though modern scientific theories may be largely unknown as to how they work, they explain more than previous ones, so we have an unknown (basis for modern scientific theory) that is closer to the truth (it appears) than another unknown (the previous theory that can no longer account for all the evidence).
The ‘evolution of knowledge’ does not apply to the Bible, as it [the Bible] does not change, there is no “new Biblical information” that comes available to elucidate upon old Biblical concepts. And no new knowledge serves to reaffirm the Bible, it can only reaffirm that is was written and based on real people, real places and their interpretation of real events, but we already know that, and that does nothing to validate the alleged cause or purpose behind those events.
I’m not going to debate the supporting evidence of the Bible right now because I simply don’t have the time, but it is not as you say. The Bible is remarkably well supported without relying on self-affirmation of the type you mentioned. A really good overview of this topic is Lee Strobel’s “Case for Christ”
Once again, evidence that implies real events, real people and real places does not lend credence to the cause depicted by the Bible. You are willingly blurring the line between what is factual (real people, real places, real events) and what is not (how and why those events happened).
I would give you my take on “the Case for Christ”, but the points I would make have already been made many times over. I recommend you look up the review and analysis of that book by Scott Bidstrup. He covers most of the same points I would, and presents them well enough that it saves me from having to type a long winded explanation.
First of all, the Bible is not a systematic theology.
Anything that presents criteria that must be achieved before a reward can be attained is by nature systematic. You cannot have a creed (as a systematic set of beliefs) without first having something systematic to base those beliefs on.
This means that it is not set up as a series of articles of doctrine.
Actually that’s exactly what it was, you have to remember that the Church existed 500 years before anything resembling the Bible came into existence, and over time the books for the Bible were presented, chosen, organized, and verified upon purpose, all with the ultimate intent of being doctrine.
It is the communicated Word of God through a wide variety of mediums; history, poetry, wisdom literature, autobiography, pastoral letters, etc. To claim the Bible as infallible means that it cannot and does not err in its intended purpose. What is the purpose of the Bible?
Based on history, I could very well say that the purpose of the Bible was to increase control for those in a position of authority, and increase productivity from those who were poor, abused, and mistreated. By providing the common man with a sense of salvation, retribution and purpose, they (common man) would be far more likely to endure through atrocities and hardships, or even things like slavery or injustice. You would be amazed at how much a man can endure so long as you let him have hope, whether that hope is an illusion is irrelevant. Those in power knew that desperate men with nothing to live for are a dangerous lot, the easiest way to circumvent such men is to give them something to live for.
I don’t necessarily subscribe to this position, but you can no more say that this is not the purpose of the Bible then I can say it is the purpose. It’s a valid possible reason, nothing more, nothing less.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
I quoted this for later reference.
Its purpose is not to be a science textbook, but to communicate spiritual truths that cannot be learned apart from revelation from God.
Yet Christians try and use science to justify it. When Christians stop manipulating science to reaffirm their beliefs because they lack faith, then I am certain people will stop pointing out the scientific fallacies perpetuated by Christians.
Do you really believe that Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch? Including Deuteronomy 34 which describes his death? The final form in the Pentateuch as we know it was clearly not composed completely by Moses in the form we have it.
You are referring to the very final end of the Law, and personally I think the Levite Priests added the last part. (and possibly revised the other books as well). This does not mean that Moses did not write nearly all of the Law (though much of it is obviously based on more ancient manuscripts and stories such as the epic of Gilgamesh)
There are clearly multiple sources for the final version of the Pentateuch (and many other books)
Clearly? What other sources are you referring to? The Bible is based on collections of ancient manuscripts, some collections being more complete then others (tishindorf text versus the textus receptus versus the westcott hort text). Being more or less complete doesn’t automatically mean more or less different, and so the final version as we see it should theoretically only be more similar to the original version as it was written.
Do you believe that God dictated to Moses exactly what to write?
Doesn’t matter what I believe, as the Bible implies that such is true. The Bible maintains that Moses spoke directly to God. Are you saying that it is unfair to assume that despite this fact, that God made absolutely no mention of what to write in the Law, and consequently that Moses wrote Leviticus and Deuteronomy already knowing that all the laws that he wrote would be acceptable by Gods standards with absolutely no influence from God whatsoever? As I have pointed out before, and you even pointed out above, the Bible contends itself to be God-Breathed.
I don’t think you do, since you don’t believe in God, so why do you claim that I must believe this?
I don’t claim that you do. Consequently... are you saying you don't?
Where in the Bible does it claim that scripture is useful to understand cosmology, or botany? If you are going to criticize the Bible, do so on something it affirms of itself rather than on what others affirm of it.
The same can be said in reverse. Since when does science claim itself useful for understanding philosophy and religion? If you are going to attempt to use science to justify ideologies, do not be surprised when people criticize them for the parts that are disharmonious regardless of how many parts are concurrent with the sciences.
When reading any piece of literature, the type of literature is fundamentally important in order to understand how to interpret it. When do you ever read poetry and assume every statement is literal?
As often as they are in a context of literal reference. How often do you read poetry and assume every statement is figuratively? If the poem was entirely abstract then it would have no frame or reference or basis to understand its intent. Context dictates what and is not meant literally in a poem. Not everything in poem is meant literally, but not everything is meant figuratively either.
--Continued on Next Post---
Maybe you should take a beginner’s class on ancient poetry and oral traditions. You assume I haven’t.
You have to interpret a piece of literature in the way that it was intended.
To make that statement requires the assumption implies you believe you know how a piece of literature intends for you to interpret it, when that is in many cases impossible without knowing the circumstances surrounding the creation of the poem. There is a huge difference between interpreting the actual intent of a piece, interpreting what you believe is the intent of a piece, and understanding the literary devices of a piece.
You can’t read every book of the Bible the same: poetry books should not be read as history, history should not be read as wisdom literature or Pastoral guidance, etc. This should be common sense.
There in lies the problem. An allegory does not mean the same thing to everyone, and so the only way to attain an objective, fair and universal interpretation is to start from literal and work backwards. Maybe you should take a beginners class in speech and communication.
Let’s look at your assumptions: First, the Bible is from an omniscient being; granted. Second, God is not only aware of scientific truth, but is able to explain it clearly; granted. Third, it is (or must be) God’s intention to communicate scientific truth along with His theological message; not granted. Fourth, God dictated the entire Bible, word for word; not granted. Your logic is faulty because you have no evidence for assumption three and four.
No more evidence then is needed for assumptions one and two then is needed for three and four. The fact that the Bible tries to explain scientific notions like the composition of the universe and the mechanics behind various observations is more then enough reasoning to assume that it does occasionally try to convey some form of scientific understanding, despite the fact that it is usually incorrect in its descriptions. And nowhere did I say that God dictated the entire Bible, the reference was toward Old Testament understanding of the world, a time when God willingly spoke directly to man, yet was somehow incapable of being correct in his explanations of the world when doing so from a scientific context.
This is not true. It would be more correct to say “anything can be justified with enough faulty interpretation.”
Hence the concept of religious superiority. “My interrelation is better the your interpretation”
Correct interpretation can only lead to a few possible meanings. Thus if I say to you that my house is green, proper interpretation will lead you to the understanding that a significant percentage of the exterior of my house is green, or that my house is energy efficient, while improper interpretation might lead you to believe that my house is green with envy.
Other proper interpretations could be that you live in the forest, or that you live in a hut of palm fronds. In actually, the only truth you can honestly derive from your statement is that there is a house, and it is yours. Everything else is subjective in nature without a frame of reference for the context.
There are certain rules that we use all the time to interpret statements so that improper interpretations do not occur. So, if you are certain that you want to maintain that anything can be justified through interpretation, can you give me an example where opposing interpretations of a Bible passage are both justified?
The fact that there are over 1000 denominations of Christianity alone validates the concept of more then one justifiable interpretation of a scripture. That you ask me to provide an example in the midst of this fact is insipid, but on the hope that you are living under a rock and have never heard of different denominations lets humor you and look at an example.
1 Timothy 2:15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
First one must grapple with the concept of if this scripture refers to physical or spiritual childbirth. Second one must determine if it is referring to salvation or deliverance.
For example, I could interpret that those who have faith, charity and holiness will be have a successful pregnancy and not die during childbirth (that she will safely deliver the child).
I could also interpret it to mean that the woman would be delivered from the errors mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:12. Meaning by having a child she would be freed from the temptations of Satan by focusing on her proper role of family responsibilities, or be free from the error of exercising authority over man (such as being deceived by Satan in the Garden of Eden).
Another interpretation uses the context to mean “the childbirth” referring to Jesus, that there is spiritual salvation for women because of the birth of the messiah. This interpretation takes the reference in 1 Timothy 2:14 quite literally, possibly building on the promise of Gen 3:15.
Another interpretation focuses on comforting a woman. In the midst of the pains of child birthing, a woman could easily wonder why God would allow them to suffer as such, so the scripture would be comforting to a woman to know that she is saved despite having to suffer through childbirth. It could even be talking about how the normal and natural duties of a woman can be found around Childbirth, referring to the tasks and responsibilities of having children.
One could even interpret it to mean that a woman’s salvation is contingent on her children’s perseverance in maintaining faith, charity and holiness.
Need I go on? There are many other interpretations that one can derive from just that one scripture and nearly all are fair interpretations as well as being contextually accurate. Its up to the individual to determine which they believe, but there are still multiple possibilities of correct answers.
You are forgetting that Science attempts to understand (not absolutely, I admit) something that is absolute (the truth). In the same way, Biblical interpretation attempts to understand (not absolutely) something that is absolute (God’s intended message).
One of your examples is impossible. One can only assume to understand Gods message, its impossible to know.
Again, you are using the term “interpretation” incorrectly. You mean to say that it requires faulty interpretation, but I’ve already looked at your reasons for interpreting it literally, and they are based on faulty assumptions. There are some almost convincing arguments that the Bible really does describe the Big Bang, but ultimately I think they fail. By the way, the argument from figurative language based on God’s time verses our time is not one of the better arguments. The word used for day is clearly not intended to be understood as an age.
There is nothing wrong with my use of the word interpretation, you say ‘faulty interpretation’ as though there was a such thing. When I speak of interpretations, I refer to the well established arguments that have given rise to religious diversity. The differences between what John Calvin and John Wesley while in many respects similar, where pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum as far as religion goes, but both are equally convincing in what they believe, and both can more then justify their stance using the Bible. This is what I mean by interpretation, not withholding personal interpretation as well.
There is a big difference between saying that an entire verse, chapter or book is figurative, and trying to claim that a single word in a long line of literal references is not meant literally. An example would be Job 9, where God is explained to manipulate real objects to some cause, such as mountains crumbling (avalanche), black out the sky (easily caused by massive fires), cause a huge sea storm (hurricane or tsunami), and even earthquakes… yet only for the cause of the earthquakes do people attribute figurative context, despite being a common belief of the time (referring to the pillars of the earth). Why? Because, its not concurrent with science, and if you took it as a literal context along with the rest of the scripture, then it would be errant, so the only solution is to pick and choose which parts you want to take literally and which to take figuratively.
Its not about taking the whole book literally, its about not picking and choosing which parts of a verse you want to be literal and which parts you choose are figurative, because if you took it literally it would support the idea that the book was written by man, based on mans understanding of the world around him, and not the consequence of divine authority.
On the other hand, how do you account for the fact that the Big Bang logically entails the existence of God? Let me quickly outline the argument: 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause; 2) the universe began to exist; 3) therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause (which I would further argue is God, but let’s leave it here for now).
We have been over this with Uchiha Q, there is no began. Please refer to those responses for an answer to why this is a faulty argument.
Dismissing the “how” if it is not evident, makes a lot of sense to me, unless something depends on it. What would you say depends on it?
How about the entire concept of religious superiority…
And with all this… Im only done part 1 of 4… Sugoi!
Hopefully I will get more done tonight (and if I’m lucky some during the day).
You made two grave assumptions about what I was saying, let me correct you. 1) I am not judging people who do not believe in Salvation as inherently evil, I’m judging everyone as inherently evil, based on the authority of the Bible and confirmation from human experience.
Carrying a burden of sin is not synonymous with being inherently evil. People do not naturally default to evil actions. That’s not only a stretch, it’s a sweeping generalization.
As far as your own personal human experience serving as justification for such a weak generality, this is the very core and definition of perception.
Thus Norman Borlaug is an inherently evil person, not because he refuses the concept of Salvation, but because he has an inherently sinful human nature, just like you, just like me. You seem to have a lot of assumptions about what Christians believe. I wonder where you get them, certainly not from the Bible.
It would seem you make equally as many assumptions about what Christians believe. Perhaps I need to remind you, you’re beliefs are a Christian minority.
Furthermore, Romans *the book you seem to be basing much of your philosophy on* is hardly representative of the Bible as a whole. I personally have always found it odd that fundamentalists (and Baptists occasionally) spend so much time quoting Romans, and don’t really even try to harmonize the book in the context of the rest of the Bible.
Romans 9
14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
If you read the whole chapter, it says basically that God will pretty much choose who he gives salvation to regardless of anything other then his own will, and that he has already chosen long before people where born. (reference Jacob/Esau). This seems completely against pretty much the whole Bible. Thus why so many different denominations have such vastly different interpretations of Romans, though I suspect you believe there is only one or two interpretations to be had.
2) Doing good works does not entail pure motives. There are many reasons people do good works; they want to be recognized, they have something to gain from it, they are trying to compensate for feelings of guilt, or God is working through them. I suspect that Norman received a lot of prestige as well as money for his wonderful act.
Yeah, he has received so much prestige that most people have never even heard of him (you included). And for your information, Everything he receives goes into the foundation that shares his name, which is a non-profit corporation promoting education and science that reflect his ambitions (i.e. continuing to seek ways to improve the lives of those who live in areas where food is scarce.).
Only one of those verses was relevant (and one doesn’t exist). I don’t need to argue about salvation being imparted after death though, because it is true. Salvation occurs in the past, present, and future. But don’t take my word for it, read the Bible:
Reading Rainbow Much?
As far as you subsequent interpretations of various scriptures from the book of Romans, I think anyone reading them can tell for themselves that your interpretation is pretty vague and intrapersonal. Plus, I don’t think Romans speaks for the entirety of the Bible. So I will skip it, and simply say that Romans teaches salvation almost exclusively through the grace of God, something that isn’t earned. This view may be fine Calvinists and Evangelicals who believe in predestination, but I find it disharmonious with other Biblical scriptures. Naturally you can always interpret it to mean that everyone automatically has Grace, but then you must negate the very point of it by saying that you can only attain it through faith in Jesus [Eph 2:8].
I never said it takes away the consequences of our past sins. I was talking about the ability to resist the temptation to sin.
Yet the simple act of seeking atonement from those whom you have sinned against can in many cases take away the consequence of your sins, if not, it can at least ease their suffering in some way.
As far as the ability to resist the temptation of sin, I find it strange that you (or anyone for that matter) would need a constant reminder as a tool to avoid sin.
That is why I clarified in case you misunderstood, by saying that’s not what I’m saying. I’m no better than you or anyone else. We are all sinful. The only difference as far as salvation goes, is that someone else has been punished in my place for all of my sins (Jesus).
No Sir, I am not trying to sell you anything… now… I just need a valid credit card number to prove you are over eighteen.
How appropriate that you should say “morals are designed…” Regardless of how you think morals got here, you believe they correspond to some actual reality don’t you? In other words, do you think murder is actually wrong, or is it just something you avoid because you are worried about the consequences?
How appropriate that you say “worried about the consequences”. I would point out the obvious similarity of one being worried their actions would result in a loss of salvation. The entire concept of morality is based on consequences to prevent feelings of fear, pain and guilt. There is no clear definition of what is “right” and “wrong” without the balance based on negative feelings compared to positive feelings. Morality was built by basic classical conditioning.
I was talking about the professional community of Biblical scholarship (which includes Christians and non-Christians), not popular writers and tabloids. I didn’t say it was undisputable, just that it is undisputed, because even those scholars who don’t want it to be true can’t argue with the facts. If you disagree, maybe you would like to cite some credible scholars who dispute these facts.
You haven’t quoted reputable scholars who verify what you have made claims of, yet demand that I provide the same. Funny how that is. Very well… here are a few.
Bernard Orchard, Thomas L Thompson, John Hampden, William G Fever, Rolf Rendtorff, Martin North, R N Whybray, William Albright, Isreal Finkelstein, Baruch Spinoza. Bart D Ehrman, Randel Helms, Marshall Brain, Thomas Paine, John Farrell Till, Shraga Simmons, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Reginald Finley.
All dispute those “facts” in one way or another, though not necessarily all at once or all at the same time, sometimes directly, other times indirectly.
-- Continued on Next Post --
Good for him, did he also do #2-4?
Ironically you ask that, and the answer is yes.
Jesus’ claim to be God is relevant because he also claimed he would rise from the dead, and did. David Koresh did not do this, so his claim is irrelevant. If you are going to quote scripture, the least you can do is read it.
First off, one can easily claim that Jesus did not do this either, just because its written that it happened doesn’t make it true (no evidence or proof). This once again makes Jesus no different then David Koresh, so if someone writes a book saying that David Koresh rose again, and someone finds it two thousand years from now and believes it then he is absolutely no different then Jesus. (horrible thought, but there is point in there somewhere)
And seriously, do you honestly think memorizing more scriptures makes you a better Christian? I read it entirely, once, many years ago. I know what I read, and I know where to find what I read, anything more then this is useless for nothing other then scripture cock fighting.
As for the scriptures you referenced, in all actuality you “were” before Abraham as well.
Secondly, Jesus also said were all the sons and daughters of God, no different then him. This concept was heresy and he was persecuted for that claim, but he did not say that he was any more divine then anyone else, you make a mistake in assuming that he meant he was the only son, when he meant we are all sons of God, the reason he could perform miracles was because he was allegedly blessed with the Holy Spirit (oddly enough he could perform no great works in his home town despite having the power of God, people just didn’t believe, so the power of unbelief apparently trumps God), something man as a whole didn’t have until the Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was breathed into every man (which is the basis for why modern charismatic/Pentecostal churches attempt miracles such as speaking in tongues, healing the sick, casting out demons, prophesying etc etc)
The apostles also forgave people.
Once again we are back at square one. You are right, there are many more examples, but those are explainable as well.
Are you just bringing this up as a point of interest? Again, this is relevant for Jesus, not for anyone else unless they allegedly rise from the dead.
Ok, Then I allege that at least one of them has risen from the dead.
Since it was apparently too obscure, the point was that if your going to make a reference to the fact that Jesus was crucified by a body of peers, then its unfair to deny the equal oppression that countless others have suffered by the same cause, their suffering and loss was no less then Jesus’.
Again, other missing bodies are not relevant unless someone is claiming they rose from the dead. Are you going to argue with every word I write, whether or not you have anything to say about it?
Until you stop intentionally missing the point, I will probably continue.
There are a great many people throughout all of history that have been claimed to have risen from the dead, yet you place the entirety of your focus on a single persons sacrifice, and disregard the others. That’s pretty myopic.
In case you haven’t figured this out, all the evidence put together is what makes the argument.
There in lies the problem. The only evidence to create the argument was intentionally created for that purpose.
In any case where a person claims to be God, claims that he will be killed and will come back to life, is executed, has their body go missing right in front of an armed guard, and then his followers proclaim that he has come back to life even though they all get persecuted for it and eventually most are killed for it; then you should conclude that the most likely cause is resurrection. Tell me what is unreasonable about that.
That being the case, there have been many resurrections throughout history. Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Mithra. Adonis of Egypt. Gesar, the Savior of Tibet. Bodhidharma the Indian master of Chan Bhuddism. King Arthur from Camelot.
Even Elvis and Tupac have been seen after their deaths.
Other famous resurrections from literature include Superman, Captain America, Hawkeye, Spiderman, Ironman, The Hulk, The Silver Surfer, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Wolverine, Colossus, Psylocke, Rouge, Jean Grey, and even Cyclops.
So, assuming you believe the Jesus resurrection story, its only fair that you also believe the first ones I listed.
Ok, so just to get this straight, if you intend to walk across the street, and I hold you back, I am impeding your free will? If this is your understanding of free will, that is perfectly fine, but it’s not the Christian understanding so you shouldn’t criticize Christians based on something they don’t believe.
I wonder if you will ever get the totality of the irony of your words…
And when you say “the Christian understanding” I assume you mean your understanding, as most Christians understand the definition of free (entirely unrestrained), as well as the definition of will (intent or purpose), and that the combination of those two make the definition of Free Will. So by definition, a person holding you back from crossing the street is a fair example of impeding your free will.
And that completes part 2 of 4. Stay Tuned I suppose, More to come!
There are two separate issues here. First, did God interfere with freewill? Second, is God morally reprehensible for causing so much unnecessary death when it could have been averted?
The entire concept of an interventionist God is that he can interfere with free will. For example, the entire point of prayer is the hope that God will interfere with someone’s free will to bring your personal desires to causation.
To the first question I will use my definition of free will. Does God interfere with Pharaoh’s freewill? First let me point out that twice before the Bible says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and once after, it says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:15,32, 9:34). So it’s not like God didn’t give him ample opportunity to release the Hebrews and avert God’s judgment. Even so, I think there is merit in the argument that God interfered with Pharaoh’s freewill in order to ensure that he would not change his mind. Does this mean that Pharaoh had no freewill? I don’t think so; he had his whole life to choose to submit to God and he rejected God. God was well within His right to judge pharaoh at any time for his lifetime of sins. He is not required to give chance after chance after chance, or we could never die because He would be giving us infinite chances. He is not required to give us any second chances, but the fact that He does so shows how patient and forgiving He is. So no, I do not think this example, or any time when God interferes with freewill, is unjustified, because God has the right to judge us at any time and take away our freewill which we have already used to reject him.
You haven’t the slightest clue if Pharoah even knew of Jehovah God, much less if he was given the opportunity to come to know and understand the Jehovah God. Even on the assumption that he was presented with him at some point in his life, would you expect him to simply erase thousands of years of culture for a God he didn’t know?
Secondly, after the first request of Moses and Aaron, Pharoah was willing to let the Israelites go after seeing his magicians staffs being eaten by Moses’ snake, It was then that God hardened his hard, and after suffering several plagues he was angry and hardened his heart, but decided against it and was again about to let them go, only to have his heart hardened by God. Forced again to endure plagues, and after suffering them through his anger and frustration at the Jehovah God that he hardened his own heart, and so this process continued until all the plagues were finished.
We can actually get insight into why in the book of Romans 9:17. God did it for no other reason then to prove his own power to the Egyptians as well as the Israelites. (of course this is my own interpretation)
Now the second question: is God morally reprehensible for causing so much “unnecessary” death? First of all, in order to say that God is morally lacking in any way, requires you to appeal to a universal standard of morality. After all, if there is no universal standard of right and wrong, you cannot say God did the wrong thing here, only that you don’t like what He did.
Interesting that earlier you asked me if I would not murder because it is inherently wrong, or only because I don’t want to suffer consequences. God has no fear of consequences so by that basis can we say that his murdering the firstborn of the Egyptians is condonable?
I cannot agree, any more then I can agree with him commanding his followers to wipe out the Amelakites, the inhabitants of Jericho, the inhabitants of Canaan, even Elisha and the shebears.
You have no basis for judging Him.
I have the Bible.
But if you do agree that there is a universal standard of right and wrong, where did it come from and by whose authority is it binding? The only possible answer is that it comes from God, as He is by definition the source of goodness. But if God is the source of morality, how dare you judge Him?
Pain, Guilt and Fear are feelings that all people have, and morality is based upon the desire to minimize these feelings. This does not make morality universal, but through experience we can derive a very good average for a particular society. This average, or balance as it were, is what morals are based upon.
It is not a matter of God being the type of God I want to follow. There is only one God, and He is who He is. If I don’t like who He is that’s my problem, but wanting Him to be different is irrelevant.
Who says hes the only one? There are countless Gods out there, you have picked one (or raised to believe in one) and dismissed all the others. Essentially you are nothing more then a selective Atheist, disbelieving in all Gods save one.
I totally think my relationship with God is more valid than other people’s relationships with their gods for the following reason. My God is real.
They say the same thing. Ironic no?
However, I won’t rule out the possibility that some gods are real beings, only if so then they are evil spirits of some kind. If that is the case, then I suppose one might have a genuine relationship of some kind with them. Obviously you don’t see any difference between my understanding of my relationship with God and my understanding of other people’s relationships with non-existent gods, and I don’t blame you. Again, this comes down to whether or not God exists.
Of course, obviously if its different then your beliefs its automatically evil spirits. As long as it helps you sleep at night eh?
I think the evidence is overwhelmingly in His favour.
What evidence?
Oh yeah…. Your personal experience, reinforced by the Bible. Technically, as I have been trying to demonstrate for you, that is perception, not evidence. There is no measurable, verifiable, tangible evidence to support the concept of a God, only mental constructs and philosophies, things that mean nothing outside of our own perceptions.
--- Continued on Next Post ---
How can any example of faith healing be explained by nothing more than the placebo effect if not all examples have been tested? Can the placebo effect explain how a young boy who has been clinically dead for about 4 hours can come back to life after receiving prayer? I met that boy.
Hmm… do you pray to him and worship him as a God? He fits into your former description of why you place Jesus’ sacrifice and suffering above other people who have experienced similar situations.
Actually, I will point out that you were not there when the boy apparently died and mysteriously came back to life. You were told a story about it and wanted to believe it so bad that you did. Unless you have a newspaper article to justify this “example” (trust me, it would have made the papers) then I am going to call bullshit, and say that wanting to believe something is true does not make it so. Seriously, This would be a story guaranteed to make headline news, possibly even national news. I searched and cant find a single reference to any such child anywhere. (though I can find instances of people being clinically dead after being chilled and drained of blood, and after surgery, refilled and successfully resuscitated)
Can it explain how a person can suddenly gain the ability to speak a foreign language fluently while sharing the gospel and not remember having spoken a foreign language? A friend of mine observed this.
Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person did not know the foreign language before hand, or better yet, can you prove that it was indeed a foreign language, was there someone there who coincidently spoke that language? Was it Spanish? Once again, we have all heard stories from friends who swear on their soul that these things have happened, but just because they honestly believe what they are saying does not make it true.
Can faith healing heal amputees? I have not heard of any examples, but this does not mean it can’t or hasn’t happened. It is obviously not outside of God’s power, assuming He exists.
Its never happened. Not a single reported verifiable instance in all of known recorded history.
On the other hand, I would agree that the vast majority of faith healers today are sham artists trying to make an easy fortune off gullible people. I know how it works. They never try to heal someone who has an obvious physical deformity (those people are kept far away from the stage), and often the people who claim to be healed find out later they really are not, but the performers (healers) know how to manipulate their emotions so they think they had a religious experience, and they assume they have been healed.
The experiences many of those people have are quite real, unfortunately there is almost always a very real biological explanation that goes along with that experience. Most commonly its people who are not physically fit dancing around breathing erratically which ends up starving the brain for oxygen creating a feeling of lightheadedness, sometimes resulting in someone fainting (and consequently “slain in the spirit”). As for the rest of your descriptions, mostly accurate.
Well, based strictly on Pascal’s wager, there is no need to evaluate religions that won’t condemn me to hell if I’m wrong, so I wouldn’t have to worry about most of those. The best Muslim arguments I have heard only amount to arguments for Theism, which I support. I have looked at Muslim arguments concerning Jesus, and they simply don’t hold water. As for Judaism, I support it wholeheartedly; after all, Jesus was a Jew. The only problem I have with Judaism is that it rejects the Messiah and his teachings. This is why Christianity considers itself the true Judaism (also why Islam considers itself true Christianity). I’ve looked at some beliefs and arguments of Christian cults like Jehova’s Witness and the Church of Mormon. More importantly though, I am continually studying Christianity; I look for problems and I look for answers to those problems. I am convinced that if Christianity is true, there will be no problem that has no answer, and thus I am not afraid of problems in Christianity. In fact I actively seek them out, and I’ll bet I could name more problematic aspects of Christianity than you could.
Maybe you should become a Messianic Jew.
You said, “if one is to assume that if God is all good, then they must be willing to accept that a righteous and moral person will get into heaven regardless of spiritual affiliation”. I accepted this but pointed out that it is kind of irrelevant because such a person does not exist. Do you disagree? Do you think there is such a thing as a righteous person? I think that whether or not I think Christianity has secret knowledge is irrelevant to our conversation.
Such a person does not exist only according to your standards.
That is an illogical argument. Just because God has no obligation to save us, doesn’t mean we have no obligation to be good to each other. Why would you think this would be so? You are treating God as an equal. He is not bound by the same law that binds us because he is the source of that law, which is our obligation to be good to each other.
I could say its just as illogical to consider God as a source of morality and then exempt him from that which he is, as you are unwittingly calling him a hypocrite.
Is Jesus equal to God? Not according to John 14:28, yet you consider him a God. There is definitely an argument that can be made that we are all equal to Jesus with respect to God. Psalms 82:6, John 10:34-36, Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 3:22, I John 3:2.
And another part is complete, part 3 of 4. Only one more (whew~!)
I claimed that the Bible says we will be judged based on our deeds. I don’t know why you are talking about glory being equated with salvation, but your proof is shamefully obviously not what you think it is. In Romans 2:7, “glory” refers to “praise and esteem”, not the “glory of God”. The verse you seem to think I had in mind, Romans 3:23, does not equate glory with salvation (as you said), and neither did I, but let me do so now. Romans 8:18-30 is quite clear that those who have the glory of God also have salvation (particularly verse 30). Now let’s get back to what I did say before. The Bible says we will be judged based on our deeds. Here are a few examples, would you like more? Proverbs 24:12, Romans 2:6-10, Romans 2:13.
I already went into the Romans/Grace problem, so I will simply pass on that one. Secondly, I personally prefer the concept that we would be judged on our deeds, so I have no qualms with your position there.
Without interpretation I could not read and understand any book or writing, including what you just wrote. I don’t see why you think Biblical interpretation is such a magical form of this. Is it just because a lot of people resort to bad interpretation when they really want the Bible to support what they already think?
No, It really is that there are sometimes 10+ ways to interpret a scripture and it still be valid (I gave you a good example of his earlier, in my response to your part 1).
“Guilty” is a declaration that a judge can make (or a jury) which means you have been found to be “unrighteous” (or, you’ve done something bad). It can also mean feelings of guilt; which means that you feel like you are guilty (see first sentence). What if it happened to me? If I was guilty I hope that I would do the right thing and admit it (plead guilty). I hope I would also seek forgiveness from whoever I wronged, including God. If I was pardoned despite my guilt, I would be grateful, even though justice was not done. I think what you are talking about when you say I would have to answer to myself, is the self-understanding that I have sinned against God. Of course, many people don’t understand it to be that, and call it answering to oneself.
I think we agree here as well.
Your argument is not logical. Is it selfishness to go to work when you could be finding old ladies to help cross the street? Or to go to sleep knowing that on the other side of the world there are old ladies who could use help crossing the street? Of course not, which is why your argument fails. There are many reasons for not helping old ladies cross the street which are not selfish. You cannot use such broad strokes when referring to sin. Try a different example, I’m willing to play this game.
Its not meant to be logical, its meant to illustrate that there must exist extremes to find an acceptable middle ground. Even in a world where no wars/famine/disease/murder existed, there would still be that which must be considered an atrocity, as this is used as a social frame of reference for what is acceptable versus what is atrocious.
The point was not to seek out the opportunity to help old ladies to cross the street, but that should you come upon it, avoiding the opportunity to assist an elder could be looked upon as a sign of disrespect, or as an insult. Assuming these are closer to the extremes of socially atrocious behavior.
Firstly, I can say Jesus never sinned if I like until I am proved wrong. You could say many things he did were sins if you like, but that does not make them so. I confidently claim this based on the evidence that Jesus is God. Secondly, Jesus was not half-man. Christianity does not teach this. He was fully human, and fully God. You may see this as a contradiction if you like, but only if you assume that the two are mutually exclusive (I fully understand if you do).
And I have pointed out that the Father is greater by Jesus’ own words.
Secondly, we have scriptures of Jesus doing things that only man can do. (not just dying).
Luke 2: 52. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
How can a God attain wisdom? That’s something only a man can do.
What would be the point of the Devil trying to tempt a God in the desert? (Matt 4:1) Why did he pray and worship himself? (John 17) Why did people call him a man? (Mark 15:39, John 19:5), How did he have a body of flesh and bone? (Luke 24:39).
Anything is debatable, what is the point of saying that? I could debate that you are human if I like, but that doesn’t make it likely. I know you don’t agree when I say things like this, you don’t have to assure me of that; but if you have nothing to say, why make your post longer for no reason.
Because you stated it as though it were some sort of common sense fact, so I felt it necessary to point it out.
Can you explain why you think that fails the definition of omniscience?
Sure. To put it as simply as I possibly can, Being omniscient is having infinite awareness, understanding and insight, this has nothing to do with time. With an infinite number of variables available to ascertain the probability of an event occurring when you have unlimited awareness, understanding and insight, there simply would be no need to know the future. The point being that it would seem like they know the future but it is nothing more then predictability based on infinite variables, and not physically seeing a future event occur.
Can you give me an example where a progression of events proves that God experiences events in succession?
You men besides the whole Bible? Whether its God grieving, seeking retribution, creating the universe, causing events based on prior events, talking to people, rewarding people… everything that involves an action requires a progression of events to occur.
First of all, I will point out that God’s transcendence logically entails that He exists eternally (i.e. outside of time). If He were to exist within time, He would be dependent on a part of His own creation, which would be self-refuting. But you want scriptural support in addition to reason, so let’s have some: John 8:58 (Jesus uses the present tense, claiming that before Abraham was born, he “exists” – not “existed”); 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 (both of these verses indicate God’s transcendence to our temporal experience); Titus 1:2 and 2 Timothy 1:9 (both of these verses explicitly refer to the beginning of time, making God’s transcendence to temporality even more explicit).
Those scriptures do not prove transcendence, they reference before the world not before time, big difference there. There is also a big difference between existing always (inside of time), and existing at all times in the same moment (outside of time). You continue to make connections between entirely non-related concepts, being eternal does not mean you do not experience time. As I stated already you and me both in all essence “existed” even before the Big Bang, assuming you refer to the energy that makes us up, should I now try and claim that we are transcendent with respect to time?
There is no way that you know of to create or be created without time. But can you explain how to create logically entails a before and after in time? Or how the concept of a timeless being creating the universe is logically impossible? What logical principles do you appeal to?
In a context that you will understand, God is Time. It has always existed, and all things are bound to it. Time is what created the universe, Time is what created humanity, and Time is what will ultimately destroy the universe.
One reason, God is the source of that moral standard; He is superior to you in every way imaginable. God has given us the free will to decide for ourselves if we will follow Him or not, and He is not obligated by any stretch of the imagination to save even one of us from the consequences of our own actions. In the situation you gave, I can only be responsible for my own actions. I agree that it would be my responsibility to help my friend as much as possible, but if I chose not to I would be guilty of abandoning a friend in need, not murdering him. No matter how you spin it, his action would be his own responsibility, how can you justify taking it away from him?
People not in a coherent state of mind can hardly be held accountable for desperate actions. Most people who commit suicide have experienced some trauma that they are unable to cope with (murder, rape, PTSD, severe depression, etc). Finding blame can be difficult in such situations, should we blame the person, or the trauma, or the cause of the trauma (take a suicide from a rape victim for example). It’s never as black and white as you seem to believe it is. Sure there are rare instances where a person commits suicide and is entirely level headed (lie insurance fraud for example), but those people usually do not exhibit behavior out of the ordinary and there is nothing you would have been able to do anyways, but these are rare instances.
And based on most of what you have written, I don’t see how your faith would differentiate between sins (i.e. sins are sins, no matter how small or great) making “abandoning a friend in need” and “murder” almost synonymous in the eyes of the Lord. So we are once again back at square one.
Finally done with the last part! Hope you find some of this as interesting as I have found your responses to be also. Thank you for your posts, and hopefully if nothing else, we understand each other better.
NaruTayu forever
06-12-2008, 12:13 PM
DISCLAIMER: I do not claim to be the supreme authority on Vaisnavism. These I answers I give are based on my current knowledge.
If not the Big Bang...
It is a fact that based on the color shift of extraterrestrial bodies, we can extrapolate that all deep space objects are traversing away from a single area of space. The most logical explanation for why has became known as the Big Bang, but this is only "the most logical explanation based on current scientific knowledge", and we know that science evolves with the advent of new information. Religion can make no such claims, and maintains traditions that are not always concurrent with science. So, if not something similar to the Big Bang, what is the religious explanation for all galaxies and other extraterrestrial bodies traversing away from a single point in space?
I agree with the Big Bang because of the scientific proof for it. But you have to ask your self what came before the singularity if anything, and if that was the only one.There was something called the Hiranyagarbha or "Golden Womb" a point of light that issued forth from Lord Visnu and rested on top of the lotus that grew from His navel. That point of light became Lord Bramha, creator of the material planets and it expanded into the material universes (another version of this story that explains better prob exists). I need to do a little reasearch on the big crunch and oscilating universe before I formulate an opinion.
Religion without religious notions...
So let us for one moment remove all the things from religion that serve no tangible purpose. Creation would be the first to remove. The second to go would be salvation. Since eternal life is generally either granted (grace) or asked for (born again) and rarely earned, plus the benefits of which are not evidenced until after death, let us dismiss it for a moment. What now are we left with? Morality? Are we so self diluted and inept that one would honestly believe that we cannot realize pain and suffering are products of negative sentiments without religion? People like Bill Mahar, Richard Feynman, Richard Dawkins and countless other outspoken Athiests suffer constant death threats from different religious sects, a vast majority coming from Christians, is that the type of morality religion represents? Obviously since nearly all systematized societies have a proverbial “code of morality” we cannot assume that any single religious entity has been the sole cause of moral standards. What then is left? I must conclude Stories. But most of these stories merely present some form of moral dilemma and satisfies the quandary using the perspective and beliefs of said dogma, and since we have already removed morality as a religiously exclusive dynamic. What now is left? Without these things there is no purpose in religion, so how can I not conclude that religion is inherently a system of control. Am I not forced to accept that it uses promises such as salvation and riches to promote dedication, which incurs debts that never need to be satisfied, because people believe those promises will be fulfilled upon death? Would that not be a notion bred by fear of the unknown?
There are several types of salvation:
1) The indvidual soul (atman) merging into the World Soul (Paramataman)
2) Assuming the 4-armed form of the Lord
3) Living on the same planet as the Lord
4) Never being far from the Lord
However, a true Vaisnava never asks for salvation, even though he receives it. For him Bhu-mandala (Earth), Naraka (hells, more like purgatory), and Swarga (planets of the demigods) are all like Vaikuntha (the abode of the Lord). Because wherever the Lord is (and He is everywhere) is paradise. He is just as happy spreading the message of the lord. He only asks for the blessing to find a guru to serve and serve faithfully and love the Lord. So wherein lies the problem of salvation?
What religion claims....
Why do people believe in free will and then contradict that belief implying that God can intercede into our lives? People claim that God can intervene based on certain criteria, that “we must allow him to work through us”, or that “we are compelled through his power”, or “by influence of an interceder [e.g. Holy Spirit]”, or because “a spiritual guardian [e.g. Angel] protects his followers”, but one must dismiss the belief of free will to accept any of these notions.
The Lord is kind and generous. We are not meant to eat meat, rather fruits and vegtables and milk goods. If we want to eat meat and flesh than he gives us facility to do so:
"You wanted to eat meat and flesh, why are you maintaining slaughterhouses, here take these fangs and claws, now take the body of a tiger and eat."
Versus the real world...
The concept of an interventionist God is inherently disproved by life, unless you are egotistical enough to believe that God had the willingness to manipulate the world around you to some fateful cause (girl of your dreams, admittance to an esteemed or accredited institution, surviving a situation with a high probability of death, avoiding a situation of great personal difficulty, inheritance, etc etc) and at the same time allow innocent people to die tragic and horrible deaths (JonBenet Ramsey, Haley Jordan Bobrowsky, the list is endless). How does the survival of one child through such a horrible situation somehow dismiss thousands of other cases where the children were not so lucky? People are so quick to attribute such rare instances as miracles, when a true miracle would be the survival of all innocent children in similar circumstances, not just a select few. Since God does not save all children whom pray to him for protection, we must conclude that a) Those children not saved have inherently less value b) Those children who were saved have some greater purpose in life c) God played no part in the saving of any of them, the people who spent countless hours toiling over clues, searching woods, talking with witnesses and other laborious tasks are ultimately the ones who saved them. Since no one would likely claim that one child has more or less value then another child, we can easily dismiss a. Since many of the children who did survive such experiences ended up committing suicide ( http://www.suicide.org/rape-and-suicide.html ) because they were unable to cope with their experiences, we must conclude that b is not true. Are we not forced to conclude that the answer is option c? Naturally there are believers who would attempt to rationalize a religious answer, but the truth is only that these situations do occur. Attempt to rationalize them tells me that you are capable of rational though, and that the seed of doubt is in you, for that I am grateful.
I agree with you that it seems unlikely, heartless, and downright horrid that innocent childeren in African nations & around the world are dying from hunger and disease while over here we are healthy and fit. Honestly the only the explanation I can give the law of karma. If you met the girl of your dreams it's not because of God, rather because of the good deeds you performed in this & other past lives you were fated to meet her in this life *shrug* So yeah I know it's kind of hard to accept that innocent people are dying but why do you say that they are dead, do you not see their bodies? Then what is dead. Listen to this:
Na Jaayate Mriyate Vaa Kadaacin
Naayam Bhuutvaa Bhavitaa Vaa Na Bhuuyahah
Ajo Nityo Saasvato Yam Puraano
Na Hanyate Hanyamaane Sarire
-Bhagawad-Gita [2.20]
For the soul there is neither birth nor death.
Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be.
He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying, and primeval.
He is not slain when the body is slain.
And the way to become free from karma is to surrender to the Lord.
Does not compute...
If this is true, and God cannot intervene in life then the belief in a God is irrelevant, as there is no earthly consequence to believing in a God. It is nothing more than a "pascals wager", based almost exclusively on the promise of eternal life. This again affirms the notion that it is a selfish endeavor. I say that because if one is to assume that if God is all good, then they must be willing to accept that a righteous and moral person will get into heaven regardless of spiritual affiliation (or lack there of), to believe otherwise implies religious superiority which is impossible to justify if God cannot intervene.
God and His devotees are neither good nor evil although they work to save the poor souls of this world.
I agree with you that it seems unlikely, heartless, and downright horrid that innocent childeren in African nations & around the world are dying from hunger and disease while over here we are healthy and fit. Honestly the only the explanation I can give the law of karma. If you met the girl of your dreams it's not because of God, rather because of the good deeds you performed in this & other past lives you were fated to meet her in this life *shrug* So yeah I know it's kind of hard to accept that innocent people are dying but why do you say that they are dead, do you not see their bodies? Then what is dead. Listen to this:
Na Jaayate Mriyate Vaa Kadaacin
Naayam Bhuutvaa Bhavitaa Vaa Na Bhuuyahah
Ajo Nityo Saasvato Yam Puraano
Na Hanyate Hanyamaane Sarire
-Bhagawad-Gita [2.20]
For the soul there is neither birth nor death.
Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be.
He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying, and primeval.
He is not slain when the body is slain.
And the way to become free from karma is to surrender to the Lord.
Karma is even more illogical then an eternal judgement after a finite time. You can't objectively show how karma affects people in even the slightest way. Bad things happen to good people because things don't care. No amount of good karma is going to save someone from a fiery plane crash or a nuclear bomb landing in their face.
Brent
06-12-2008, 08:57 PM
Funnliy enough the altruistic tendies that the christian churc claims to sponsor are nothing but a product of the evolution that they hum loudly with their hands on their ears whenever spoken to about.
Hugiboo
06-22-2008, 09:36 PM
Finally done. Sorry I couldn't keep it to 4 parts, but I guess 5 is better than 7. Hopefully it will not grow any bigger.
Part 1 of 5
My statement was not an argument,However, if I were to let it pass then I would be affirming it as accurate when I must disagree. There is a significant difference between an unknown and something that is unknowable. The difference being that an unknown can have tangible, measurable and verifiable supporting evidence, where something that is unknowable is only supported through perceptions and conjecture. This is an important distinction.I agree that it is an important distinction, which would have been relevant if you had originally mentioned "unknowable" rather than "unknown". Do you really disagree with the principle, "sometimes one unknown is closer to the truth than another"?
I would give you my take on “the Case for Christ”, but the points I would make have already been made many times over. I recommend you look up the review and analysis of that book by Scott Bidstrup. He covers most of the same points I would, and presents them well enough that it saves me from having to type a long winded explanation.I looked up the review. You were right to not make those arguments, they really weren't worth the time (and I probably wouldn't have responded to them anyway). Arguments for the reliability of the Gospels aside, my prior knowledge of the existence of God leads me to have faith that He would ensure the accurate recording of His revelation to us. After all, what good is revelation if it gets all twisted up before it gets to someone?
First of all, the Bible is not a systematic theology.Anything that presents criteria that must be achieved before a reward can be attained is by nature systematic. You cannot have a creed (as a systematic set of beliefs) without first having something systematic to base those beliefs on.Systematic Theology: a branch of theology concerned with summarizing the doctrinal traditions of a religion (as Christianity) especially with a view to relating the traditions convincingly to the religion's present-day setting. The Bible certainly has all the pertinent information for a systematic theology, but then, that's what the word implies if it is to be a summary of the theology of the Bible.
This means that it is not set up as a series of articles of doctrine.Actually that’s exactly what it was, you have to remember that the Church existed 500 years before anything resembling the Bible came into existence, and over time the books for the Bible were presented, chosen, organized, and verified upon purpose, all with the ultimate intent of being doctrine.Do you have any evidence for this? My research indicates that the Old Testament canon was settled at about 90 A.D., and the New Testament canon was virtually settled in the early 2nd century (not long after the last book was written), and was only formally settled later on when disputes arose over it.
What is the purpose of the Bible?Based on history,...No, not based on history; based on the Bible. Let's be logical here, the purpose of the Bible is explained within the Bible, so let's not look at how it may have been used to determine its purpose. That would be like concluding that the purpose of a VCR is to provide a stable base to stack objects based on observing my VCR, when it comes with its own instruction manual that explains perfectly well what its purpose is.
The Bible is based on collections of ancient manuscripts, some collections being more complete then others (tishindorf text versus the textus receptus versus the westcott hort text). Being more or less complete doesn’t automatically mean more or less different, and so the final version as we see it should theoretically only be more similar to the original version as it was written.I'm not talking about how the modern Bible is based on manuscripts; I'm talking about how the ancient Bible is based on oral tradition plus divine revelation, with a lot of (divinely inspired) revisions and editing converting it into the Bible as we know it today (through the various manuscripts).
As I have pointed out before, and you even pointed out above, the Bible contends itself to be God-Breathed.What we were talking about was not the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which I do believe were largely dictated by God, but the stories in Genesis. Scripture is God-breathed, yes, but that does not mean it is dictated by God; only that the end result, with all the editing, compiling, etc. is the product God intended to be His spoken word to us.
Where in the Bible does it claim that scripture is useful to understand cosmology, or botany? If you are going to criticize the Bible, do so on something it affirms of itself rather than on what others affirm of it.The same can be said in reverse. Since when does science claim itself useful for understanding philosophy and religion? If you are going to attempt to use science to justify ideologies, do not be surprised when people criticize them for the parts that are disharmonious regardless of how many parts are concurrent with the sciences.Why would I be surprised? I expect and welcome criticism when I make mistakes in applying science to philosophy and religion. But I think we are getting off topic here. My comment was in regard to your criticism of certain people's literal interpretation of Genesis 1. My answer, in short, was that this is a poor interpretation of Genesis 1 that does not fit with the Bible's own identification of its purpose.
How often do you read poetry and assume every statement is figuratively? If the poem was entirely abstract then it would have no frame or reference or basis to understand its intent. Context dictates what and is not meant literally in a poem. Not everything in poem is meant literally, but not everything is meant figuratively either.You're not looking deep enough. Yes, much of what is stated in poetic form is intended literally in its poetic form; however, what is its purpose in being included in the Bible as a whole? Suppose you write a poem about why religion is foolish; then I take that poem and include it in an essay about Atheism. Someone reading my essay should recognize the intent of your poem, yet be able to see that it does not reflect my intended purpose, but that it is included for some other reason.
You have to interpret a piece of literature in the way that it was intended.To make that statement requires the assumption implies you believe you know how a piece of literature intends for you to interpret it, when that is in many cases impossible without knowing the circumstances surrounding the creation of the poem. There is a huge difference between interpreting the actual intent of a piece, interpreting what you believe is the intent of a piece, and understanding the literary devices of a piece.If you think there isn't enough evidence to determine how Genesis 1 should be interpreted, then don't criticize it based on your interpretation. If you do think there is enough evidence, this point is irrelevant to the discussion we are having.
Let’s look at your assumptions: First, the Bible is from an omniscient being; granted. Second, God is not only aware of scientific truth, but is able to explain it clearly; granted. Third, it is (or must be) God’s intention to communicate scientific truth along with His theological message; not granted. Fourth, God dictated the entire Bible, word for word; not granted. Your logic is faulty because you have no evidence for assumption three and four.No more evidence then is needed for assumptions one and two then is needed for three and four.But you have no evidence at all. The Bible at least makes the claim that God is omniscient, but nowhere does it make the claim that God intends to communicate scientific truths to us through the Bible.
The fact that the Bible tries to explain scientific notions like the composition of the universe and the mechanics behind various observations is more then enough reasoning to assume that it does occasionally try to convey some form of scientific understanding, despite the fact that it is usually incorrect in its descriptions.Can you give me one example of the Bible making scientific claims that can clearly be traced to direct revelation from God Himself?
Hence the concept of religious superiority. “My [interpretion?] is better the your interpretation”Whether or not it's religious superiority, if you interpret a verse in an obviously wrong way (i.e. if you claim that John 1:1 means that the Bible existed at the beginning of time), I will not pretend that your interpretation is as legitimate as mine. On verses that are more ambiguous and several different interpretations could be valid, I will have more patience. Generally, in those cases, you can determine the correct interpretation based on the context and other passages that are relevant to the subject in question.
Hugiboo
06-22-2008, 09:38 PM
Part 2 of 5
Other proper interpretations could be that you live in the forest, or that you live in a hut of palm fronds. In actually, the only truth you can honestly derive from your statement is that there is a house, and it is yours. Everything else is subjective in nature without a frame of reference for the context.Living in a forest or a hut of palm fronds would also qualify as having a largely green exterior. You are very right about needing the frame of reference for the context, this is why biblical hermeneutics require studying the context and other relevant passages in the Bible.
The fact that there are over 1000 denominations of Christianity alone validates the concept of more then one justifiable interpretation of a scripture. That you ask me to provide an example in the midst of this fact is insipid, but on the hope that you are living under a rock and have never heard of different denominations lets humor you and look at an example.Last I heard, it was at least 3000, but what about this fact entails that the differences were all over interpretation of Scripture? In fact, many of those denominational differences are matters of administration, location, and culture. There are many interpretation disputes, to be sure, but again a large number of these cross the line of Christian belief. Thus those holding certain beliefs are not considered Christian by the rest of us (i.e. Church of Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, International Church of Christ, Hookers for Christ, some Charismatic, Pentecostal, and United churches, and aspects of the Catholic church).
1 Timothy 2:15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.I suppose I should have been clearer and asked for an example that was relevant to an issue that is fundamental to Christian theology. You are right that this is a difficult passage to understand. This commentary (http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=10&source=1&seq=i.61.2.3) is helpful in understanding the various possible interpretations (the section on verse 15 is the last three paragraphs). This is one of those passages that, while difficult to understand, is not an issue that is fundamental to Christianity (the interpretations you suggested that would be this important are quite obviously not valid interpretations, when viewed with any kind of context).
One of your examples is impossible. One can only assume to understand Gods message, its impossible to know.Are you claiming that God is incapable of accurately communicating His message to us? An omnipotent God would not have this problem. However, I don't think you really understood what I said. I said that Biblical interpretation attempts to understand God's message, but cannot do so absolutely (i.e. absolute knowledge of it is impossible because we are human). In the same way though, we attempt to understand the natural world through science, but again we cannot do so absolutely (absolute knowledge is again impossible). You seem to have understood me to be saying that we can absolutely know divine revelation, but I'm not sure where you got that from, especially because I explicitly denied that.
There is nothing wrong with my use of the word interpretation, you say ‘faulty interpretation’ as though there was a such thing...
There is a big difference between saying that an entire verse, chapter or book is figurative, and trying to claim that a single word in a long line of literal references is not meant literally. An example would be Job 9, where God is explained to manipulate real objects to some cause, such as mountains crumbling (avalanche), black out the sky (easily caused by massive fires), cause a huge sea storm (hurricane or tsunami), and even earthquakes… yet only for the cause of the earthquakes do people attribute figurative context, despite being a common belief of the time (referring to the pillars of the earth). Why? Because, its not concurrent with science, and if you took it as a literal context along with the rest of the scripture, then it would be errant, so the only solution is to pick and choose which parts you want to take literally and which to take figuratively.
Its not about taking the whole book literally, its about not picking and choosing which parts of a verse you want to be literal and which parts you choose are figurative, because if you took it literally it would support the idea that the book was written by man, based on mans understanding of the world around him, and not the consequence of divine authority.Biblical interpretation is a little more complicated than just deciding which parts are figurative and which parts are literal. In any case, the criticisms you make about interpretation, while probably justified for some people, do not relevantly apply to me, so I will ignore that part. What I want to bring to your attention is your two contradictory developments of the concept of interpretation. On the one hand, you say that understanding the Bible depends on interpreting it, but various opposing interpretations are all valid, so it is impossible to properly understand the Bible. On the other hand, you lay out a very specific example of a "faulty interpretation" (taking one word figuratively but not the rest of the passage), which you earlier made clear does not exist. I would like you to pick one side of the argument and stick with it. Either some interpretations are better than others based on certain criteria, or all interpretations are equally uncertain.
If you choose the first position, then you agree with me that various interpretations can be judged by certain criteria to find the most likely to be true. This would explain why you believe Genesis is contrary to the Big Bang, because you believe that one interpretation (that the Bible attempts to convey a scientific truth about cosmology) is a better interpretation than the alternative. Thus your claim that "to say that Genesis is not contrary to the Big Bang requires a great deal of interpretation", really means that you think this statement requires faulty interpretation. If, on the other hand, you choose the second position, then you are unable to judge how the Bible ought to be interpreted, and cannot criticize it based on your interpretation.
On the other hand, how do you account for the fact that the Big Bang logically entails the existence of God? Let me quickly outline the argument: 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause; 2) the universe began to exist; 3) therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause (which I would further argue is God, but let’s leave it here for now).We have been over this with Uchiha Q, there is no began. Please refer to those responses for an answer to why this is a faulty argument.Or there was both space and time in a different form. We cannot simply assume there was nothing, nor can we assume it is impossible for nothing to simply come into existence because the same argument you apply to matter, energy, space and time also applies to God; if God has always just existed then so must matter, energy, space and time have always just existed.Ok, good, you disagree with my second premise; the universe began to exist. You disagree with the top scientists in the world like Stephen Hawking, and the laws of logic, which prove that the universe not having a beginning is a logical impossibility. The simplest explanation of why the universe cannot logically have an infinite past is because an actual infinite cannot exist in reality, because it leads to absurdities (look up Hilbert's Hotel). So if there were an infinite past, that would mean there could not possibly any larger amount of days in the past than there is now, yet tomorrow adds one more day to the past, so it really couldn't have been the case that today there was an infinite past.
Carrying a burden of sin is not synonymous with being inherently evil. People do not naturally default to evil actions. That’s not only a stretch, it’s a sweeping generalization.I think you are forgetting that I get my understanding from the Bible, and what is logically necessary. So it's neither a stretch nor a sweeping generalization.
As far as your own personal human experience serving as justification for such a weak generality, this is the very core and definition of perception.I did not say, my own personal experience, I said human experience, in general. I don't just look at myself, but there are millions of confirming examples that I have access to through media sources. The human experience is not conclusive though, because there is no case that could prove me wrong; i.e. no case of a person who's actions do not come from sinful motives that can be verified, and which cannot be attributed to God. I only mention human experience because of the vast number of cases where it is obvious that the motive is sinful. The authoritative source, for me, is that the Bible says we are inherently sinful.
It would seem you make equally as many assumptions about what Christians believe. Perhaps I need to remind you, you’re beliefs are a Christian minority.It seems to me more likely that a Christian would understand what Christians believe than a non-Christian. Also, I didn't claim to represent all who claim to be Christian, only those who really are; which you are correct in describing as a minority of those who claim to be Christian. I am not defending the religion of those who call themselves Christian but reject fundamental Christian doctrines.
Hugiboo
06-22-2008, 09:41 PM
Part 3 of 5
Furthermore, Romans *the book you seem to be basing much of your philosophy on* is hardly representative of the Bible as a whole.That's probably because Romans is written as a systematic explanation of basic Christian theology for the church in Rome, whom Paul had not yet met when he wrote it. As such, it is probably the best book to study for understanding of basic Christian theology. If you think it goes against the rest of the Bible, or my interpretation of it does, you should say so; otherwise I don't see your problem.
Romans 9
14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
If you read the whole chapter, it says basically that God will pretty much choose who he gives salvation to regardless of anything other then his own will, and that he has already chosen long before people where born. (reference Jacob/Esau). This seems completely against pretty much the whole Bible.Do you see that you agree that there is a right interpretation, which you have just explained? In doing so, you have gone against everything you said about interpretation earlier.
Thus why so many different denominations have such vastly different interpretations of Romans, though I suspect you believe there is only one or two interpretations to be had.When you only look at one isolated verse, there is usually several possible interpretations. Expand your view to the verses surrounding it, and some of those are excluded. Expand to the whole chapter, book, series of books, all books by that author, and then the rest of the Bible, and you are usually left with one viable interpretation. Occasionally there are more than one, but never on an issue that is fundamental to Christianity, and generally you can still determine which interpretation is most reasonable.
As far as you subsequent interpretations of various scriptures from the book of Romans, I think anyone reading them can tell for themselves that your interpretation is pretty vague and intrapersonal. Plus, I don’t think Romans speaks for the entirety of the Bible.I thought I was defending my religion, not what you think my religion ought to believe, based on how you feel about the Bible. I don't care what your view of Romans is, we are talking about Christianity here. The Christian view of Romans is that it is infallible and inerrant, just as the rest of the Bible is. If you think Romans is in conflict with the rest of the Bible, then show me; but don't just ignore it because you feel like it.
That is why I clarified in case you misunderstood, by saying that’s not what I’m saying. I’m no better than you or anyone else. We are all sinful. The only difference as far as salvation goes, is that someone else has been punished in my place for all of my sins (Jesus).No Sir, I am not trying to sell you anything… now… I just need a valid credit card number to prove you are over eighteen.How is mocking me supposed to help me understand my error? I obviously don't think what I said means that Christians are better than non-Christians. If you are not going to try to show me why you think it does mean that, don't waste my time. Reaffirming your opinion is pointless.
Bernard Orchard, Thomas L Thompson, John Hampden, William G Fever, Rolf Rendtorff, Martin North, R N Whybray, William Albright, Isreal Finkelstein, Baruch Spinoza. Bart D Ehrman, Randel Helms, Marshall Brain, Thomas Paine, John Farrell Till, Shraga Simmons, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Reginald Finley.
All dispute those “facts” in one way or another, though not necessarily all at once or all at the same time, sometimes directly, other times indirectly.I'll return the favour. Try Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, John McRay, Edwin Yamauchi, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, J. P. Moreland, Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler. Who out of your list would you say has the best case; I would like to read the best arguments possible against my views, and they are really hard to find.
1) He attracted a large following and performed observable miracles.So did Apollonius of Tyana.Good for him, did he also do #2-4?Ironically you ask that, and the answer is yes.That's pretty cool. And if he really was God, we would still hear about him today.
David Koresh claimed to be God... Jesus did not, the closest he said was “I and the Father are one”(John 10:30).First off, one can easily claim that Jesus did not do this either, just because its written that it happened doesn’t make it true (no evidence or proof). This once again makes Jesus no different then David Koresh, so if someone writes a book saying that David Koresh rose again, and someone finds it two thousand years from now and believes it then he is absolutely no different then Jesus. (horrible thought, but there is point in there somewhere)So first you use Scripture to back you up, and then when it turns out that Scripture is against you, you say it's not reliable in the first place. How convenient.
And seriously, do you honestly think memorizing more scriptures makes you a better Christian? I read it entirely, once, many years ago. I know what I read, and I know where to find what I read, anything more then this is useless for nothing other then scripture cock fighting.If by "better Christian" you mean one who better knows the Word of God and can apply it to a variety of situations, then yes I think memorizing more Scriptures does make me a better Christian than not doing so. However, you can rest easy. Most of the Scripture I quote I don't know by heart. I know generally what it says, or where to find it, and I look it up. I don't have a whole lot committed to memory.
As for the scriptures you referenced, in all actuality you “were” before Abraham as well.Right, and that was what Jesus meant, which is why the Jews tried to stone him for blasphemy. You don't think Jesus was very smart to be so horribly misinterpreted like that, do you? Funny that he didn't try to correct their misunderstanding when people repeatedly thought he was calling himself God.
Secondly, Jesus also said were all the sons and daughters of God, no different then him. This concept was heresy and he was persecuted for that claim, but he did not say that he was any more divine then anyone else, you make a mistake in assuming that he meant he was the only son, when he meant we are all sons of GodIt says right there in John 5:18, "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. " How much more explicit could he have possibly made it? What kind of evidence would you possibly accept that Jesus claimed to be God, or that the Bible claims he was God? If you're just going to ignore every verse I mention, you might as well just say, "no matter what the Bible says, I will never agree that it says Jesus is God." Then at least I will know not to waste my time.
The apostles also forgave people.On their own authority? (this would have been a good place for a biblical citation)
So in any case where a body goes missing and is never found, I should likewise conclude that the most likely cause is resurrection?In case you haven’t figured this out, all the evidence put together is what makes the argument.There in lies the problem. The only evidence to create the argument was intentionally created for that purpose.Ah, finally we have your real objection. It's not that the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusion that Jesus was who he claimed to be, it's that you think the evidence is fabricated. Why didn't you just leave it at that instead of pretending you had a problem with every bit of "fabricated evidence". It would have been much simpler. In any case, I dealt with that above, so we can end this discussion here.
So, assuming you believe the Jesus resurrection story, its only fair that you also believe the first ones I listed.How does even one of your examples compare with the above list of conditions?
And when you say “the Christian understanding” I assume you mean your understanding, as most Christians understand the definition of free (entirely unrestrained), as well as the definition of will (intent or purpose), and that the combination of those two make the definition of Free Will. So by definition, a person holding you back from crossing the street is a fair example of impeding your free will.So far you are the first person I have ever come across to hold that understanding of free will. In any case, I will remind you that I am not defending your understanding of religion, but mine. I don't care if Christianity doesn't make sense according to your definition of free will. If you truly think every religion is wrong, you should be able to show that my understanding is wrong too. (I'm just going to ignore everything from here on that relies on your version of free will - feel free to rewrite those sections in a way that actually refers to my beliefs.)
Hugiboo
06-22-2008, 09:44 PM
Part 4 of 5
You haven’t the slightest clue if Pharoah even knew of Jehovah God, much less if he was given the opportunity to come to know and understand the Jehovah God. Even on the assumption that he was presented with him at some point in his life, would you expect him to simply erase thousands of years of culture for a God he didn’t know?Whether or not he knew of God is irrelevant. God knew his heart, and apparently decided he would make the choices God wanted for the purpose of bringing Him glory. As to whether God had the responsibility to try to convince him to repent, haven't we been over this already? God does not have any obligation to give second chances.
Secondly, after the first request of Moses and Aaron, Pharoah was willing to let the Israelites go after seeing his magicians staffs being eaten by Moses’ snakeExodus 7:12-13: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said. What about these verses makes you think that Pharaoh was ready to let them go?
We can actually get insight into why in the book of Romans 9:17. God did it for no other reason then to prove his own power to the Egyptians as well as the Israelites. (of course this is my own interpretation)It actually comes from earlier than that; Paul got that statement from Exodus 9:16. However, this says nothing about God overruling Pharaoh's free will, only that God raised him up (to the position and situation he found himself), because He knew that Pharaoh would respond the way he did, and He wanted this to happen so that He would be glorified (i.e. it would lead more people to God).
Interesting that earlier you asked me if I would not murder because it is inherently wrong, or only because I don’t want to suffer consequences. God has no fear of consequences so by that basis can we say that his murdering the firstborn of the Egyptians is condonable?That was your criteria, not mine. My criteria for what is right and wrong, is whatever God decides is right and wrong. By this criteria, you cannot call God's acts of killing "murder" (i.e. there is nothing wrong with it).
You have no basis for judging Him.I have the Bible.Which you don't accept, and which by nature cannot condemn anything that God does.
But if you do agree that there is a universal standard of right and wrong, where did it come from and by whose authority is it binding? The only possible answer is that it comes from God, as He is by definition the source of goodness. But if God is the source of morality, how dare you judge Him?Pain, Guilt and Fear are feelings that all people have, and morality is based upon the desire to minimize these feelings. This does not make morality universal, but through experience we can derive a very good average for a particular society. This average, or balance as it were, is what morals are based upon.You haven't answered my question. I asked if you believe that morality, no matter where it came from, reflects any kind of objective reality. Is it really wrong to torture babies? I don't mean, how do you feel about it?; presumably your intellect can rise above your biological inclination and judge the philosophical truth of the question, "is it objectively wrong?"
Who says hes the only one? There are countless Gods out there, you have picked one (or raised to believe in one) and dismissed all the others. Essentially you are nothing more then a selective Atheist, disbelieving in all Gods save one.Dawkins is clever, isn't he? Actually, those multitudes of gods out there are not the transcendent type. The transcendent type (the God of Monotheist religions) is by nature exclusive. There cannot be two transcendent Gods, or if there was, one would be totally irrelevant to us. I'm not a selective Atheist by disbelieving in non-transcendent gods because of a total lack of evidence, while accepting the logical necessity of a transcendent God. They are on a completely separate playing field. This is something Dawkins just doesn't seem to get.
Can the placebo effect explain how a young boy who has been clinically dead for about 4 hours can come back to life after receiving prayer? I met that boy.Hmm… do you pray to him and worship him as a God? He fits into your former description of why you place Jesus’ sacrifice and suffering above other people who have experienced similar situations.
You didn't understand anything I said about Jesus' resurrection did you? Placing Jesus' suffering above other people is not relevant to a single thing I said.
Actually, I will point out that you were not there when the boy apparently died and mysteriously came back to life. You were told a story about it and wanted to believe it so bad that you did. Unless you have a newspaper article to justify this “example” (trust me, it would have made the papers) then I am going to call bullshit, and say that wanting to believe something is true does not make it so. Seriously, This would be a story guaranteed to make headline news, possibly even national news. I searched and cant find a single reference to any such child anywhere. (though I can find instances of people being clinically dead after being chilled and drained of blood, and after surgery, refilled and successfully resuscitated)You shouldn't say things you obviously don't mean. If I had a newspaper article of this event, I can be certain you would still not accept it. You are right that I was not there when it happened. I trusted a personal testimony from a human being that I judged to be trustworthy. It could be that he made it up, but I would only think that was more likely if I first decided that miracles don't happen. By the way, it happened in Egypt approximately 12-15 years ago. Also, why would you think the media would believe it really happened?
Can it explain how a person can suddenly gain the ability to speak a foreign language fluently while sharing the gospel and not remember having spoken a foreign language? A friend of mine observed this.Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person did not know the foreign language before hand, or better yet, can you prove that it was indeed a foreign language, was there someone there who coincidently spoke that language? Was it Spanish? Once again, we have all heard stories from friends who swear on their soul that these things have happened, but just because they honestly believe what they are saying does not make it true.Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not just a brain in a vat? It was Spanish, and the person did not know the foreign language (and was not aware he was not speaking English). You only assume it didn't happen because you assume it can't happen. I only accept it because I assume it can happen. So I guess debating this further is pointless, we might as well just focus on those assumptions.
Such a person does not exist only according to your standards.And those standards are the ones I'm defending. It would make a poor defence for me to assume your worldview while defending mine.
That is an illogical argument. Just because God has no obligation to save us, doesn’t mean we have no obligation to be good to each other. Why would you think this would be so? You are treating God as an equal. He is not bound by the same law that binds us because he is the source of that law, which is our obligation to be good to each other.I could say its just as illogical to consider God as a source of morality and then exempt him from that which he is, as you are unwittingly calling him a hypocrite.Not so. God is the source of goodness, and therefore morality (which tells us what is good), but what is good for God is not necessarily good for us. A good parent knows that babies need lots of sleep and cannot handle solid food; but does that make the parent a hypocrite for not sleeping as much as the baby and eating solid food? Of course not, because we recognize the difference between the parent and the baby; and rules for the baby need not apply to the parent.
Is Jesus equal to God? Not according to John 14:28, yet you consider him a God. There is definitely an argument that can be made that we are all equal to Jesus with respect to God. Psalms 82:6, John 10:34-36, Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 3:22, I John 3:2.There are many ways of being "greater" than someone that have nothing to do with greater in essence. The Father is greater than the Son because the Father is the source of the Son's authority (John 5:19). There are also a number of instances in which Jesus claims equality with God (in essence) or it is attributed to him by the New Testament writers (John 5:18; Philippians 2:6; Romans 8:3 - Jesus is not a sinful man; and of course, John 1:1-18 - particularly "God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side").
To the argument you referred to but did not make, there is a difference between natural sonship and adoption. And in light of the above paragraph, I trust I don't have to explain why our sonship is different than Jesus'.
Hugiboo
06-22-2008, 09:46 PM
Part 5 of 5
Its not meant to be logical, its meant to illustrate that there must exist extremes to find an acceptable middle ground. Even in a world where no wars/famine/disease/murder existed, there would still be that which must be considered an atrocity, as this is used as a social frame of reference for what is acceptable versus what is atrocious.
The point was not to seek out the opportunity to help old ladies to cross the street, but that should you come upon it, avoiding the opportunity to assist an elder could be looked upon as a sign of disrespect, or as an insult. Assuming these are closer to the extremes of socially atrocious behavior.Using an example to show the absurdity of the other person's position is an example of logical reasoning, so I would hope that you were still attempting to be logical in doing this. However, as I pointed out, you failed to do this. What is perceived as sinful and what is sinful is not necessarily the same thing. However, if I come upon a similar situation to what you described, and if I decide not to offer help because of selfish reasons when I feel that I ought to help; then yes, I would be guilty of sinning.
And I have pointed out that the Father is greater by Jesus’ own words.And as I pointed out, it is entirely reasonable for the Father to be considered greater than the Son, when both are divine.
Secondly, we have scriptures of Jesus doing things that only man can do. (not just dying).I never disagreed that Jesus was a man. In fact, I believe my words were, " He was fully human, and fully God." So did God die? I would say he died insomuch as it was possible for him to die (i.e. his body ceased to function, his spirit went to hell), and he didn't die insomuch as it was impossible for him to die (i.e. being God, the punishment he endured in our place - going to hell - was not enough to keep him there, and he raised himself back to life). Confusing? You bet!
Luke 2: 52. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.As most humans are capable of doing, Jesus included. Can God do it? Only if His powers are limited in some way, as the Son's were when he was incarnated as Jesus.
What would be the point of the Devil trying to tempt a God in the desert? (Matt 4:1) Why did he pray and worship himself? (John 17) Why did people call him a man? (Mark 15:39, John 19:5), How did he have a body of flesh and bone? (Luke 24:39).[/QUOTE]I would suspect the point of tempting God in the desert would be to try to get him to sin. He did not worship himself, but the Father. People called him a man because he was one; and this is also why his body resembled that of a man. Any other questions about this?
Can you explain why you think that fails the definition of omniscience?Sure. To put it as simply as I possibly can, Being omniscient is having infinite awareness, understanding and insight, this has nothing to do with time. With an infinite number of variables available to ascertain the probability of an event occurring when you have unlimited awareness, understanding and insight, there simply would be no need to know the future. The point being that it would seem like they know the future but it is nothing more then predictability based on infinite variables, and not physically seeing a future event occur.You're assuming there are no chance events, that everything is predetermined by physical laws. You're also assuming that God exists within time, which is a view of God that is self-refuting. How can God exist within a system He created, unless He comes into that system from outside? Perhaps this is why you have a problem with the concept of God. Being outside of time altogether, and knowing everything past, present, and future as if it were all the present seems to fit the concept of omniscience to me. There doesn't seem to be anything left out that God doesn't know, which would be an indicator to me that my explanation of God fails the definition of omniscience. Plus, my explanation has the added advantage over yours of not being self-refuting.
Can you give me an example where a progression of events proves that God experiences events in succession?You men besides the whole Bible? Whether its God grieving, seeking retribution, creating the universe, causing events based on prior events, talking to people, rewarding people… everything that involves an action requires a progression of events to occur.As far as temporal human observers go, you are correct. A progression of events is required for us to be capable of observing and recording any act of God. But you have not given me even one reason to believe that God is required to exist within a temporal reality in order to cause an event in one.
Those scriptures do not prove transcendence, they reference before the world not before time, big difference there. There is also a big difference between existing always (inside of time), and existing at all times in the same moment (outside of time). You continue to make connections between entirely non-related concepts, being eternal does not mean you do not experience time. As I stated already you and me both in all essence “existed” even before the Big Bang, assuming you refer to the energy that makes us up, should I now try and claim that we are transcendent with respect to time?I do not accept your assumption that we are the energy that makes up our physical bodies, so I reject your belief that we existed before we were born. Even if I accepted that we are the energy that makes up our bodies, I would still reject your belief that we existed before the Big Bang, because that would require the existence of matter prior to its own creation. Secondly, I already explained to you that the better proof for the transcendence of God is that it is logically necessary. Third, the verses that I used describe God existing before the creation of the world, which to them was the universe. You are rejecting them on the basis that the ancient Hebrews failed to use the correct term according to 21st century science.
In a context that you will understand, God is Time. It has always existed, and all things are bound to it. Time is what created the universe, Time is what created humanity, and Time is what will ultimately destroy the universe.I think you are confused. How is time anything other than a relationship between change in matter?
People not in a coherent state of mind can hardly be held accountable for desperate actions. Most people who commit suicide have experienced some trauma that they are unable to cope with (murder, rape, PTSD, severe depression, etc). Finding blame can be difficult in such situations, should we blame the person, or the trauma, or the cause of the trauma (take a suicide from a rape victim for example). It’s never as black and white as you seem to believe it is. Sure there are rare instances where a person commits suicide and is entirely level headed (lie insurance fraud for example), but those people usually do not exhibit behavior out of the ordinary and there is nothing you would have been able to do anyways, but these are rare instances.
And based on most of what you have written, I don’t see how your faith would differentiate between sins (i.e. sins are sins, no matter how small or great) making “abandoning a friend in need” and “murder” almost synonymous in the eyes of the Lord. So we are once again back at square one.You are off topic here. Your question was, "why would I absolve God from the same moral standard that I hold myself to?" The answer is, because God is greater than you; there is no standard that you can hold God to; He holds His standard to you. If you want to convict God, you must do so by His own standard, insomuch as His own standard applies to Himself. This excludes His laws to us, but appeals instead to His character, from which those laws come. However, it is impossible for you to prove that God is in the wrong, because you do not have all the facts and He does. You would have to use an example where all the relevant facts are known, and the character of God is contrary to His reported action. This would prove that the God described is not God (and thus cast doubt on the source).
Brent
06-22-2008, 10:12 PM
Who cares about the bible, I dont need to read a book of faries to be sure that they dont exist, same with god and the bible. You should stick to the fundamental illogical reasoning that sponsors belief in the supernatural rather than get into details.
Hugiboo
06-23-2008, 12:30 AM
Who cares about the bible, I dont need to read a book of faries to be sure that they dont exist, same with god and the bible. You should stick to the fundamental illogical reasoning that sponsors belief in the supernatural rather than get into details.You're right, why should I worry about stupid things like logic and details? Oh wow, you've suddenly convinced me, the Bible is stupid and religion is all wrong! Thank you for lifting me out of my blind ignorance with the gift of your brilliant wisdom!
You're right, why should I worry about stupid things like logic and details? Oh wow, you've suddenly convinced me, the Bible is stupid and religion is all wrong! Thank you for lifting me out of my blind ignorance with the gift of your brilliant wisdom!
I agree that at the basic level both systems are based upon axioms that one has to have faith on. But when its all said and done, the set of such axioms for the scientific theory are more founded than the set of axioms of the other and also much smaller and clearer.
I do not say though that the bible is wrong in all aspects. I agree as far as saying that there should be norms for moral conduct but I disagree upon the reasons for such
NaruTayu forever
06-30-2008, 03:26 AM
Karma is even more illogical then an eternal judgement after a finite time. You can't objectively show how karma affects people in even the slightest way. Bad things happen to good people because things don't care. No amount of good karma is going to save someone from a fiery plane crash or a nuclear bomb landing in their face.
see karma generated from this life affects us though not as much as past karma. Which is why even if someone is evil and they becom rich its due to good past karma and hard work. The goal is to stop karmicc reactions which is why you have to surrender as there is no other way.
The Vaishnava (Hindu) traditions emphasize the inherent vulnerability of human beings, and also acknowledge the role of karma in causing suffering in one’s life. In Hinduism, generally speaking, each human life is conditioned by acts or deeds of a previous existence. Together these acts or deeds make up the karma that accompanies the transmigration of souls. What is unique to Vaishnava theological approach is the attainment of liberation through a total, devotional commitment to a loving relationship with God. Devotion completes what may be lacking in terms of karma and ignorance.
Wikipedia:
"Karma" literally means "deed" or "act", and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction, which Hindus believe governs all life. It is believed that only beings that can distinguish right from wrong, such as adult humans, can accumulate Karma. Animals and young children are not responsible to accumulate Karma as they are incapable of discriminating between right and wrong. However, all sentient beings can feel the effects of Karma, which are pleasure and pain.[4] Karma is not fate; humans are believed to act with free will, creating their own destinies. According to the Vedas, if an individual sows goodness, he or she will reap goodness; if one sows evil, he or she will reap evil. Karma refers to the totality of mankind's actions and their concommitant reactions in current and previous lives, all of which determine the future. However, many karmas do not have an immediate effect; some accumulate and return unexpectedly in an individual's later lives. The conquest of karma is believed to lie in intelligent action and dispassionate reaction.
Unkindness yields spoiled fruits, called paap, and good deeds bring forth sweet fruits, called punya. As one acts, so does he become: one becomes virtuous by virtuous action, and evil by evil action.[5]
There are three types of karma in Hinduism:
1) sanchita karma, the sum total of past karmas yet to be resolved;
2)prarabdha karma, that portion of sanchita karma that is to be experienced in this life; and
3)kriyamana karma, the karma that humans are currently creating, which will bear fruit in future.
Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami explains in the lexicon section of his book, Dancing with Siva, that karma literally means "deed or act" and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction which governs all life. As he explains it, karma is not fate, for man acts with free will creating his own destiny. The Vedas tell us that if we sow goodness, we will reap goodness; if we sow evil, we will reap evil. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami further notes that karma refers to the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and previous lives, all of which determine our future. The conquest of karma lies in intelligent action and dispassionate reaction. Not all karmas rebound immediately. Some accumulate and return unexpectedly in this or other births.
Madhva
Madhva, the founder of the Dvaita school, on the other hand, believes that there must be a root cause for variations in karma even if karma is accepted as having no beginning and being the cause of the problem of evil. [27] Since jivas have different kinds of karma, from good to bad, all must not have started with same type of karma from the beginning of time. Thus, Madhva concludes that the jivas are not God's creation as in the Christian doctrine, but are rather entities co-existent with Vishnu, although under His absolute control. Souls are thus dependent on Him in their pristine nature and in all transformations that they may undergo.
According to Madhva, God, although He has control, does not interfere with Man's free will; although He is omnipotent, that does not mean that He engages in extraordinary feats. Rather, God enforces a rule of law and, in accordance with the just deserts of jivas, gives them freedom to follow their own nature. Thus, God functions as the sanctioner or as the divine accountant, and accordingly jivas are free to work according to their innate nature and their accumulated karma, good and bad. Since God acts as the sanctioner, the ultimate power for everything comes from God and the jiva only utilizes that power, according to his/her innate nature. However, like Shankara's interpretation of the Brahma Sutras as mentioned earlier, Madhva, agrees that the rewards and punishments bestowed by God are regulated by Him in accordance with the good and sinful deeds performed by them, and He does so of out of His own will to keep himself firm in justice and he cannot be controlled in His actions by karma of human beings nor can He be accused of partiality or cruelty to anyone.
Swami Tapasyananda further explains the Madhva view by illustrating the doctrine with this analogy: the power in a factory comes from the powerhouse (God), but the various cogs (jivas) move in a direction in which they are set. Thus he concludes that no charge of partiality and cruelty can be brought against God. The jiva is the actor and also the enjoyer of the fruits of his/her own actions.
Madhva differed significantly from traditional Hindu beliefs, owing to his concept of eternal damnation. For example, he divides souls into three classes: one class of souls which qualify for liberation (Mukti-yogyas), another subject to eternal rebirth or eternal transmigration (Nitya-samsarins), and a third class that is eventually condemned to eternal hell or Andhatamas (Tamo-yogyas). No other Hindu philosopher or school of Hinduism holds such beliefs. In contrast, most Hindus believe in universal salvation: that all souls will eventually obtain moksha, even if it is after millions of rebirths.
Gita interpretations and role of Guru
Some interpretations of certain verses in the Bhagavad Gita[33] suggests an intermediate view, that karma is a law of cause and effect yet God can mitigate karma for His devotees. Another view holds that a Sadguru, acting on God's behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.