The Limits of Empathy!

[Gerald]

We are surrounded by people trying to make the world a better place. Peace activists bring enemies together so they can get to know one another and feel each other’s pain. School leaders try to attract a diverse set of students so each can understand what it’s like to walk in the others’ shoes. Religious and community groups try to cultivate empathy.

As Steven Pinker writes in his mind-altering new book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” we are living in the middle of an “empathy craze.” There are shelfloads of books about it: “The Age of Empathy,” “The Empathy Gap,” “The Empathic Civilization,” “Teaching Empathy.” There’s even a brain theory that we have mirror neurons in our heads that enable us to feel what’s in other people’s heads and that these neurons lead to sympathetic care and moral action.

There’s a lot of truth to all this. We do have mirror neurons in our heads. People who are empathetic are more sensitive to the perspectives and sufferings of others. They are more likely to make compassionate moral judgments.

The problem comes when we try to turn feeling into action. Empathy makes you more aware of other people’s suffering, but it’s not clear it actually motivates you to take moral action or prevents you from taking immoral action.

In the early days of the Holocaust, Nazi prison guards sometimes wept as they mowed down Jewish women and children, but they still did it. Subjects in the famous Milgram experiments felt anguish as they appeared to administer electric shocks to other research subjects, but they pressed on because some guy in a lab coat told them to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/brooks-the-limits-of-empathy.html?src=me&ref=general


Note: September 29, 2011

[Castout]

There's only 2 ideologies in this world ever, good or evil. All others are just superficial.

Each person needs to choose which to follow.

Now I'll tell you something that most people haven't realized yet many others have. We are all connected, all of us. Often many of us are already reacting to one another intention or feeling before they get expressed into words or without any sensory perception. The thing is to most people this happens subconsciously, so natural that they tend to dismiss it as nothing while it is not nothing. They didn't even realize it sort to speak.

Empathy can even mean to literally feel what other people are feeling! Simply because consciousness doesn't stand alone nor separated from one another. Consciousness is not restricted to the person and at the same time it is not a signal. Thus consciousness can be accessed beyond the restriction of distance. Empathy works the same too that one can feel other people beyond the limit of distance. One only needs to be aware of them. For example live television.

The whole things open up many questions than answers about our fundamental existing beliefs of consciousness and about the fundamental of all life. And the revelation and the consequences realized will be earth shattering and revolutionary no less.

These things have been taken notice by many scientists, mostly from the quantum science. Yet that science is merely trying to explain a phenomenon already known by others who live it. It's looking for answer to an observation albeit not a generally known fact.

As for me I dream of a world where there is no secret. A world that has no place for liars. A world which knows everybody, personally when they just have met or even when they have never met. This will certainly be a nightmare to many many people but if mankind are to survive the challenges ahead the only way is to move forward and create a whole new more advance society. A society based on the realization that everybody else is me. I call it EVOLUTION. And I believe it is inevitable. Wars may be fought to suppress it but ultimately mankind have to evolve. The path of regression is not only inferior but it will lead to total destruction of mankind. Chaos and even functional chaos cannot be expected to result in anything than impending destruction of mankind and the planet. Regression has no future. It will only buy time before evolution takes place or before destruction comes.

The limits of empathy are decisions and actions, all of which comes from desire and that comes from the human heart. If they all are coherent the limits will be a heaven in the world. The regressed cannot understand the value of good. Time and death will swallow them up in numbers. Death is mankind greatest ally. A brilliant solution to mankind fallibility.

[CaptainMattJ.]

There's only 2 ideologies in this world ever, good or evil. All others are just superficial.

Each person needs to choose which to follow.

Now I'll tell you something that most people haven't realized yet many others have. We are all connected, all of us. Often many of us are already reacting to one another intention or feeling before they get expressed into words or without any sensory perception. The thing is to most people this happens subconsciously, so natural that they tend to dismiss it as nothing while it is not nothing. They didn't even realize it sort to speak.

Empathy can even mean to literally feel what other people are feeling! Simply because consciousness doesn't stand alone nor separated from one another. Consciousness is not restricted to the person and at the same time it is not a signal. Thus consciousness can be accessed beyond the restriction of distance. Empathy works the same too that one can feel other people beyond the limit of distance. One only needs to be aware of them. For example live television.

The whole things open up many questions than answers about our fundamental existing beliefs of consciousness and about the fundamental of all life. And the revelation and the consequences realized will be earth shattering and revolutionary no less.

These things have been taken notice by many scientists, mostly from the quantum science. Yet that science is merely trying to explain a phenomenon already known by others who live it. It's looking for answer to an observation albeit not a generally known fact.

As for me I dream of a world where there is no secret. A world that has no place for liars. A world which knows everybody, personally when they just have met or even when they have never met. This will certainly be a nightmare to many many people but if mankind are to survive the challenges ahead the only way is to move forward and create a whole new more advance society. A society based on the realization that everybody else is me. I call it EVOLUTION. And I believe it is inevitable. Wars may be fought to suppress it but ultimately mankind have to evolve. The path of regression is not only inferior but it will lead to total destruction of mankind. Chaos and even functional chaos cannot be expected to result in anything than impending destruction of mankind and the planet. Regression has no future. It will only buy time before evolution takes place or before destruction comes.

The limits of empathy are decisions and actions, all of which comes from desire and that comes from the human heart. If they all are coherent the limits will be a heaven in the world. The regressed cannot understand the value of good. Time and death will swallow them up in numbers. Death is mankind greatest ally. A brilliant solution to mankind fallibility.
mankind is, and always will be falliable and broken.

we simply cant evolve in such ways as to develop a more neurological connection with one another.

you want to see the good in people, and the ideal behaviors of people, but as terrible as it is, people are never going to resolve these problems.

There will always be killing. there will always be violence, rebellion, greed, lies, adultery, ect. peace activists are wasting their breath, even though their cause is just, because the only thing that could make us put down our arms is something that will threaten us all. something like an asteroid. And if we survive it? A termporary peace would ensue as long as possible, but eventually there will be more violence.

And lies and greed by those few ruling the many, not to mention the lies and adultery that ensue in the average person's life.

sucks to come to such a realization. it just sucks.

But, this is what we live with. we must deal with it. We must make the best out of the situation, and strive to find the few people who your can pour you love, trust, and kindness into.

[Castout]

mankind is, and always will be falliable and broken.

we simply cant evolve in such ways as to develop a more neurological connection with one another.

you want to see the good in people, and the ideal behaviors of people, but as terrible as it is, people are never going to resolve these problems.

There will always be killing. there will always be violence, rebellion, greed, lies, adultery, ect. peace activists are wasting their breath, even though their cause is just, because the only thing that could make us put down our arms is something that will threaten us all. something like an asteroid. And if we survive it? A termporary peace would ensue as long as possible, but eventually there will be more violence.

And lies and greed by those few ruling the many, not to mention the lies and adultery that ensue in the average person's life.

sucks to come to such a realization. it just sucks.

But, this is what we live with. we must deal with it. We must make the best out of the situation, and strive to find the few people who your can pour you love, trust, and kindness into.

Well I didn't mean neurological connection at all. I mean non physical non biological connection. Aha, something new to you.

True that men are fallible, foolishly selfish and whose foolishness knows no bounds.

I believe mankind has the capacity to be good. It's just that mankind has seldom been put under the circumstances to choose. A long drawn out crisis or emergency situation would force people to choose and live to see their consequences. All I'm saying enlightenment often comes after a period of darkness and evil. Without the persecution of evil people will be grey, undecided and in doubts. Once people realize the true nature between good and evil they will realize they have to make a stand.
It's like people who are aware of evil spirits are more likely to be drawn to seek God. Without knowledge of the unseen and or evil people will assume there's no God.

[heartc]

Once people realize the true nature between good and evil they will realize they have to make a stand.
It's like people who are aware of evil spirits are more likely to be drawn to seek God. Without knowledge of the unseen and or evil people will assume there's no God.

Which God? From previous entries I will assume you are referring to the Abrahamic God in the Christian flavor. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming further that this God

- created ALL things
- knows all things in advance

why did he create Satan?

[Castout]

Which God? From previous entries I will assume you are referring to the Abrahamic God in the Christian flavor. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming further that this God

- created ALL things
- knows all things in advance

why did he create Satan?

One true God, the God of all, the creator of all and every realm. The living Lord God who I have seen (albeit its glory) and who answered my prayers and showed me the true nature of death and more.

The thing is for every creature they are endowed with free will. I have never seen satan(unless evil spirit counts as satan or devil which is not) but it is said it was an Angel before his fall from grace.

You see satan decided to be satan on his own will. The same with people who choose evil than good. The created sufferings caused are not God's fault. They are the direct result of man's actions and decisions. If God can be faulted then He is not holy and if He is not holy all things will not submit to His will, but all things submit as I have witnessed.

I believe God doesn't know things in advance. God knows everything before everything even began in the beginning. The end is known even before it started. But that's my expression of faith alone. In practice it is seen as if God knew things in advance indeed. That is an expression of my experience.

[sidslotm]

why did he create Satan?


Satan actually lived in Heaven as head of all music, because he fell into the trap of pride before God, he could no longer stand in Gods Presence and had to leave. (Unofficial version) :DL


Hmm another atheist who hates anything God


No man can be an Atheist merely by wishing it so: Napoleon

[MH]

He played the devil note....

[Platapus]

There's only 2 ideologies in this world ever, good or evil.

As soon as you come up with a universal unbiased definition of these terms, I hope you will share it with the rest of the world.

[heartc]

One true God, the God of all, the creator of all and every realm. The living Lord God who I have seen (albeit its glory) and who answered my prayers and showed me the true nature of death and more.

So, is it the Abrahamic God described in the Bible? Did you see him literally, and if not, what do you mean by "I have seen him"?
How do you know he answered your prayers? Why, when he answered your prayer, didn't he answer the prayer of a Christian child in some part of Africa who starved to death? Does he only answer prayers where the solution of the problem can come about by natural means, or does he employ super-natural means to answer prayer?
If the former, how do you know he did it, and can you explain why he is limiting himself in such a way nowadays, assuming that the many supernatural wonders told in the Bible were factual.
If the later, can you please document the case and answer the question why he doesn't regrow the legs of amputees and why there is not something like mana falling from the sky on the Christian communities in Africa.

The thing is for every creature they are endowed with free will. I have never seen satan(unless evil spirit counts as satan or devil which is not) but it is said it was an Angel before his fall from grace.

You see satan decided to be satan on his own will. The same with people who choose evil than good. The created sufferings caused are not God's fault. They are the direct result of man's actions and decisions. If God can be faulted then He is not holy and if He is not holy all things will not submit to His will, but all things submit as I have witnessed.Define good and evil. Is a "good" deed good because God likes it, or does God like good deeds because they are good?

According to the Bible, God ordered the Israelites multiple times to ransack, pillage and loot neighbouring cities and to leave no living thing therein alive (genocide). On other occasions, he ordered them to kill everybody except for the virgin girls, which instead should be taken by the men. On yet other occasions, he hardened the heart of someone so that this person was unable to do good and / or unable to see. A prominent example for this is of course the Pharao in the Book of Exodus. According to God's own words, he hardened the heart of the Pharao, preventing him from letting the Israelites go, so that he could conduct a demonstration of his glory by unleashing a number of plagues on the Egyptians, culminating in the wholesale slaughter of every single firstborn in all of Egypt, human and animal, by the angel of God, and only then lead the Israelites out of Egypt.
God also demanded the death penalty for gays and for rebellious teenagers, among others.

Are these good and just actions? You said "The created sufferings caused are not God's fault. They are the direct result of man's actions and decisions". While the second sentence is somewhat plausible - although it leaves out the huge agent of random chance and natural processes - explain to me how the first sentence is intelligible when the last thing a child sees is its parents being brutally murdered in front of it before being killed itself by a warrior who was commanded to do so by God. If that created suffering was not God's fault, was it the child's fault? Or rather, it wasn't a fault at all, but the command of God. As was flying two planes into the WTC, or so they say.

I believe God doesn't know things in advance. God knows everything before everything even began in the beginning. The end is known even before it started. But that's my expression of faith alone. In practice it is seen as if God knew things in advance indeed. That is an expression of my experience.Sorry, but this is a gross contradiction. Either "God doesn't know things in advance" (which btw. is contradictory to the Bible), or "God knows everything before everything even began in the beginning."

So my question still stands. Why create Satan in the first place?
Why create the Angel you know will fail you? (When you create him and you know it, where exactly does free will of the subject chim in here? On a sidenote: Did Judas have free will? Someone had to be Judas in God's plan)? Why put the tree, and why put it in the >middle< of the garden, create sentient beings that are investigative, create an angel that will fall from you, seducing the beings into sinning, only to have your whole nicely done creation sabotaged? There's only three possible answers:

a) God is incompetent. Which shouldn't really seem too surprising considering that at one point he also destroyed all humans because they got corrupted, except for a single family, only to have his "new" mankind be corrupted again by this sneaky Satan fellow, the former angel that he himself created and who fooled him. Then on his third try, he sacrificed his son (to himself?), only he didn't really because the son was resurrected three days later - and he (both) knew it beforehand - and now in 2011, we are still here. And there is still suffering. And when you happen to be born in the wrong part of the world, with the wrong religion or flavor of religion, whose existence proves that God was somehow unable to at least get the message out in a way there could be no doubt about his word, chances are - at least according to many followers of all three Abrahamic religions, which are mutually exclusive - you're out of luck, because you're going straight to hell. And forever. Eternal suffering. But "He" loves you, and is the most high, the most merciful. Wow.
Well, not all is bad, since according to some flavors, you will only be killed by God in a fire.

b) God intended for it, which means he intended for evil. Which shouldn't really seem too surprising either considering he repeatedly ordered his followers to commit genocide in the past.

c) God is a fairytale. Maybe first imagined by primitve men when the first semi-abstract thinker looked up into the clouds and recognized what seemed like a face there, looking down on him. Down from the same place all this scary lightning and thunder comes from every other night. This guy must be angry. Last time someone yelled at me, he did it because he wanted my food. When I gave it to him, he strolled of. Let's do the same thing with this guy up there. And since he lives up there and doesn't come down to eat it, let's burn it and watch how he consumes the smoke up into his realm. And religion was born. Also: God ordered me to kill everbody, loot the village and rape the virgins. Right.

[sidslotm]

He played the devil note....


Played the blues all day long :zzz:

[MH]

Played the blues all day long :zzz:


http://dvdmedia.ign.com/dvd/image/article/746/746643/tenacious-d-the-pick-of-destiny-20061117030542290_640w.jpg

[sidslotm]

c) God is a fairytale. Maybe first imagined by primitve men when the first semi-abstract thinker looked up into the clouds and recognized what seemed like a face there, looking down on him.

Everyone finds out for themselves on the last day, that's when you judge yourself for what your are in the presence of God, no one escapes.

[MH]

You are going into this God thing again...
Believe whatever you want.
I see religious people living good happy life...they believe in god but it does not stop them from studying or contributing in positive way.
So in their view god created earth/universe...well...ok etc....
In many cases they are more moral and emphatic than secular people...
Certainly much less centered.
If you want jump to extremism to prove your points then have fun but its totally pointless.

I hate this atheist inquisition that amount to radical atheist fanaticism...

RELIGION---run to the hills...

[Gerald]

People of faith have different opinions, which is natural, and only they themselves can account for what they think is best in a given situation.

[CaptainHaplo]

Why, when he answered your prayer, didn't he answer the prayer of a Christian child in some part of Africa who starved to death? Does he only answer prayers where the solution of the problem can come about by natural means, or does he employ super-natural means to answer prayer?

First question - How do you know he didn't answer the prayer of a starving child in Africa? Do you know what the child prayed for? Perhaps not to be hungry anymore? So the Lord, in his mercy - chose to call the child Home where he or she would never suffer hunger again. A prayer answered - just not in the way you thought "it should be". As for how God answers prayer - it can be either through natural or supernatural means.

If the former, how do you know he did it, and can you explain why he is limiting himself in such a way nowadays, assuming that the many supernatural wonders told in the Bible were factual.
If the later, can you please document the case and answer the question why he doesn't regrow the legs of amputees and why there is not something like mana falling from the sky on the Christian communities in Africa.

First - your laying a logical trap. Your asking a finite human with limited knowledge to explain the infinite and all-knowing. Logically - that is impossible. There is no way a human can understand or explain the mind of the Lord.

However - your questions also make assumptions that are designed to "load" the question. How many miracles are listed in the Bible? How many people lived during those times - compared to today? Who is to say that the Lord is not performing miracles every day (like curing "incurable" cancer") just as many as before? With the population what it is - it simply doesn't "register" on your local news.....

As for why certain miracles don't happen - again your asking for an explanation of the mind of the Almighty. Still, if you choose to believe the Biblical history - there were many times when the Lord provided only to have people turn from Him. Now if you had experienced the same thing over and over - why would YOU continue to provide knowing that it will not bring the people closer to you? Why would you give knowing it would be unappreciated and taken for granted in a short time? Most people wouldn't. Your saying that you expect God to do so - even as you question who and what God is.....How can you have an expectation of something you clearly say you don't understand?

Define good and evil. Is a "good" deed good because God likes it, or does God like good deeds because they are good?

Its good because it fits with His will. The problem here is your trying to apply your limited perspective and ethical view to something much bigger than you. You see the trees, but not the forest.

According to the Bible, God ordered the Israelites multiple times to ransack, pillage and loot neighbouring cities and to leave no living thing therein alive (genocide). On other occasions, he ordered them to kill everybody except for the virgin girls, which instead should be taken by the men. On yet other occasions, he hardened the heart of someone so that this person was unable to do good and / or unable to see. A prominent example for this is of course the Pharao in the Book of Exodus. According to God's own words, he hardened the heart of the Pharao, preventing him from letting the Israelites go, so that he could conduct a demonstration of his glory by unleashing a number of plagues on the Egyptians, culminating in the wholesale slaughter of every single firstborn in all of Egypt, human and animal, by the angel of God, and only then lead the Israelites out of Egypt.

Emphasis added to specific portions.

Pharoah was given numerous opportunities to let the Israelites go. In Exodus 4, the Lord instructs Abraham to tell Pharoah what the ultimate cost of his rebellion will be if he does not let them leave. This is before any of the plagues. 6 times in Exodus did Pharoah harden his own heart and refuse - even given supernatural signs and wonders - that he was outmatched on every level. He was warned - and he chose multiple times to disobey. The Lord is not a liar - His judgement upon Egypt was as He said it would be. The Lord does not threaten - He promises. Once the line was crossed then the full gamut of His righteous anger was kindled and would be seen.

God also demanded the death penalty for gays and for rebellious teenagers, among others.

In the OT this was a demand of law upon the government. Such activity threatened the bloodline of Christ. While the individuals were free to reject salvation to come - their actions could not be allowed to toss it for everyone. Thus the law. In the NT, read Romans 1:26, 27 - since the Christ has come, the Lord allows nature to take its course and afflict the sinners with the natural outcome.

And people wonder today why AIDS (which initiall primarily afflicted gays and drug users - another group that defiles the body) has proven so hard to eradicate....

Rebellious teenagers: Context is important. Read Deuteronomy 21 - starting with verse 10. It tells a man the cost of what he can endure and must do in some cases should he choose to take a wife as spoil from a victory in battle. It lays out the costs long term. It is a warning and advisement. It is also important to realize that nowhere does it is say "teenager". Moses - who is credited with writing the Book, died at 120yrs of age. A "son" often lived with the family for most of their life - well into adult years of 40 or more. This is dealing with the rebellion of an adult son who continues to violate the Law. It is a matter of sooner or later with such a person. If the parents don't do it first, the Law will end up doing it later, after others have suffered the consequences of the rebel's insubordination.

Are these good and just actions?

Good? Depends on the perspective. From the Lord's - obviously yes. Just? Well, the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt for how long? Killed or sold as cattle? A few deaths in recompense are more than called for in the judicial view of the time - and the one espoused by God.

There's only three possible answers:

No - there are 4 possible answers.

D) The Lord, being infinite, omniscient and omnipotent just doesn't play by the rules you do, doesn't think like you do and doesn't conform to any standard us limited humans can fully comprehend.

[Gerald]

I would probably say that there is more than four options, everything depends on the person .... and there are a number of people on earth, with hindsight, so let the person's internal control what he or she thinks.

[CaptainMattJ.]

if it makes you happier, if it gives you an easier time of finding happiness, whether false or not, go for it. i have no problem with people believing in such things.

I have a problem with the idiocy that comes with such beliefs. That homosexuals should be stripped of their right to do what they want to do, to kill millions because of religion, to denounce evolution merely because your faith says that god created everything, ect. so on and so forth.

once you strip away all religious "reasoning", you simply have the naked view of hatred and persecution. People fall back on religion when bashing homosexuals, but when their contradictory and false views on the subject are seen through and broken, then they have nothing to fall back on. their obvious persecution simply because of their sexual preference is shown to all. Then they shall be the ones persecuted for being so intolerant and idiotic.

Or killing in the name of the "lord". Jews have been blamed for the wrongdoings of others for thousands of years. The immensely bloody crusades, the holocaust, all wasnt truly about religion. They simply used religion as a faux excuse for taking more and more from other people.

Oh, god wants us to kill these people because they believe something different. Why do YOU CARE. its THEIR life. If they want to be homosexuals, what right is it of yours to invade THEIR rights and persecute them for their life choice. what right is it of yours to kill people because they believe something different.

religion is terrible. Because people allow other human beings (fallible, corrupt, greedy human beings) to dictate What they should believe is nothing more than a plague on society.

Believe what you WANT to believe. dont let anyone else tell you otherwise. If you want to believe in a god, absolutely believe in that god. Dont let people dictate the confines of belief. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hinduism, ect. they are all a confined belief system that only leads to persecution and hate.

such is why I denounce religion. believe, but dont let a religious group tell you the confines of your belief.

Ridiculous stories such as the garden of eden, or god creates the world in 7 days, ect. is all just human corruption for power. id rather believe in a god who simply created the universe and let the universe run its course, than god creating man and woman and placing them into a garden of perfection, or creating the world in a single stroke of 7 days, or judging you and letting mankind bow to his all powerful greatness.

Because science has shown time and time again that mankind couldnt have been created from nothing in such a form or the world cant be created in 7 days, it has shown the fallacy of confined religions.

It seems ridiculous to me that so many people, in this age of science, could still believe some of the things produced from men that are just absurd...

[Penguin]

And people wonder today why AIDS (which initiall primarily afflicted gays and drug users - another group that defiles the body) has proven so hard to eradicate....


You forgot those god-damned people who need blood transfusions, Mr. Falwell. Guess it was god's way to punish people with weak bodies.

[Sailor Steve]

Everyone finds out for themselves on the last day, that's when you judge yourself for what your are in the presence of God, no one escapes.
No one finds out anything on the last day, because you're dead and that's it.

No, I don't believe that any more than I believe your version. My point is that I don't know, and neither do you. You believe, and you believe your belief has sense behind it, but in the long run we don't know.

[Sailor Steve]

First - your laying a logical trap. Your asking a finite human with limited knowledge to explain the infinite and all-knowing. Logically - that is impossible. There is no way a human can understand or explain the mind of the Lord.
His question wasn't a logical trap at all. Your answer assumes that there is indeed a God. You don't know this to be true, any more than the atheist actually knows it to be false. Your "logic" is based on faith, and is therefore no logic at all. It only makes sense if it's true, and we don't know that.

However - your questions also make assumptions that are designed to "load" the question. How many miracles are listed in the Bible? How many people lived during those times - compared to today? Who is to say that the Lord is not performing miracles every day (like curing "incurable" cancer") just as many as before? With the population what it is - it simply doesn't "register" on your local news.....
Unfortunately that argument still has the same problem. How many miracles are listed in the Illiad? How many times does cancer just go away for no apparent reason? The answer is that we don't know. You can ascribe it to God. That doesn't make it so. It also doesn't make it not so, but justifying it as if you know for a fact it's real also doesn't make it so. Again, you have no logic or reason to fall back on, just faith. You may be right - I don't know. But to assume you're right and use that as an arguing point is an invalid assumption, faulty logic and bad reasoning.

As for why certain miracles don't happen - again your asking for an explanation of the mind of the Almighty.
No, he's asking why one person claims to have actually seen God when the vast majority have not. Is it because the vast majority of us are evil? Possibly. Is it because the vast majority don't have enough faith, or place their faith in the wrong God? Maybe. Is it because, as you believe, that God's reasons are his own and it's not for us to know, or to question. Could be. I'm not challenging your faith, because I don't know that you're wrong. I am challenging your misuse of reason to defend what no one can see (except apparently the chosen few), and to attempt to explain what you say cannot be explained.

Still, if you choose to believe the Biblical history - there were many times when the Lord provided only to have people turn from Him. Now if you had experienced the same thing over and over - why would YOU continue to provide knowing that it will not bring the people closer to you? Why would you give knowing it would be unappreciated and taken for granted in a short time? Most people wouldn't. Your saying that you expect God to do so - even as you question who and what God is.....How can you have an expectation of something you clearly say you don't understand?[/quote]
Or it's an attempt to explain why bad things happen, and the authors didn't have any more clue that we do. Heartc doesn't have an expectation of God, he just asked why. You don't have an explanation, other than "God works in mysterious ways". That's no explanation at all.


Its good because it fits with His will. The problem here is your trying to apply your limited perspective and ethical view to something much bigger than you. You see the trees, but not the forest.
In this respect none of sees anything at all. People like me ask questions. People like you see every question as a challenge. The problem there of course is that some of the questioners really disbelieve, rather than not believe, and they really are challenging rather than questioning. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like to see some genuine evidence, and I haven't yet.

Pharoah was given numerous opportunities to let the Israelites go.
If it really happened at all. There's no evidence outside the Bible.

And people wonder today why AIDS (which initiall primarily afflicted gays and drug users - another group that defiles the body) has proven so hard to eradicate....
I would agree, but I still have to ask: Is there the slightest evidence beyond your belief that this as anything to do with God?

D) The Lord, being infinite, omniscient and omnipotent just doesn't play by the rules you do, doesn't think like you do and doesn't conform to any standard us limited humans can fully comprehend.
Or The Lord doesn't exist at all, and everything is what it is because it is. Again, I don't know that you're wrong, but you keep assuming that you're right. I suppose you have to if you want to continue believing, but you fall far off base when you criticize someone else's "logic".

[Skybird]

People do not necessarily do something good (for which they may be perceived as being empathically acting) becasue it is "good, but because it makes them feel good themselves.

And yesterday or the day before a short article caught my attentiuon in a German newspaper, an empirical study done by a German university in cooperation with a British university and Germany's biggest serious online partner agency, basing on a dataset of 200,000 entries. They say the empirical finding is overwhelming that religions do not make people feel good and more optimistic and "safe" in life, but thast people may feel like that indeed if they are in the company of other people sharing their views. And these views can be religious of this or that kind, or completely areligious. It is about the shared opinion, the similiarity of the other.

And when you see somebody jumping into the water to rescue somebody drowning - why does he do that: is it due to empathy or due to a "phobia" of seeing somebody dying, or is it because the rescuer knows the drowning person is a rich multimillionaire who can pay him a fat reward, or is the rescuer hoping to collect some good karma or some heavnly cash hat will help him to pass the gate to poaradise once he has died?

And from my experiences of having been in so many therapy training sessions when I studied psychology, and having heared so many students and psychologists and social helpers: I would claim that many who will be seen as helpful or empathic, in fact are just acting in conformity with this or that form of deamnds expected from that, namely expectations that in a way could be seen as politically correctness issues, and since they are not aware of that they fall under the rule of such demands and then obey it's dogma more or less unconditionally. After I got my diploma and worked - for free - iun several projects for some time, I quit psychology for several reasons, idealistic and pragmatic reasons - and I have my reasons why I never have wept a single tear about that decision.

Beyond that, hjaving seen some bits of the world and having the better part of my statistical life expectancy behind me, I would never ever claim again - like I did as a late teen interested in Buddhism - that man in principle is good and a "creature of light". I think you can trust and place your money on the darkness also being part of man always showing up in this way or the other, and so I only believe in some good in some people.

Everything in the world seems to be dualistic, andf the older I get, the more I realise how far the valdity of that claim indeed goes. Look up, and you define by that: down; say "good" and realise that only has a meaning when you define "bad"; construct something and see it falling apart sooner or later; what exists, will seize to exist; where nothing seems to have been, suddenly something appears; every action has reaction and what force you inflict inevitably returns.

One should be careful to deal and to think in absolutes - especially when aiming at terms like "good", "well", "social", "just" - and also this "empathy". These terms often can - and do - bring out the worst in man.

Now, should I go and collect some Dr. House quotes about the good and empathic in man...? :D

[CaptainHaplo]

His question wasn't a logical trap at all. Your answer assumes that there is indeed a God.

The question is a logical trap Steve. You can't ask for an explanation of something that doesn't exist in the context of a debate. The question itself establishes (for the sake of the discussion purpose) that the subject - in this case - God, exists.

Its one thing to say "prove God exists". Its another to say "explain God to me". The first questions the existence of the subject, the second question is based on the accepted existence of the subject.

My answer assumes there is a God based upon his question.

You can't debate why concrete ships can float if one debate team refuses to recognize that concrete exists to start with.

Unfortunately that argument still has the same problem. How many miracles are listed in the Illiad? How many times does cancer just go away for no apparent reason? The answer is that we don't know. You can ascribe it to God. That doesn't make it so. It also doesn't make it not so, but justifying it as if you know for a fact it's real also doesn't make it so.

Heartc's post specifically referenced the Bible, and thus that is the best source to answer him from. The example of miracles in the Illiad don't apply since that was not part of the debate. Were it considered a valid source of information about the Xtian Diety, then maybe it could apply. Since it is not, it doesn't. Now your right that "we don't know".

Again, you have no logic or reason to fall back on, just faith.

I know by faith - which is not tangible or provable. So I accept the point your making here. However, reason does apply. Like every other believer, I have questioned too. Reason is part of what makes faith so powerful. There is a logical, straightforward path in faith if you truly seek it. But that isn't something I can give to anyone - it must be sought after individually.

No, he's asking why one person claims to have actually seen God when the vast majority have not. Is it because the vast majority of us are evil? Possibly. Is it because the vast majority don't have enough faith, or place their faith in the wrong God? Maybe. Is it because, as you believe, that God's reasons are his own and it's not for us to know, or to question. Could be. I'm not challenging your faith, because I don't know that you're wrong. I am challenging your misuse of reason to defend what no one can see (except apparently the chosen few), and to attempt to explain what you say cannot be explained.

Now perhaps I misread what Castout said - but I think he said he has seen the GLORY of God. Now what that means to him, I can't say. I have seen the glory of God many times - but I have never seen God. But then again, some of what I would call the glory of the Almighty, others might just call a sunrise or a medically unexplained mystery. Like all else, perspective is individual.

Or it's an attempt to explain why bad things happen, and the authors didn't have any more clue that we do. Heartc doesn't have an expectation of God, he just asked why. You don't have an explanation, other than "God works in mysterious ways". That's no explanation at all.

I disagree. The question was basically "are these good and just actions" by God in reference to various raised issues. My answer was not that "God works in mysterious ways" - my answer was yes they are - because the Almighty (whose presence is, for the discussion, established by the mere question) chooses it to be. The question of "why" is then answered with the fact that God sees the forest while we see the trees. The question is about the Abrahamic God, so the attributes of that Diety as described in the source document we are using (the Bible) are fair for me to point out in relation to our own, more limited human viewpoint.

People like me ask questions. People like you see every question as a challenge. The problem there of course is that some of the questioners really disbelieve, rather than not believe, and they really are challenging rather than questioning. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like to see some genuine evidence, and I haven't yet.

I took the question as an opportunity to help make clear the issues raised. Yes, there was a tone of disbelief in the questions. Still, maybe a bit will help someone - either a believer be stronger in their faith, or a sinner come a little closer to the Lord.

As for proof - the only proof is what you experience for yourself. Otherwise you have to wait for the Tribulation. I am guessing that a really sizable portion of the world's population just disappearing without a trace is pretty good proof. Honestly, I would hope that no one has to deal with the aftermath though as a new believer, but there will be those that do.

If it really happened at all. There's no evidence outside the Bible.

Actually there is some proof, but irrefutable proof means we would have to be able to see it happen, and that isn't in the cards. However, the questions regarding the plagues specifically are from the Bible. Why is it inappropriate to answer a question based upon Scripture with other Scripture? Not sure what the problem here is.

I would agree, but I still have to ask: Is there the slightest evidence beyond your belief that this as anything to do with God?

Circumstancial evidence, yes. Direct, smoking gun evidence, no.
If you want to delve into that subject, we can.

Or The Lord doesn't exist at all, and everything is what it is because it is. Again, I don't know that you're wrong, but you keep assuming that you're right. I suppose you have to if you want to continue believing, but you fall far off base when you criticize someone else's "logic".

Herein lies the problem with that arguement: Science cannot explain what was before the big bang. It cant explain where the matter came from to have a big bang. It cant explain why - against unfathomable odds, single cell life came into being. It can't explain why, again challenging unfathomable odds, you and I can sit here as human being's on a world that works for us, able to communicate, able to appreciate the majesty of the mountains or hear the babbling of a stream. Science just can't come up with a full construct of how everything simply WORKS. The odds against it all coming together "as it is" is beyond the human mind to wrap around. Yet here we are. THAT defies logic.

So I look at an answer that makes more sense. The "chances" that there is an intelligent mind behind it all, that designed it and all the wonderful, cool interconnects - beyond what we can take in all at once (but we continue to learn and be astounded) is a lot more likely. The way the universe works is just too wondrous - too amazing - for it to have happened randomly. Everywhere you look you can see the design behind it. To look at what science knows about the universe, about the human brain, about atomic particles or gravity or thousands of other things and deny a design boggles the mind.

E=MC2 is a bit much for random chance, don't you think?

However - yes - for the sake of the discussion I "assumed" I am right, because the question is predicated on me being right about the existence of the Almighty.

[Sailor Steve]

The question is a logical trap Steve. You can't ask for an explanation of something that doesn't exist in the context of a debate. The question itself establishes (for the sake of the discussion purpose) that the subject - in this case - God, exists.
I still disagree (but of course you knew that). Of course heartc had to use the Bible, since the claim was God is good. If God ordered his subjects to murder, rape and pillage, how is that good. The answer that we cannot know the mind of God is ducking the question, not answering it. If you truly believe that to be true (and I admit that it may be), then it does answer the question for you. But to someone asking why that should be so it truly is no help, and seems evasive at best.

Its one thing to say "prove God exists". Its another to say "explain God to me". The first questions the existence of the subject, the second question is based on the accepted existence of the subject.
I could be wrong, but I don't think heartc was asking for an explanation, but challenging the assumptions of people who make claims about God, based either on personal experience or the reading of scripture.

My answer assumes there is a God based upon his question.
I can see your point in that, but I think his motive was different.

You can't debate why concrete ships can float if one debate team refuses to recognize that concrete exists to start with.
I'll leave that one alone, since it's obviously unanswerably true. But I still think it's a diversion from his intent.

Heartc's post specifically referenced the Bible, and thus that is the best source to answer him from. The example of miracles in the Illiad don't apply since that was not part of the debate. Were it considered a valid source of information about the Xtian Diety, then maybe it could apply. Since it is not, it doesn't. Now your right that "we don't know".
Your reference to miracles pointed up the fact that there are a lot more people now than there were then, and an intimation that there may be a lot of miracles now that go unnoticed. My point was that other ancient books also contain incidents of divine intervention, yet we dismiss those as "fables" and "stories", and don't even suggest that they might be real.


I know by faith - which is not tangible or provable. So I accept the point your making here. However, reason does apply. Like every other believer, I have questioned too. Reason is part of what makes faith so powerful. There is a logical, straightforward path in faith if you truly seek it. But that isn't something I can give to anyone - it must be sought after individually.
Accepted as true.


Now perhaps I misread what Castout said - but I think he said he has seen the GLORY of God. Now what that means to him, I can't say. I have seen the glory of God many times - but I have never seen God. But then again, some of what I would call the glory of the Almighty, others might just call a sunrise or a medically unexplained mystery. Like all else, perspective is individual.
Fair enough.

I disagree. The question was basically "are these good and just actions" by God in reference to various raised issues. My answer was not that "God works in mysterious ways" - my answer was yes they are - because the Almighty (whose presence is, for the discussion, established by the mere question) chooses it to be. The question of "why" is then answered with the fact that God sees the forest while we see the trees. The question is about the Abrahamic God, so the attributes of that Diety as described in the source document we are using (the Bible) are fair for me to point out in relation to our own, more limited human viewpoint.
You didn't use that exact phrase, but you did say that the answers were unknowable, which to me is similar if not the same. My point is that there are no observable answers to these questions, and in reference to the challenge concerning God's orders it was probably meant to be taken that the true question wasn't "Why would God give those orders?", but "Why would anyone claiming to be good give such orders", implying that the more likely answer is that the stories were created to justify human actions. Likewise when things go badly for the 'Chosen People' the only answer for them is "We must have done something to offend God, or else we would have won."

I took the question as an opportunity to help make clear the issues raised. Yes, there was a tone of disbelief in the questions. Still, maybe a bit will help someone - either a believer be stronger in their faith, or a sinner come a little closer to the Lord.
I can't fault that logic. If you believe, you need to help others believe.

As for proof - the only proof is what you experience for yourself. Otherwise you have to wait for the Tribulation. I am guessing that a really sizable portion of the world's population just disappearing without a trace is pretty good proof. Honestly, I would hope that no one has to deal with the aftermath though as a new believer, but there will be those that do.
That assumes that the Rapture will come before the Tribulation, which has been the subject of much debate since the days when I still believed.

However, the questions regarding the plagues specifically are from the Bible. Why is it inappropriate to answer a question based upon Scripture with other Scripture? Not sure what the problem here is.
Heartc didn't care about the plagues. He asked why God would "harden Pharoah's heart", making it impossible for him to accept God himself. And that is a question that has not been answered.

Circumstancial evidence, yes. Direct, smoking gun evidence, no.
If you want to delve into that subject, we can.
Absolutely. I really want to know. Unfortunately, circumstacial evidence can go either way. It's always subject to interpretation. Still, I'd like to see it.

Herein lies the problem with that arguement: Science cannot explain what was before the big bang. It cant explain where the matter came from to have a big bang. It cant explain why - against unfathomable odds, single cell life came into being. It can't explain why, again challenging unfathomable odds, you and I can sit here as human being's on a world that works for us, able to communicate, able to appreciate the majesty of the mountains or hear the babbling of a stream. Science just can't come up with a full construct of how everything simply WORKS. The odds against it all coming together "as it is" is beyond the human mind to wrap around. Yet here we are. THAT defies logic.[/quote]
No, science can't explain what happened before, nor can it ever give answers to the "why" questions. But that doesn't mean that the answers faith gives are the correct ones. The Deists believed that God set the wheels in motion and the natural laws we observe are the result of that. They predated Darwin but almost certainly would have accepted him. That's why in their time what we call "Science" was termed by them "Natural Philosophy". Faith and Religion can give answers, or attempt to, but can never prove whether those answers are correct or not. What came before the Big Bang? I don't know, and I suspect you don't either. "Suspect", because I could be wrong.

So I look at an answer that makes more sense.
So do we all.

The "chances" that there is an intelligent mind behind it all, that designed it and all the wonderful, cool interconnects - beyond what we can take in all at once (but we continue to learn and be astounded) is a lot more likely.
Why? Why is it more likely. It's just as likely that it just happened. There is no evidence that the order we see was put there for a reason, and an equal chance that it just is. We try to order things in our minds, and we look for reasons. The mistake that faith always makes is to try to find reasons for things which may or may not have any. This is why I faulted your logic. We may find order in things because we need to. Or the order may have been put there by a higher power. Or the order may have just happened. With no way of knowing it is bad reasoning to assume that it "must" be one thing or the other.

The way the universe works is just too wondrous - too amazing - for it to have happened randomly. Everywhere you look you can see the design behind it. To look at what science knows about the universe, about the human brain, about atomic particles or gravity or thousands of other things and deny a design boggles the mind.
Possibly because the mind is easily boggled. I only see what is, not how it got that way. I also see the possibility that we have a need to see more than is actually there.

E=MC2 is a bit much for random chance, don't you think?
Not at all. Not knowing for sure, I don't think one way or the other.

However - yes - for the sake of the discussion I "assumed" I am right, because the question is predicated on me being right about the existence of the Almighty.
Fair point, because anytime we believe in something of this nature we have to believe we're right because so much is at stake if we're not. My objection to that concept is that when we argue from the point that we're right we leave no possibility that we might be wrong. I've been wrong far too many times to think that way.

[Morts]

Herein lies the problem with that arguement: Science cannot explain what was before the big bang. It cant explain where the matter came from to have a big bang. It cant explain why - against unfathomable odds, single cell life came into being. It can't explain why, again challenging unfathomable odds, you and I can sit here as human being's on a world that works for us, able to communicate, able to appreciate the majesty of the mountains or hear the babbling of a stream. Science just can't come up with a full construct of how everything simply WORKS. The odds against it all coming together "as it is" is beyond the human mind to wrap around. Yet here we are. THAT defies logic.

Things have to turn out one way or the other, the process that resulted in us, has likely happened billions of times on other planets, and resulted in nothing.
And science cant explain everything, thats true, that is what makes it exciting, you can actually find out new things about nature, animals, the universe, whatever, whereas with the bible its laid out as is, and cant be subject to change.

[CaptainHaplo]

Steve,

Thank you for keeping this discussion on track with reason. I agree - we are all often wrong an awful lot.

I'll do the best to present my thoughts regarding the two questions that it seems are still outstanding - the issue of AIDS being more than a random happenstance, and the issue of why God would harden Pharoah's heart.

Let me deal with the biblical issue first. Since we are dealing with what is biblical history, as you said - there is no other proof they really happened. Yet if we accept the biblical version - even for discussion - then we should look at the same source for the answer. As I mentioned, chapter 4 shows that Pharoah was advised he would lose his firstborn son if he failed to let the Israelites go. When he choose 6 times to refuse, the die was cast. Basing the answer on just what the Bible states, it is clear that the repercussions were already set up ahead of time. Once the refusals kicked in - God acted to insure that the outcome was what He had promised.

To let Pharoah refuse and "get away" with it, would make God out a liar. The last plague is the fulfillment of the repercussions stated earlier. The 9th plague is important in that earlier God stated He would show His glory - by darkening the sun He was showing the power over the god of Pharoah - who was ra, the god of the sun.

God hardened Pharoah's heart for the final plagues to prove His supremacy and to fulfill the promise of Pharoah losing his firstborn if he refused the Will of God.

Now, as for the AIDS question. Homosexuality has been around for more than just a few decades. AIDS was first identified in the 1940's (first US case in 1969). History of various cultures shows us that homosexuality has been known in humanity for at least a few thousand years. HIV is a human version of SIV - monkey AIDS basically. The thing is, that virus has been around for millenia - an estimated 32000 years if you believe researchers at Tulane university.

http://tulane.edu/news/releases/pr_09162010.cfm

Allow me to quote one very important note:

The study also raises a question about the origin of HIV. If humans have been exposed to SIV-infected monkeys for thousands of years, why did the HIV epidemic only begin in the 20th century?
"Something happened in the 20th century to change this relatively benign monkey virus into something that was much more potent and could start the epidemic. We don't know what that flashpoint was, but there had to be one," Marx says.

This is in reference to the fact that mankind has been eating SIV infected monkeys for generations - and out of the blue "something" causes this virus to mutate.

Yet if you read the article, you find out something else. SIV is primarily NON-LETHAL to its host. HIV is primarily LETHAL to its host. Not only did this virus jump across species - it also changed how deadly it is. All in one fell swoop, with no identifiable reason. Then take into account how resistent this virus has proven to be against modern medicine.

Heck, some groups even swear that HIV was an engineered virus because of its unique traits. The most stubborn close comparison is cancer, though that has afflicted mankind for thousands of years and is a lot more understood and treatable (as well as curable in some cases) than HIV. Yet cancer is still more responsive overall to treatment - even though those cells have had longer to adapt.

Next look at where the HIV epidemic took root. The most affected groups were homosexuals and drug users. Their lifestyle (an expressed affront to God) exposed them to the dangers of HIV at much higher rates than those who did not commit such acts. Thus those communities were substantially more affected. This is simply an outcome that falls into line with the Romans passage I mentioned earlier.

It should be noted that HIV has progressed more and more into the heterosexual community. The fact that this spread matches the timeline in which society has become more generally accepting of homosexuality and drug usage is a rather interesting sidenote, is it not? Coincidence?

One could say that because homosexuality opens up greater health risks, its only natural that that community would be more affected. But then health sciences and studies of human sexuality in regards to health were probably not a really high priority project when Romans was written (about 50-60 AD, or 2000+ years ago), so how would the writer or writers be able to make a statement that says in essence that the homosexual community would "reap what they sow"? Coincidence again?

Like I said - circumstancial evidence - no smoking gun. However, the facts do match up rather well to the construct.

[Gerald]

Very diverse topic this....:o

[Sailor Steve]

When he choose 6 times to refuse, the die was cast. Basing the answer on just what the Bible states, it is clear that the repercussions were already set up ahead of time. Once the refusals kicked in - God acted to insure that the outcome was what He had promised.
I think that brings us back to heartc's original complaint. Pharoah didn't refuse. It says that God "hardened Pharoah's heart", which implies that Pharoah had no say in the matter. God forced Pharoah to take the path of evil, which would seem to make God out to be manipulative and petty. I realize that if we are to accept the story as true we have to come to the conclusion that God has motives we can't begin to understand, but that only increases the importance of the question. Within the context it raises concerns, and outside the context it supports the challenge that the story was created by the author to illustrate his point, and is therefore not real.

This is in reference to the fact that mankind has been eating SIV infected monkeys for generations - and out of the blue "something" causes this virus to mutate.
I've heard it suggested that someone may have decided to do something with the monkeys other than eating them. As for mutating "out of the blue", it's my understanding that viruses mutate quite often. Usually the mutations are benign, but once in a great while it turns out otherwise. We create medications to fight disease, and sometimes the disease mutates so the old meds don't work anymore.

Like I said - circumstancial evidence - no smoking gun. However, the facts do match up rather well to the construct.
Yes they do, but the construct itself hinges once again upon accepting the existence of God. Everything you say could be true, but only if studied within that pre-determined context. And a pre-determined context is, to me, the bane of reason and learning.

[heartc]

Thank you for your response, CaptainHaplo. Though I will submit that it is not me laying logical traps, but rather you falling for logical fallacies. And to clarify: In one of your later responses you said to SailorSteve that for the sake of argument I would assume that the God of the Bible is real. That is not quite so, or this discussion would be pointless.

It is rather like that: "You" (the believer / proponent of that) are telling me that it is so. You are making the positive claim. I'm in the neutral position initially. I look out the window, or up into the sky, and I don't see him. That doesn't prove anything either way, of course. So, I look at why you are making the claim, and one of the things you (the proponent) does is pointing to a book compiled of a number of 2000+ year old scripts from the Middle East. You also tell me that this God you are referring to is not only real, but he is a perfect and benevolent being with perfect love, perfect justice, that we all should strive for him, and indeed, must strive for him or at the end of our days, we will not only die, but after that end up in a terrible place for all eternity, because he has a certain ruleset and if you didn't obey it you are doomed. These are all bold claims and since when I look out the window I see nothing indicating this specific figure with these specific properties, I then decide to take a look at the book you are referring to and are basing your claims on.

What you then did for the most part of your response, was that whenever I pointed out logical inconsistencies, or evidence for actions that are not only not lovely, and not just, but appalling in the highest degree to any sentient moral and emphatic being, your response was that there is mistake on my part to approach your claims with logic, since the figure, by its nature, cannot be understood by logic. There are a number of severe problems with that response though:

- You yourself are applying attributes to the figure like love and justice. These are concepts that are known and knowable to man. So when man looks at the book and points out the many instances therein that are in gross violations of these concepts - like ordering the slaughter of baby childs and raping of women - you say that these are not violations of the concepts of love and justice, but instead God's concept of love and justice is beyond human comprehension. So, what you are basicly doing there is completely remove any meaning from the words love and justice. When a sign of love and / or justice can at the same time mean giving food to someone and ordering the raping of women or slaughter of children, then "love" and / or "justice" do not have any consistent properties by which they could be described, thus these words become completely meaningless.
But, tracking our steps back to the initial position, remember that it was *you* (the proponent) who decribed your God to have these properties / characteristics. So, you either stand by the terms love and justice as concepts where certain outcomes must and must not follow, or you didn't describe your God AT ALL. Which begs the question of: If you didn't describe him at all, what are you talking about in the first place? If your God cannot be subject to logic, then there is no possible way for man to talk about him and the discussion must end instantly, or actually, cannot even begin.
If he is not subject to logic, we could as well discuss "Red triangles in my head above the sand, but brighter, together with the pink unicorn, are slow, but fast, and will judge you at the end of days." Which also begs the question, why do you apply logic to EVERYTHING else in your life, but when it comes to your GOD, you totally surrender logic. Which then begs the question, why would God, *now* assuming that he exists, present himself in such a way as to be not understandable by logic, which must lead to many humans, who are surviving in their world by applying logic everyday, to not be able to believe in him and thus be lost and damned in eternal hellfire ultimately? Is that, too, a question that is not applicable? Do you need to disable your brain, that God gave you, and become "retarded" to be saved? This is not meant as an offense, but instead it is exactly what must follow if God is exempt from logical inquiery.

- Your response is a severe case of circular reasoning, or rather, a non sequitur. You are saying: "There is a God, he has a book, which is either his divine word and / or the records of him revealing himself to man, and he has properties X, Y and Z, and you should worship him because he is real". When I say: "Actions x, y and z described in his book are in contradiction to properties X, Y and Z, so who is he again (what are his properties again), so whom should I worship and why?" You say: "Don't ask questions, silly, just do it. You not understanding him with your "human" logic is proof that he is real, and God." Taken further, you could as well say: "You not seeing him is proof that he exists." Do you apply that reasoning to anything else in your life? Probably not, because you recognize it as a logical fallacy. Except when it comes to your God. Because he is beyond logic. But so is the Pink Unicorn. Why do you not worship it? Because it doesn't have a book? Suppose it had one, would you worship it? Why do you worship the desert God of an Iron Age Middle Eastern tribal nation of goat herders, who - if the Bible is historically correct - commited gross attrocities on neighbouring tribes, justifying them by reference to him, instead of Vishnu or Zeus? Are you worshipping him BECAUSE he is beyond logic, or inspite of it? Would you worship Vishnu rather than the desert God if you were born in India, or Zeus if you were born in ancient Greece? What makes you assume you got "the right deity", when this deity cannot even be understood by logic??? And remember, "logic" is not just a word you can discard, it is the very means of reasoning. Without it, I would continue with saying that alkdhjbzlfkhg----------34jwghliw4zhi4lkdfsgnhgia8.

- There's another thing about this "Because he is God, us humans cannot understand his ways". There is an interesting story in the Bible in the book of Job. It exactly deals with "Making NO sense whatsoever for YOU, silly!"
From Jobs perspective, all of a sudden - out of the blue - so to say, he gets hit with a lot of very very bad things. His sons and daughters dieing, he losing all his wealth, getting severely ill, his body degenerating grossly. He doesn't understand it, because he was the most upright and God fearing man under the sun, not according to his own views, but according to God.
Yet he gets smashed. Some friends come along to talk to him. They suspect that maybe he wasn't all that good after all, and he should repent, then all will be good again. But Job insists that he was indeed perfect unto the Lord, but God smashed him anyway, but also says that's OK after all, because God is great and who knows his ways. Later, when God speaks out of the thunderstorm, he indeed confirms that Job's friends are talking out of their behind with their blame game and Job was indeed speaking rightly (so, he smashed him for no earthly discernible reason). Then he restores everything Job had before, and then some, including a new family (I wonder if Job was still a bit bothered though that God stopped at the restoring thing when it would have meant to resurrect his dead former children. Or maybe you didn't care back then and children were interchangable, cultural background and all that...).

What is quite kind of God about this story is that he lets YOU, the reader (not Job, mind you! He had to just suck it up), look behind the scenes. What infact transpired in HIS realm to cause so much grief to Job. God gives the reader THE REASON for it. Let's see what it was:

Turns out that one day, "the Sons of God" (whoever that is, theologians frequently cope out with calling them "heavenly beings" - though the Sons of God at one point in the OT also came down to earth and had sex with humans, which resulted in the tribe of giants, so whatever) walked up to God, and Satan "was also among them." The Lord asks him "Where do you come from?" Satan tells him he just returned from a roundtrip on the earth. Then the Lord asked him "Did you see my servant Job? He's the most upright of them all." If this is not a friendly conversation, and we must assume it can't be, then it means God is boasting unto Satan. And indeed, Satan responds with "Yeah, big deal. You think he is so upright unto you for nothing? You made him most rich and gave him a happy life. Take that away from him and see how it works out for you!" And the bet is on. God does exactly that. Well, actually, not he himself. He let's Satan actually do the dirty deed. But first, he forbids him to touch Job's body. So, Satan goes ahead and destroys Jobs wealth and kills his children. But Job's response to that is not that he is falling off from God, but instead he says "The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. Praise the name of the Lord!". And did not sin and did not rebel against God.
Then, some other day, again the Sons of God, with Satan among them, walk up to the Lord. Same story with the roundtrip. Then God asks: "Did you see my servant Job? He is the most... etc. and he still keeps to his piety, yet you brought me to ruin him for no reason / on no basis."
Satan says "Ha! Taking away his wealth and children wasn't enough. Touch his body and he will denounce you!" So God agrees to Satans proposal of raising the stakes in that little game and once more gives Job into the hands of Satan, this time his health.
And God wins the second round, too, since Job doesn't turn away from God.

OK. So what was happening here? God was playing what amounts to a perverted betting game with Satan, which entailed unimaginable suffering and grief to a human being on earth. THIS is all there is to it. Why would he do that? Is he doing it because he is insecure himself? If he knows the future, and in many parts of his book he says he does, he must have known that Job will not fall away from him. So if this can't be the reason, he must be doing it to spite Satan. The Satan that he himself created and that he is going to destroy at some point after the end of the world. What is the point of spiting him, especially if it entails severe human suffering? Does that mean God is bored sometimes so that he takes delight in spiting Satan from time to time, and the price for that is human suffering? Or does God indeed NOT know the future, which would severly contradict other stories in the Bible, albeit this story here would make a lot more sense if he didn't and if he isn't omniscient, and which would indeed be indicated by the initial question of "Where do you come from (Satan)?" If he doesn't know the future, he indeed did take the bet out with Satan because he was curious himself. Either way, if God is playing games with Satan that entail severe human suffering, either out of curiousity or out of spite, in a universe that HE created, where the ultimate price the human subject in the petridish might even pay when he fails the test is eternal hellfire, what does that make God? What the hell is this?

Now, think about it. What makes more sense: Is that the description of a real God, of the creator of the universe, who came up with things like e=mc^2 (actually, Einstein "came up" with it. I wonder if it turns out to be false, then you'll never hear a believer say that again...), a God of love and justice, as Christians would have you believe, a benevolent being, your personal friend, or is it rather that what we have here is a primitive story made up by simple men to explain suffering when it doesn't make sense to them, especially when they feel they did nothing wrong towards their God, of men who also had the luxury of not having to bring all of this to terms with hundreds of different other stories, even some about a man who claimed he was God himself, or his son, or both (as did many other men) and acted quite differently to the ravaging, petty, jealous, cruel and genocidal God of Old, and which would some thousand years later be compiled into a single book and still make any sense and be coherent. But this is what "Christianity" is trying to sell you. They are telling you that the reason your child / mother / husband whoever died tragically in an accident was because the invisible man in the sky is playing betting games about your soul with the devil! Oh, and btw. he also made the universe and intelligently designed DNA and what not, when he was not just busy playing poker. Give me a break, man.



First question - How do you know he didn't answer the prayer of a starving child in Africa? Do you know what the child prayed for? Perhaps not to be hungry anymore? So the Lord, in his mercy - chose to call the child Home where he or she would never suffer hunger again. A prayer answered - just not in the way you thought "it should be". As for how God answers prayer - it can be either through natural or supernatural means.

If I were to answer as an atheist, I would have to say that this is response is hideously cynical and inhuman. But since you are arguing from a certain proposition and because I made the same kind of mental acrobatics when I was a Christian, I know that it is not meant cynical at all. But it is intellectually dishonest. Actually, it's absurd and another logical fallacy. Here's why: If God would have thrown something like mana from heaven, you would have said: "See, this is proof of the Lord!" And when NOTHING
AT ALL happens and the child just DIES from HUNGER, you say "See, this is proof of the Lord! He mercifully let the child die".

Wow. You see any problem with that? Also, should we try and stop fighting hunger via charity, since God mercifully takes care of that for us by letting the people die?



However - your questions also make assumptions that are designed to "load" the question. How many miracles are listed in the Bible? How many people lived during those times - compared to today? Who is to say that the Lord is not performing miracles every day (like curing "incurable" cancer") just as many as before? With the population what it is - it simply doesn't "register" on your local news..... Cancer just disappearing is an observed medical phenomena that is not yet explained. Like when we didn't understand why the sun wasn't falling from the sky. Maybe, as we did with other things, we should go ahead and continue investigating phenomenas such as this by scientific means, so that maybe some day, we will be able to cure cancer, like we were able with many other diseases, instead of ascribing it to the Desert God because we do not currently understand it. And rest assured, if science will
ever find a cure for cancer, it will be Christians like you who will say "God gave the scientists the cure for cancer!", while today you say "It's a miracle!". You contributed nothing. And neither did the Desert God. Actually, you might have been in the way of science by probably proposing to teach the "Controversy" at centers of education, i.e. Science vs Intelligent Design, Science vs. the Magic Spells of the Desert God.

As for why certain miracles don't happen - again your asking for an explanation of the mind of the Almighty. Oh yeah, my fault, sorry. Let's just stop talking at all then. About anything. If that makes more sense.

Still, if you choose to believe the Biblical history - there were many times when the Lord provided only to have people turn from Him. Now if you had experienced the same thing over and over - why would YOU continue to provide knowing that it will not bring the people closer to you? Why would you give knowing it would be unappreciated and taken for granted in a short time? Most people wouldn't. Your saying that you expect God to do so - even as you question who and what God is.....How can you have an expectation of something you clearly say you don't understand?So, God is sulking?? Here we have the inefficient God again. Not knowing how to properly show the humans that he is the creator of all things, trying out different means and then abandoning them again when they didn't work for those pesky humans. At some point, he must have been quite convinced that it'll work, since it is what Jesus used to establish his authority for
claiming to be God. He also said that his followers will be able to do wonderous things in his name, like drink deadly poison and live, heal the sick etc.
Also, there is a number of things God, the creator of the Universe, could have done to ensure that people in 2000 years wouldn't just have to rely on a 2000 year old compiled and contradictionary book that describes fancy magic tricks by an obscure figure in the middle east, magic tricks you will find in ANY number of other religions, like walking on water, curing the sick. Here might be some suggestions:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector#p/u/35/zOfjkl-3SNE


Its good because it fits with His will. The problem here is your trying to apply your limited perspective and ethical view to something much bigger than you. You see the trees, but not the forest.

Emphasis added to specific portions.

Pharoah was given numerous opportunities to let the Israelites go. In Exodus 4, the Lord instructs Abraham to tell Pharoah what the ultimate cost of his rebellion will be if he does not let them leave. This is before any of the plagues. 6 times in Exodus did Pharoah harden his own heart and refuse - even given supernatural signs and wonders - that he was outmatched on every level. He was warned - and he chose multiple times to disobey. The Lord is not a liar - His judgement upon Egypt was as He said it would be. The Lord does not threaten - He promises. Once the line was crossed then the full gamut of His righteous anger was kindled and would be seen. No no no. You know better than that, when you are a pastor. Let's keep honest here, shall we. There was no imaginary line in the story crossed by the Pharao. You just made that up. I grant you that not after every single plague it said "The Lord hardened his heart". It sometimes says instead "His heart was hardened", which can very well mean, and probably does mean, by the Lord, if the Lord did it after the plague before or the plague thereafter. At one point it also said "The Pharao hardened his heart" -
which however does not exclude God's manipulation, especially if it was established in the very BEGINNING of the story, when God tells Moses of his PLAN, that "I (the Lord) will harden his heart, so that he will not let you go." This is pretty damn clear man. There is no imaginary line anywhere in the story that if Pharao had not crossed it, God had not "hardened his heart". You made it up to get something like reasoning into the story, to make it look like God first gave a shot across the bow, while in the
real story the Pharao and the Egyptians are nothing but a tool to God to demonstrate his power and bring exactly ten plagues upon them and the ten plague was exactly planned to be the murder of every single firstborn in all of Egypt, human and animal.

This, my friend, is a story and a picture of God primitive men would come up with, in a time where there was still at contest going on among different desert tribes and people, about who owns the land and on what authority, about MY God is bigger than YOUR God. And because that is so, you need to do mental acrobatics and invent imaginary lines that were crossed by the Pharao to make God look more humanistic in nature. The God of love and Einstein and all that. Which would fail even if there had been an imaginary line: Why the hell kill the firstborn, including baby childs, of EVERYBODY?
Btw, do you know what your Bible says about those who "change the word of God"? Repent!




In the OT this was a demand of law upon the government. Such activity threatened the bloodline of Christ. While the individuals were free to reject salvation to come - their actions could not be allowed to toss it for everyone. Thus the law. In the NT, read Romans 1:26, 27 - since the Christ has come, the Lord allows nature to take its course and afflict the sinners with the natural outcome.

And people wonder today why AIDS (which initiall primarily afflicted gays and drug users - another group that defiles the body) has proven so hard to eradicate....

Rebellious teenagers: Context is important. Read Deuteronomy 21 - starting with verse 10. It tells a man the cost of what he can endure and must do in some cases should he choose to take a wife as spoil from a victory in battle. It lays out the costs long term. It is a warning and advisement. It is also important to realize that nowhere does it is say "teenager". Moses - who is credited with writing the Book, died at 120yrs of age. A "son" often lived with the family for most of their life - well into adult years of 40 or more. This is dealing with the rebellion of an adult son who continues to violate the Law. It is a matter of sooner or later with such a person. If the parents don't do it first, the Law will end up doing it later, after others have suffered the consequences of the rebel's insubordination. OK, this is just too absurd to warrant much further comment, especially in light of all I wrote above. But since I can't hold me back:

- Why is the salvation of man by an all powerfull God dependent on who has sex with whom, so that at some point some special person can be born, who is actually God incarnate, who will take all the sin of the world upon him while being totally innocent himself, thus being the only proper (and human) sacrifice that God himself can accept (God is quite bloodthirsty even in the NT, isn't he?) so that he can forgive all the humans, which were all born with original guilt for something 2 people did at
the beginning of the world. And btw, he also designed DNA sometime before all that. Before he intelligently designed the humans to fall for sin. Who btw also have some parts in and on their body that would indicate animal ancestors, and DNA itself, just to confuse those humans into the false religion of "Evolution", I guess, so that less be saved. Hello?
Or, short version: God could only come into the world if some gay people died first. I see.

- Context is not important when someone proposes the death penalty for teenagers being stubborn. Also, the text doesn't speak of ANY age limitations. Are you making things up again? And even if it did, from which age on do you propose does stubborness warrant the death penalty?

- AIDS. Aside from what has already been pointed out to you, that AIDS does not just befall evil gays and drug users, I wouldn't try to build a case for the Desert God on that one if I were you. Totally aside from it showing another case of gross cruelty, I wonder what people like you will say when at one point in the future we might find a cure for it. It hasn't been around that long, and there were cures found for sicknesses that were around much longer. Have we then won against the Desert God, by breaking another tool of his wrath? Or did he then mercifully decide at that point that now, after millions of death, including thousands of children in Africa who were neither gay nor drug users, we may find the cure? Or should we stop looking for it so that your Desert God can go on with punishing those whicked people? I think I now understand why the Pope is against the use
of condoms.

Good? Depends on the perspective. From the Lord's - obviously yes. Just? Well, the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt for how long? Killed or sold as cattle? A few deaths in recompense are more than called for in the judicial view of the time - and the one espoused by God. Yes, it always depends on the perspective. Since I do not want to be the one to summon Godwin's Law, I leave you to decide what would be written here now if I did.
And yes, I guess a few deaths of 2 month olds etc. are more than called for. Especially if you are an all powerfull being that could have just prevented the Israelites from becoming slaves in the first place, or do any number of things INSTEAD OF KILLING, among others, baby childs. Jesus Christ, really. Also, "a few deaths" - I will leave the mathematics to you to figure out the number when it says "EVERY FIRSTBORN IN ALL OF EGYPT". And why the animals, too? Because the question of guilt didn't even matter. It was a power demonstration of a blood-thirsty and genocidal God which is in line with other actions he did either himself or ordered his people to do.



So there. This is what I can discern just from the book you told me is of the one who created the universe. We don't even have to talk about absurd claims of intelligent design or historical accuracy of the Bible, because both these things would just fly into your face, and might neither prove nor disprove the Desert God anyway, because that would depend on how literal the proponent's Christian flavor takes the Bible.







Sorry for the long post. On the upside, I guess this is all I have to say about that.

Also, these videos pretty well drive home my points, so I want to link them here:

Morality:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector#p/u/12/zXO26pObTZA

And on a more funny note:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector#p/u/33/Pt66kbYmXXk

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector#p/u/58/QecUUnLNSiY

Intelligent Design:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector#p/u/32/4_G9awnDCmg


http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector#p/u/39/wKtuk0ZpnbY

[MH]

@ALL..
I must say its real fun and interesting to read your posts when you don't get nasty.:salute:

[CaptainHaplo]

I think that brings us back to heartc's original complaint. Pharoah didn't refuse. It says that God "hardened Pharoah's heart", which implies that Pharoah had no say in the matter.

This arguement only works if you refuse to read the other verses. Yes - there are multiple times when God hardened Pharoahs heart according to the texts. But Pharoah DID refuse on his own....

Exodus 7:13 And Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

God didn't do this one.

Exodus 7:22 Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

God didn't harden his heart this time either.

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.

3rd refusal without God doing it.

Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.

Now we are up to 4 - and still this is all by free will.

Exodus 9:7 Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard, and he did not let the people go.

5 times now this guy has made his own decision to not allow the Israelites to go.

Exodus 9: 34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants.

There you have it - 6 times Pharoah decided on his own that he would sin against God.

Remember Exodus 4:22,23 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”

The very first time that Pharoah was faced with the decision of allowing the exodus or not - he refused on his own free will. This is after being told the ultimate repercussions of what would happen. If he refused, his firstborn would die. He refused. At that point the die was cast - his actions had set in motion an outcome. His refusal to submit to the Lord was the reason for the plagues. Yes, God hardened his heart for the last few plagues. But if you take the whole thing together you can see that its a cause and effect. As I said, going by the Biblical standard of God, the Lord isn't one to say "this will happen if you don't do what I say" and then take the slap in the face and not react as He stated He would.

Now I don't know the mind of God. But I would say that given the full text, had Pharoah only refused the first time and then backed off after the first plague, there may have been only the one and then his firstborn would have died. Yet he continually CHOSE to refuse the word of God, he would say he was sorry, give his ok, then rescind it. Thus the Lord punished him repeatedly.

God forced Pharoah to take the path of evil, which would seem to make God out to be manipulative and petty.
Does it? Or does it make Him a Diety of His word?

I realize that if we are to accept the story as true we have to come to the conclusion that God has motives we can't begin to understand, but that only increases the importance of the question.

Again, while I can't know the mind of God, I will point out that the actions taken - great plagues that force the hand of the most powerful ruler in the world at the time, especially when some are aimed directly at cutting down the ruler's stature (see plague 9), while accomplishing the goal of getting the Israelites free, is a pretty good show of power to reinforce the beliefs of one's people. Mere supposition, but definitely supported by Exodus 4 and onward. That is a motive that humans can understand....

Within the context it raises concerns
With it explained a bit, hopefully those concerns are remedied.

and outside the context it supports the challenge that the story was created by the author to illustrate his point, and is therefore not real.

Thats a whole other discussion and one that probably should be dealt with seperately.

I've heard it suggested that someone may have decided to do something with the monkeys other than eating them. As for mutating "out of the blue", it's my understanding that viruses mutate quite often.

Exactly - they DO mutate quite often - so why after a supposed 32000 years did this one suddenly do so instead of much earlier? As for the suggestions - yes I have heard that too but medically its alot more likely to have been contaminated blood. Even if it was the other - thats been going on in the Congo area for generations too.... (Eww!)

Usually the mutations are benign, but once in a great while it turns out otherwise. We create medications to fight disease, and sometimes the disease mutates so the old meds don't work anymore.

Yep, but its rather odd that this one continues to be one of the most resistant in human history.

Yes they do, but the construct itself hinges once again upon accepting the existence of God. Everything you say could be true, but only if studied within that pre-determined context. And a pre-determined context is, to me, the bane of reason and learning.

Well, we differ on at least part of that. I do think that "going out of the box" is necessary at times. However, the scientific method requires a hypothesis - a construct, into which you plug data to see if it fits. If the data doesn't fit, the hypothesis is flawed and you come up with another one. Taking away the construct leaves you nothing to plug the data into....

A theory has to stand or fail based on the data.

[Randomizer]

Unfortunately discussion is futile were there is dogma and religion is all about dogma.

CaptainHaplo demonstrates that he is an articulate and respectful defender of his faith but still he is steeped religious beliefs that tend to baffle those of us for whom the very idea of a god is utter nonsense.

On the other hand, non-believers dogma is generally every bit as strong but often rooted more in the empirical than the mythical. This is not necessarily "better" in any particular way nor does it follow that the lack of religious faith equates to a lack of empathy, ethics or morals.

One can be spiritual and be entirely "good" within societal norms without god or religion.

Two believer's might easily discuss how many angels might dance on the head of a pin because both believe that there are such a thing as angels and the bible is silent on angel-pin load capacity.

Two non-believer's could find common ground for discussion of human evolution for example, on scientific and archaeological grounds without invoking any cultural creation mythology at all.

A believer and an atheist trying to talk about either of the above topics would likely find their own dogmatic beliefs prevent any real acceptance for the arguments of the other. Thus dialog breaks down and consensus seldom is achieved.

This thread has been rare for the subject matter since has not really degenerated into the usual acrimonious theist vs.heathen personal attacks and hyperbole.

For those who have any God in your lives, go with Him and enjoy but don't think that you have a monopoly on morality because of it. For me any god is less real than say, Bugs Bunny, who at least taught me to appreciate classical music.

[heartc]

This arguement only works if you refuse to read the other verses. Yes - there are multiple times when God hardened Pharoahs heart according to the texts. But Pharoah DID refuse on his own....

Exodus 7:13 And Pharaoh***8217;s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

God didn't do this one.

Exodus 7:22 Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharaoh***8217;s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

God didn't harden his heart this time either.

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, ***8220;This is the finger of God.***8221; But Pharaoh***8217;s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.

3rd refusal without God doing it.

Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.

Now we are up to 4 - and still this is all by free will.

Exodus 9:7 Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard, and he did not let the people go.

5 times now this guy has made his own decision to not allow the Israelites to go.

Exodus 9: 34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants.

There you have it - 6 times Pharoah decided on his own that he would sin against God.

Remember Exodus 4:22,23 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ***8216;Thus says the LORD: ***8220;Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.***8221;***8217;***8221;

The very first time that Pharoah was faced with the decision of allowing the exodus or not - he refused on his own free will. This is after being told the ultimate repercussions of what would happen. If he refused, his firstborn would die. He refused. At that point the die was cast - his actions had set in motion an outcome. His refusal to submit to the Lord was the reason for the plagues. Yes, God hardened his heart for the last few plagues. But if you take the whole thing together you can see that its a cause and effect. As I said, going by the Biblical standard of God, the Lord isn't one to say "this will happen if you don't do what I say" and then take the slap in the face and not react as He stated He would.

Now I don't know the mind of God. But I would say that given the full text, had Pharoah only refused the first time and then backed off after the first plague, there may have been only the one and then his firstborn would have died. Yet he continually CHOSE to refuse the word of God, he would say he was sorry, give his ok, then rescind it. Thus the Lord punished him repeatedly.

As I said in my post at the bottom of the previous page (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188309&page=2), you are wrong. I mentioned that God tells of the plan well beforehand, but I didn't think it was necessary to quote it, since I thought you would not try and hold unto your imaginary line that Pharao crossed.

You are either intentionally dishonest, or you don't know your own Bible.

Seeing at which point you chose to quote the text marked in red, I'm afraid would point to the first option. Because let's look at what it says in Exodus 4, Verse 21, the verse JUST BEFORE you decided to start the quote:

--------------

21 And the LORD said to Moses, ***8220;When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ***8216;Thus says the LORD: ***8220;Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.***8221;***8217;***8221;

---------------

This was BEFORE Moses even returned to Egypt, BEFORE any of the plagues. Now, CaptainHaplo, why would you leave that out? Maybe because it clearly shows that what happened was a PLANNED DEMONSTRATION OF POWER.

And your defense here is pointless anyway, since even if God gave shots across the bow, he still murdered innocent baby children in the end as well as order the genocide on other tribes in other chapters.

edit: Somehow editing the post fupped the " or ', sorry about that.

[MH]

This was BEFORE Moses even returned to Egypt, BEFORE any of the plagues. Now, CaptainHaplo, why would you leave that out? Maybe because it clearly shows that what happened was a PLANNED DEMONSTRATION OF POWER.

And your defense here is pointless anyway, since even if God gave shots across the bow, he still murdered innocent baby children in the end as well as order the genocide on other tribes in other chapters.

Not realy....

It could be demonstration of stubborns of people on the top with absolute power who face situation like this.
In some cases it can be predicted.
you can easily find it even in modern history.
Note that the plagues had been progressive in strength...

[Skybird]

You guys can debate this as long and as respectfully as you want, what it comes down to by the end of the day, is this:
http://www.allmystery.de/dateien/,1282576793,Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg
Either you consider this ^ to be a valid option in the debate about reason versus relgion, or you don't.

If you do, then the funniest speculations and the greatest absurdities, the wildest speculations and the vaguest hear-say will claim equal status to conclusions by logic or theorems born by reasonable thought or scientific methodology. ANYTHING GOES, and all intellectual argument, all empiry, all intelligenjt reason will be compromised, forever, by just these words: "But you cannot prove that the flying spagetthi monster does not exist!"

Reaosn and relgious believing are mutually exclusive by nature. Any attempt to question this serves only one purpose: to give relgion a better name again by compromsing the standards of reason and logic, empiry and evidence. Open the can of worms just a little bit - and you already have opened it completely.

A responisble sacientiist will not claim absolute, ultimate validity or truth for a THEORY. A theory, even a paradigm, always has temporay validity only. I explained that a hundred times in past threads, it seems. It is relgions claiming to know absolute, eternal truths whose origin said religions are in themselves - and denying the need of proving these claims, never needing to question them - but accusing non-believers to be disrespectful, intolerant and claiming to know it all.

I do not know it all, and I will never claim theories have eternal valdity. But what I do know is how to differ an empirically well-founded theory from corrupted logic and merely arbitrary speculation. Offer the latter just your little finger to show how polite and understanding and open-minded you are - and see how it takes your hand, your arm, and then the rest of youself.

[heartc]

@ MH:
So you're saying that "I WILL HARDEN HIS HEART" is the same thing as "He will harden his heart out of stubborness"??

And the plagues being progressive in strength has no bearing whatsoever on whether the event was completely preplanned or not.
As a matter of fact, some fake "warning shots", all the time saying "thus speaks the Lord! Let my people go or I will..." - with an opponent who has been rendered unable to move from his position - will be an even better demonstration of power than a freak one time event. It actually makes sense from the perspective of a homicidal maniac, too.

[MH]

So you're saying that "I WILL HARDEN HIS HEART" is the same thing as "He will harden his heart out of stubborness"??

And the plagues being progressive in strength has no bearing whatsoever on weather the event was completely preplanned or not.
As a matter of fact, some fake "warning shots", all the time saying "thus speaks the Lord! Let my people go or I will..." - with an opponent who has been rendered unable to move from his position - will be an even better demonstration of power than a one time event.

stubbornness....refusal to face defeat/reality so on....
Bible is not DVD player manual...sometimes this creates lots of unwanted problems lol

Besides ....god is all knowing omnipotent and so on...
It does not mean that he wants exercise this power all the time.
People have free will therefore they are judged for their life.
Otherwise what would be the point.

[Armistead]

If one takes the bible literally, then one must assume God ordained evil.
When a being is all powerful, he must accept responsibility for his creation.
It's obvious God made creatures as failed beings, maybe that's because only God can be perfect.

God knew Satan would fall before he made him, but made him anyway, plus Satan was made with emotions of jealousy, etc. But here's the point, when Satan fell God could've destroyed him then, placed him on another planet or at least taken away his power, but he didn't, instead he placed him on the same planet with man power intact.

Some say the fall happened to allowed freewill through knowledge, but strange Adam and Eve had freewill and knowledge before the fall. They were told not to eat and chose not to until Satan came along. So now we have Satan tempting them, telling them they could be like God. Before Eve ate she saw the fruit was good, we see in her feelings of jealousy, selfishness, a complete array of bad behavior before she ate.

If Satan was so smart why didn't he tell her to eat from the tree of life first, that would've spolied God's plan or could God have later changed that and taken away that power, meaning it was never a real tree of life.

Why put a tree in the garden with Satan with your man creation to start with?

It appears to be the biggest setup for failure, God putting all the pieces in place for man to fall. The bible says when they ate they would die, but that changed later to all mankind was doomed to eternal hell just from being born.

Many believe God intended a perfect garden for perfect man, but man ruined it, so God came up with a plan B. Seems we have God always having to react to man or Satan with a plan B. If man or Satan can mess up God's perfect plans how can one assume heaven is really safe, why couldn't man or Satan mess that perfect plan up?

Many say God cannot have sin around or near him, thus he exiles sin away from him, but I thought God was in all places at all times. If eternal hell is true, wouldn't God also be in there listening to all the screams for eternity?

Myself I believe Gen. is another poetic rendering of the Hebrews explaining how they viewed the beginning, most tribes and peoples around the word had their own story. Gen. appears almost exact to many previous beginning stories that already existed before it was written in about 1500bc.

Doe's it contain truths, sure, it's possible, but taken literally a host of problems arise and conflict with christian doctrine and it seems the only way they can explain it is..."God can do what he wants."

Someone posted that God answers starving kids prayers by killing them so they don't have to be hungry anymore...wow, course they failed to mention they suffer in severe pain often for months. I did missions to Africa in the 90's, I saw 1000's of African converts to christianity that still starved, had no water, meds, shelter, etc...but in America we teach God "will meet all our needs," does this not apply to christians in poor nations that have no social programs or churches enough to care? Seems to me people today pray for God to do something so they don't have to do a thing.

Still, in the end, if you're God and you know the outcome before it happens and that the majority of your creation will be tortured toast and you create anyway....sounds more like the actions of carnal man to me, such as what Hitler would do. Myself, I love people too much and would never want 80% to suffer so a few would bow down and worship me., but I course don't believe God is like that.

[Armistead]

@ MH:
So you're saying that "I WILL HARDEN HIS HEART" is the same thing as "He will harden his heart out of stubborness"??

And the plagues being progressive in strength has no bearing whatsoever on whether the event was completely preplanned or not.
As a matter of fact, some fake "warning shots", all the time saying "thus speaks the Lord! Let my people go or I will..." - with an opponent who has been rendered unable to move from his position - will be an even better demonstration of power than a freak one time event. It actually makes sense from the perspective of a homicidal maniac, too.

Why not God just showing himself in a loving manner to all people and explain what he wants, instead of being God to just the Hebrews and using disasters to make others to change. I imagine just as God hardened hearts, he could also soften them. God could've gone directly to all the pharaohs and speak to them as he did Moses. Stange, why would God only pick one type of people to display himself.

Still, all mankind around the earth did the same thing, God was for them and against others and only they had proper access to God. To each peoples they were the "firstborn" of God, his chosen ones...I would think a loving God would simply chose all people without bias.

[heartc]

Why not God just showing himself in a loving manner to all people and explain what he wants, instead of being God to just the Hebrews and using disasters to make others to change. I imagine just as God hardened hearts, he could also soften them. God could've gone directly to all the pharaohs and speak to them as he did Moses. Stange, why would God only pick one type of people to display himself.

Still, all mankind around the earth did the same thing, God was for them and against others and only they had proper access to God. To each peoples they were the "firstborn" of God, his chosen ones...I would think a loving God would simply chose all people without bias.

Exactly.

Also: You need to watch this, it is right to the point:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector#p/u/39/wKtuk0ZpnbY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxeqEoDXco&NR=1

I posted some similar links in my posting on the bottom of page 2.

[MH]

Why not God just showing himself in a loving manner to all people and explain what he wants, instead of being God to just the Hebrews and using disasters to make others to change. I imagine just as God hardened hearts, he could also soften them. God could've gone directly to all the pharaohs and speak to them as he did Moses. Stange, why would God only pick one type of people to display himself.

Still, all mankind around the earth did the same thing, God was for them and against others and only they had proper access to God. To each peoples they were the "firstborn" of God, his chosen ones...I would think a loving God would simply chose all people without bias.

God probably is capitalist....sort of...lol
People need this dance between good and evil greed and compassion to get somewhere to progress and develop.
To appreciate what we have got.

As for Hebrews/Jews(the chosen people) the classic question is why we deserve this ****.

[Sailor Steve]

This arguement only works if you refuse to read the other verses. Yes - there are multiple times when God hardened Pharoahs heart according to the texts. But Pharoah DID refuse on his own....
But God did it at least once, and that's enough to leave the question open. On the other hand it's a matter of belief that it even happened anyway, so I'll let it go for now. That said, why does he insist on killing the son for the father's sins?

Does it? Or does it make Him a Diety of His word?
Depending on your belief, it could be taken either way, which is why I used the phrase "seems to".

With it explained a bit, hopefully those concerns are remedied.
Not really, from a technical standpoint, but from the point of view of the believer it should be enough.

Thats a whole other discussion and one that probably should be dealt with seperately.
I agree, but I will say now that that is the real point at the root of all such questionings.

Exactly - they DO mutate quite often - so why after a supposed 32000 years did this one suddenly do so instead of much earlier? As for the suggestions - yes I have heard that too but medically its alot more likely to have been contaminated blood. Even if it was the other - thats been going on in the Congo area for generations too.... (Eww!)
All true, and a good question. That said, just because we don't know why it happened now doesn't mean that there was a reason. Sometimes things just happen. Were the people killed in the explosion of Krakatoa evil and punished by God? No one that I know of has suggested that, so I'll pose the relevant parallel: Were Sodom and Gomorrah all evil and punished by God, or was the story written by someone desperately searching for answers as to why two entire cities were wiped out by some natural disaster? The answer to that question is unknown and apparently unknowable. The difference is between those who take the story verbatim and those who don't. I used to be among the former, now I number myself with the latter. People give me grief when I say "I don't know anything", but the fact is that I no longer believe that anyone has the answers to these questions.

Yep, but its rather odd that this one continues to be one of the most resistant in human history.
True, but until a definitive answer is actually known, "odd" is all it is.


Well, we differ on at least part of that. I do think that "going out of the box" is necessary at times. However, the scientific method requires a hypothesis - a construct, into which you plug data to see if it fits. If the data doesn't fit, the hypothesis is flawed and you come up with another one. Taking away the construct leaves you nothing to plug the data into....

A theory has to stand or fail based on the data.
A theory is usually proferred after some evidence points in that direction, not before. If the construct is believed beforehand, and is the basis for the theory rather than the other way around, it ceases to be science, if it ever was to start with.

[Gerald]

Many theories can be said, but no one can complain that it has been for some text commentaries, so Gott sei Dank!

[CaptainHaplo]

Work has me busy - but I have this on the radar to post at length again.

[Castout]

Many people confuse between expression of faith and knowledge.

"God hardened Pharaoh's heart" is an expression of faith. it can only be understood by people who share the faith. And that statement even stemming from faith is not necessarily baseless as the person saying it is saying it out of whatever personal knowledge he had of God.

Ultimately the person who said "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" has made the realization that God ultimately has authority over all including people's attitude. He is saying that God ultimately has everything under His control/rule.

To those people reading it especially ones without faith nor understanding of the person who said it will find it absurd and even repelling or offensive.






PS:It may even be an expression of knowledge but one which most of us never understand thus the controversy. Reading the scripture is not as simple as reading any book. often a sentence carries double meaning. What is literal and implied or the meaning evade people understanding despite the obvious to some. Many without faith will find so many writings to be weird and absurd.

A few examples,

"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full (abundant life)." - John 10:10, yet too many Christians are poor.
" I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry***8230; and never go thirsty." - John 6:35, yet Christians still go thristy
And every one that liveth and believeth in me shall not die for ever. Believest thou this? John 11:26 RHE, yet Christians die like others. Most Christians think however this means they will have an afterlife immediately. But if you read carefully it doean't mean that. (http://www.biblestudytools.com/rhe/john/11-26.html)

Complicating the understanding is there are so many different texts of the same scriptures. The Christians have mixed 'world of the dead' with hell for example. This compounds the problems of misunderstanding the scriptures....badly. And it shows that those who compiled them in so many different version of interpretations DO NOT have the knowledge of God. They were clueless.

[Skybird]

Many people confuse between expression of faith and knowledge.

"God hardened Pharaoh's heart" is an expression of faith. it can only be understood by people who share the faith. And that statement even stemming from faith is not necessarily baseless as the person saying it is saying it out of whatever personal knowledge he had of God.
And once again you mistake "belief" for "knoweldge".


Ultimately the person who said "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" has made the realization that God ultimately has authority over all including people's attitude. He is saying that God ultimately has everything under His control/rule.
You know call believing "realization". That is deceptive, but still no "knowing", but "believing" (as long as we do not assume the person in question was mentally ill - schizophrenia for example - and heared voices in his head).


To those people reading it especially ones without faith nor understanding of the person who said it will find it absurd and even repelling or offensive.
The only offensive thing here is that it offends the intellect to mistake believing for knowing.


PS:It may even be an expression of knowledge but one which most of us never understand thus the controversy. Reading the scripture is not as simple as reading any book. often a sentence carries double meaning. What is literal and implied or the meaning evade people understanding despite the obvious to some. Many without faith will find so many writings to be weird and absurd.
There once was a man who believed he could fly. He was so certain and beyond any doubt about his ability to fly, that he claimed he really knew indeed that he could fly, and his knowledge was strong and confident. One day he climbed on a tower, moved his arms and jumped down. Before he impacted on the ground and died, he all of a sudden realised the difference between knowing and believing, and for a second he indeed knew something for sure: he knew that he could not fly.

[Castout]

And once again you mistake "belief" for "knoweldge".


You know call believing "realization". That is deceptive, but still no "knowing", but "believing" (as long as we do not assume the person in question was mentally ill - schizophrenia for example - and heared voices in his head).


The only offensive thing here is that it offends the intellect to mistake believing for knowing.


There once was a man who believed he could fly. He was so certain and beyond any doubt about his ability to fly, that he claimed he really knew indeed that he could fly, and his knowledge was strong and confident. One day he climbed on a tower, moved his arms and jumped down. Before he impacted on the ground and died, he all of a sudden realised the difference between knowing and believing, and for a second he indeed knew something for sure: he knew that he could not fly.

Umm no I'm not mistaken.

You are unwilling to understand and or unable at the same time.

I never claim I know everything. Yet I know some of the things.

I'm only aware that people like you can never understand and I begin to accept it. So thus I shall not waste my words.

I know and I'm not mistaking believing with knowing.

I just want to say that the proof of God is the consistency and the truth of what is said about Him on the scripture, whether you knew it in advance or NOT. But each person must make the journey of stepping into the knowing from the believing.

And to Skybird
There once was a man who believed he could fly. He was so certain and beyond any doubt about his ability to fly, that he claimed he really knew indeed that he could fly, and his knowledge was strong and confident. One day he climbed on a tower, moved his arms and jumped down. Before he impacted on the ground and died, he all of a sudden realised the difference between knowing and believing, and for a second he indeed knew something for sure: he knew that he could not fly.

[Skybird]

Umm no I'm not mistaken.

You are unwilling to understand and or unable at the same time.

I never claim I know everything. Yet I know some of the things.

I'm only aware that people like you can never understand and I begin to accept it. So thus I shall not waste my words.

I know and I'm not mistaking believing with knowing.



Yeah. Sure.

[Castout]

Yeah. Sure.

Yeah sure on your yeah sure.

You know you know something from experience of course provided that the experience is real. If the experience was useful and able to be used it proves to be real.

if the experience wasn't useful or untrue or cannot be used then the experience must not be real.

Tod learns that he could go to school faster each day if he walked through a shortcut. He arrives quicker to school if he uses the shortcut so he knows that what he learned is true. Had the shortcut made him to arrive longer consistently than he used to then we must say the shortcut knowledge is a false knowledge or merely his belief and that would be a false belief.

[Skybird]

If only you would do like Tod and walk that path yourself. But you don't. You imagine in your fantasy how you walk a path you do not know and just imagtine to be there, and you listen to that voice inside your head that tells you that it is shorter. And this imagination, this fiction of yours you then claim to be your experience and knowledge. It's like a dog chasing its tail like crazy, but getting nowhere.

However. As I see it, you are always in midflight down that tower, and whether your learn before you hit the ground or not, does not really effect me in any way. ;)

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/6802/breakthecycle.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/571/breakthecycle.jpg/)

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4904/sciencevsfaith.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/sciencevsfaith.png/)

[Tribesman]

You know you know something from experience of course provided that the experience is real.
Yeah, you have written that god speaks to you and you can actually see peoples souls, yet you wrote commending a very sick twisted multiple murderer as a decent person.
Experience would suggest you are away with the fairies

[sidslotm]

The word of God (Bible) is a Spirit filled message for simple people to understand basic truth ( ie the prodical son). The Bible was not written for the educated or powerfull leaders, the truth has been hidden from them, what they have is what you read here, explanation.

It was and is the powerfull and educated elite who grabbed the word and used it for themselves to control the poor and its been that way ever since.

When Jesus came it was to free us from our sin, but just as importantly to free us from the law as written by the powerful and educated.

Freedom is the right we all have to speak our minds, and to do so without control. Therein is our problem, that is why Jesus came to free us from sin and law and the control of the liars and cheats in politics.

The song has been trying to tell us for years "I was blind, and now I can see" hundreds of people sing this song daily without the Spiritual understanding of what they are singing. :yeah: easy aint it.

[MH]

The word of God (Bible) is a Spirit filled message for simple people to understand basic truth ( ie the prodical son). The Bible was not written for the educated or powerfull leaders, the truth has been hidden from them, what they have is what you read here, explanation.

It was and is the powerfull and educated elite who grabbed the word and used it for themselves to control the poor and its been that way ever since.

When Jesus came it was to free us from our sin, but just as importantly to free us from the law as written by the powerful and educated.

Freedom is the right we all have to speak our minds, and to do so without control. Therein is our problem, that is why Jesus came to free us from sin and law and the control of the liars and cheats in politics.

The song has been trying to tell us for years "I was blind, and now I can see" hundreds of people sing this song daily without the Spiritual understanding of what they are singing. :yeah: easy aint it.

I cant really say that Jesus did a good job by looking at what little i know about history of Christianity.:hmmm:

[NeonSamurai]

A theory is usually proferred after some evidence points in that direction, not before. If the construct is believed beforehand, and is the basis for the theory rather than the other way around, it ceases to be science, if it ever was to start with.

Under current philosophy of science, what you state is false. To be scientific, a theory must be testable, in that it can be proven wrong (not right as it is impossible to prove something right). You do not even need to offer any evidence, so long as it is testable. Testability is what makes something scientific.

A perfect example of this is what is going on in the physics world right now, where the theory of relativity is looking like it is going to fall. This theory has been tested many many times, and has not been proven false. Yet now suddenly there is evidence that the theory does not work. This goes to show the basic concept in philosophy of science, that a theory that has been tested 0 times, is just as valid as one that has been tested 10000000 times. Theory is valid if it is testable until the point that it fails in testing.

Also you cannot gather evidence until you have a working theory to start with, as you don't know what you are searching for or what connections you are trying to make without a theory and a deduced hypothesis.


As for the whole religion debate, I am staying out of it as I have better things to do than try to demonstrate to the blind the difference between belief and knowing (which I think is silly, as we can't truly know anything either). We are all infinitely ignorant.

Here is a favorite quote of mine which captures human knowledge in my view perfectly, by C.G. Jung.

"Science is the art of creating suitable illusions which the fool believes or argues against, but the wise man enjoys their beauty or their ingenuity, without being blind to the fact that they are human veils and curtains concealing the abysmal darkness of the Unknowable."

[Skybird]

"Die Wirklichkeit wird weniger von uns gefunden als vielmehr erfunden." (Paul Watzlawick, psychologist, psychoanalyst, on radical constructivism) --> "Reality does not get so much discovered by us, butgets invented/constructed."

„So we are not dealing with the universe in front of us, which will remain an eternal mystery for us, but we deal with a model of a universe that we can create inside our head as we like. For all of us, not cosmos itself is the object of our examination, but it’s dance with our mind.” - (John Wheeler, US physicist, translated from the German).

[Sailor Steve]

Under current philosophy of science, what you state is false. To be scientific, a theory must be testable, in that it can be proven wrong (not right as it is impossible to prove something right). You do not even need to offer any evidence, so long as it is testable. Testability is what makes something scientific.
Point taken. This is probably why I'm not a scientist. Or is that the other way around?

Also you cannot gather evidence until you have a working theory to start with, as you don't know what you are searching for or what connections you are trying to make without a theory and a deduced hypothesis.
Hmm. I thought that in certain cases (gravity) the theory was created in an attempt to explain an observed phenomenon. Shows what I know.

As for the whole religion debate, I am staying out of it as I have better things to do than try to demonstrate to the blind the difference between belief and knowing (which I think is silly, as we can't truly know anything either). We are all infinitely ignorant.
That's what I always say. I, on the other hand, don't have anything better to do, and I don't have the intelligence to know when to stop beating a dead horse.

[MH]

In science there is a lot of blind belief established on faith.
Scientists don't like their own theories to crumble.
Good example is resent Israeli Nobel prise winner who had been expelled from academy and laughed at for more than 10 years.

[August]

For a bunch of Godless Atheists (yeah I know that's redundant) you people quote the Bible more often than the most irritating of door to door missionaries.

Regardless of where you fall in the religion debate you should understand this:

The Bible was written by humans for the benefit of humans to describe a deity concept that we barely comprehend let alone understand. Anyone that takes the Bible, the Koran, Torah or any other religious text as pure unadorned fact misses the entire point of why they were written.

But I guess it is a lot easier to play "Gotcha" with individual bible passages, often taken out of context, in order to get the goat of those who do believe that there is a force greater than ourselves in the universe.

[MH]

For a bunch of Godless Atheists (yeah I know that's redundant) you people quote the Bible more often than the most irritating of door to door missionaries.

Regardless of where you fall in the religion debate you should understand this:

The Bible was written by humans for the benefit of humans to describe a deity concept that we barely comprehend let alone understand. Anyone that takes the Bible, the Koran, Torah or any other religious text as pure unadorned fact misses the entire point of why they were written.

But I guess it is a lot easier to play "Gotcha" with individual bible passages, often taken out of context, in order to get the goat of those who do believe that there is a force greater than ourselves in the universe.

As Godless and soulless as i'm agree a lot with you here.
I must be really confused person.... but religion is not an option for me.

[August]

As Godless and soulless as i'm agree a lot with you here.
I must be really confused person.... but religion is not an option for me.

Well FWIW MH I've never seen you play the Gotcha game.

[Sailor Steve]

Regardless of where you fall in the religion debate you should understand this:

The Bible was written by humans for the benefit of humans to describe a deity concept that we barely comprehend let alone understand. Anyone that takes the Bible, the Koran, Torah or any other religious text as pure unadorned fact misses the entire point of why they were written.
I think the vast majority of those who argue in favor of Christianity will tell you otherwise. They will tell you the Bible is the absolute Word Of God, and is absolutely infallible. Not necessarily those who believe, but those who argue.

[Castout]

Yeah, you have written that god speaks to you and you can actually see peoples souls, yet you wrote commending a very sick twisted multiple murderer as a decent person.
Experience would suggest you are away with the fairies

No I haven't written God speaks to me.

God speaks but not with voices not even with impression of words. In all my life God has spoken so few times, all never with any voice nor impression of words. But God indeed spoke in those so few times.

God speaks because I have gotten answer to my prayer. The answer was then fulfilled couple days later but in that prayer it was answered and I only stopped when it was answered. There was no voices at all.

You atheists judge believers harshly and you judge things you do no understand. You convince yourself that your experience is all there is to life. You have no tolerance to other people beliefs nor their testimonies. Most of atheists I have found to be dumb and a fundamentalist and a God hater. Dumb because they do not believe not because they think they do not know but because they think they know that there is no God. A smart people are smart because they know they do not know much.

You really believe that people made up the scriptures which you mock and view with contempt. You really think that faith on God all along survives on the power of BLIND faith?! It never occurs to you that all along that faith has survived because there is power in it and that power is the truth that people have found out from time to time.

Atheists and their fantasies and their beliefs. They are fundamentalists. Some day they will wage war based on their atheistic beliefs and they already have. No better than a self radicalized muslim.

I'm out of this thread, so that you atheists can be comfortable with the fantasies you want to believe.

[Skybird]

I'm out of this thread, so that you atheists can be comfortable with the fantasies you want to believe.

:har: That's the cream on top of your lament!

[Castout]

:har: That's the cream on top of it!

Hmm I knew you are going to use that against me. I write it still even when you can use it against me because that's how I view it.

What's the point of writing if what you write never gets read?

In the end I believe God may not be for you guys.

God is not for everyone. I have accepted that. Even to many who have been going to the church weekly . . . . All I can say is they have their stupidity to blame but I'm one of those who believe that in the end God is what making them to be such. They never get it because they never meant to get it.

[Skybird]

Hmm I knew you are going to use that against me. I write it still even when you can use it against me because that's how I view it.

What's the point of writing if what you write never gets read?

In the end I believe God may not be for you guys.
At least you write "believe" instead of "know". That's at least a small improvement. Every start is difficult, but carry on. :yeah:

[Castout]

At least you write "believe" instead of "know". That's at least a small improvement. Every start is difficult, but carry on. :yeah:

Oh that's not a mistake.

You assumed I was making mistakes.

I really do know the difference between knowing and believing.

I know God exists because I have seen God while I was a 7th grader.

I know God have the power to forgive sins and He even forgave mine without me asking for it. I know because God told me He forgave mine

I know God is forever listening and knowing, because a few things I asked He granted it in an instant. And they were not small things.

I know God is able to change hearts, especially mine. He put love of Jesus Christ inside me so I could see Christ. He let me know that He loves even those who do not know Him by giving me love to a stranger.

I know God is so powerful that everything submits to His will when He wills it. I know I have control of my own body yet it submitted to God's will. The ground submitted to God's will. People heart's submit to God's will. Whatever He will I know it always wins.

I know that God is offering eternal power to people chosen as His people so that each one of them could be greater than any king the world has ever seen.

I know the dead are no longer aware of themselves, no longer remember God and unable to register time. I know because God revealed this to me and wanted me to know. I know it is true because my heart is telling me so and because the scriptures are telling me the EXACT same thing.

[Tribesman]

No I haven't written God speaks to me.

God speaks but not with voices not even with impression of words. In all my life God has spoken so few times, all never with any voice nor impression of words. But God indeed spoke in those so few times.

God speaks because I have gotten answer to my prayer. The answer was then fulfilled couple days later but in that prayer it was answered and I only stopped when it was answered. There was no voices at all.

You atheists judge believers harshly and you judge things you do no understand. You convince yourself that your experience is all there is to life. You have no tolerance to other people beliefs nor their testimonies. Most of atheists I have found to be dumb and a fundamentalist and a God hater. Dumb because they do not believe not because they think they do not know but because they think they know that there is no God. A smart people are smart because they know they do not know much.

You really believe that people made up the scriptures which you mock and view with contempt. You really think that faith on God all along survives on the power of BLIND faith?! It never occurs to you that all along that faith has survived because there is power in it and that power is the truth that people have found out from time to time.

Atheists and their fantasies and their beliefs. They are fundamentalists. Some day they will wage war based on their atheistic beliefs and they already have. No better than a self radicalized muslim.

I'm out of this thread, so that you atheists can be comfortable with the fantasies you want to believe.
Like I said, away with the fairies

[Castout]

Like I said, away with the fairies

Aha they are not.

The fairies are in yours.

[Skybird]

I know that dogs can talk. I know that because my Dachshound told me so. He is always listening when I am on the telephone, and is making notes. I saw it with my very own eyes!

Jokes aside, Castout, I'm now talking as a former clinical psychotherapist, social councelor, meditation trainer and spiritual advisor. You gave me repeatedly an impression of a very disturbed mind and described stories that would match descriptions for primary symptoms of schizophrenia, hallucinations, even more serious, you confirm again and again that you mean them serious and not metaphorically. So I am telling you now: go out and try to find some psychotherapeutical and medical help, I am quite certain that you need it. Posting in this forum just increases these symptoms, since their origin does not get examined, possible remedies do not get prescribed, and the forum serves as a valve for you to ease internal pressure that else maybe would push you to attempting to find a therapist.

There were two or three opportunities earlier in past weeks, where I wanted to say that already, but stepped back from that, since by forum communication with strangers you never can be sure. But you are pushing it too far.

I hope that there is somebody in your social vicinity that pushes you to go to a therapist, because I am quite certain that all by yourself you will not act until your world collapses around you.

Hope somebody can help you. Good luck.

[August]

I think the vast majority of those who argue in favor of Christianity will tell you otherwise. They will tell you the Bible is the absolute Word Of God, and is absolutely infallible. Not necessarily those who believe, but those who argue.


Not the vast majority of Christians but rather the vast majority of those Christians who argue for it? Sure i'd take that bet seeing as the most vocal of any group are almost always the radical fringe.

[Sailor Steve]

Fair point. :sunny:

[Castout]

I know that dogs can talk. I know that because my Dachshound told me so. He is always listening when I am on the telephone, and is making notes. I saw it with my very own eyes!

Jokes aside, Castout, I'm now talking as a former clinical psychotherapist, social councelor, meditation trainer and spiritual advisor. You gave me repeatedly an impression of a very disturbed mind and described stories that would match descriptions for primary symptoms of schizophrenia, hallucinations, even more serious, you confirm again and again that you mean them serious and not metaphorically. So I am telling you now: go out and try to find some psychotherapeutical and medical help, I am quite certain that you need it. Posting in this forum just increases these symptoms, since their origin does not get examined, possible remedies do not get prescribed, and the forum serves as a valve for you to ease internal pressure that else maybe would push you to attempting to find a therapist.

There were two or three opportunities earlier in past weeks, where I wanted to say that already, but stepped back from that, since by forum communication with strangers you never can be sure. But you are pushing it too far.

I hope that there is somebody in your social vicinity that pushes you to go to a therapist, because I am quite certain that all by yourself you will not act until your world collapses around you.

Hope somebody can help you. Good luck.

or Not!

Like I said I even got witness. I told my mother that the Israelis were going to be very disappointed with their tanks and they did. Made it to the paper here some months later though of course later on they tried to do some damage control.

No one is listening in this world. The fools think they know everything. The world is a mess because of it.

I will conform to no one's opinion when I know I am right. So because no one is listening I will stop speaking. I will not witness again to just about anybody unless I'm compelled to say otherwise which I think is wrong.

But I will say again God is real people. Anyone can have hope because of that, under whatever circumstances or difficulties they are on.
I pushed it too far by witnessing God?

I think it's you who have pushed it too far by telling me such. Goodbye Skybird. Is that insecurity speaking Skybird posing as an intellect?! And you think yourself as the one soaring above?

Not long now before every atheist declares all witnessing a symptom of madness and mental illness. And not long before anyone who professes that they believe in God and to have known God to be declared mentally unfit. The world only accepts people that they are comfortable with. Like the believers or those who profess to be believers yet to know anything about God. Since if a person came out and say he knew God, the atheists would have a coal burning on top of their head. How dare he said he knew God when God is supposed to be a mere belief! A thing only existing in ideas and mind! Of course such person will knock them out of balance thus they would rather say he's a mad man. Because when a donkey is afraid he would only need to close its eyes to believe it is safe. And because men are a little more sophisticated they will reject the person and cast him as mad.

[Castout]

Not the vast majority of Christians but rather the vast majority of those Christians who argue for it? Sure i'd take that bet seeing as the most vocal of any group are almost always the radical fringe.

Well the radicals usually don't have outlets to their aspirations. So I have to disagree. The world is usually own by the conservatives. There may be times when the radicals took over but usually they never last long or very long. The radicals imbalance everything. You see it in North Korea, you see it in previous Taliban led Afghanistan, you see it in some of the world's biggest collapsing financial institutions, you see it in Hitler's Third Reich.

[Castout]

In the end I no longer consider subsim to be a pleasant home.

Too many ugliness in it.

[NeonSamurai]

Going to be multi-quoting several people here so apologies for the mess

Point taken. This is probably why I'm not a scientist. Or is that the other way around?

I dunno, I think you could be a good scientist, since you seen to understand the necessity of doubt, and remaining uncertain. A lot of scientists do not seem to understand this very well (and I wish studying philosophy of science was mandatory for the sciences, as most sciences are still operating 100 years in the past, under the assumption that you can prove something).

Hmm. I thought that in certain cases (gravity) the theory was created in an attempt to explain an observed phenomenon. Shows what I know.No, the theory that preceded gravity, is that if I drop something it falls to the ground. The theory of gravity is just a stronger more evolved theory. Ultimately even our biology itself is theoretical, our eyes have the built in expectation of light, etc.


For a bunch of Godless Atheists (yeah I know that's redundant) you people quote the Bible more often than the most irritating of door to door missionaries.

Regardless of where you fall in the religion debate you should understand this:

The Bible was written by humans for the benefit of humans to describe a deity concept that we barely comprehend let alone understand. Anyone that takes the Bible, the Koran, Torah or any other religious text as pure unadorned fact misses the entire point of why they were written.

But I guess it is a lot easier to play "Gotcha" with individual bible passages, often taken out of context, in order to get the goat of those who do believe that there is a force greater than ourselves in the universe.

I agree with you on the reasons why a holy book were written, and yes there are many atheists (and agnostics) who will pick apart these books for all the flaws and problems. But there are also many many who do consider their book to be absolute, perfect, and from God, and follow it (or worse force others to follow it) to the letter.

People have through out history, killed other people, for relatively minor differences of interpretation of the same book, and most of these people are just your average every day sort. The belief that you know, is so much more secure and easy, than facing the depths of our ignorance, which is almost total.


No I haven't written God speaks to me.

God speaks but not with voices not even with impression of words. In all my life God has spoken so few times, all never with any voice nor impression of words. But God indeed spoke in those so few times.

God speaks because I have gotten answer to my prayer. The answer was then fulfilled couple days later but in that prayer it was answered and I only stopped when it was answered. There was no voices at all.

You atheists judge believers harshly and you judge things you do no understand. You convince yourself that your experience is all there is to life. You have no tolerance to other people beliefs nor their testimonies. Most of atheists I have found to be dumb and a fundamentalist and a God hater. Dumb because they do not believe not because they think they do not know but because they think they know that there is no God. A smart people are smart because they know they do not know much.

You really believe that people made up the scriptures which you mock and view with contempt. You really think that faith on God all along survives on the power of BLIND faith?! It never occurs to you that all along that faith has survived because there is power in it and that power is the truth that people have found out from time to time.

Atheists and their fantasies and their beliefs. They are fundamentalists. Some day they will wage war based on their atheistic beliefs and they already have. No better than a self radicalized muslim.

I'm out of this thread, so that you atheists can be comfortable with the fantasies you want to believe.

Reason tends to trump religion in most aspects. This is because the claims of religion (and I am referring to the specific claims, not the argument over the existence or non-existence of god) do not hold up to prolonged scrutiny. This is why the religiously devout, always try to avoid genuine debate, and react frequently with anger, even if the person debating with them, is gentle about it.

Even in the point of understanding the difference between knowledge (which I personally think is a fallacy), and belief, can trigger feelings of anger and upset. Like the time I was talking to my aunt and uncle (who are devout believers of the protestant christian faith) about this topic, and they got very upset and said very strongly that "I don't believe, I KNOW".

Ultimately we all live in a fantasy world of our (and our biology's, if it exists) creation. What we know is minute and insignificant, what we do not know is vast and unending. My argument is that I (and by extension we) cannot know anything at all, except for one single thing... I exist. Claiming absoluteness in anything else is pure hubris.


Jokes aside, Castout, I'm now talking as a former clinical psychotherapist, social councelor, meditation trainer and spiritual advisor. You gave me repeatedly an impression of a very disturbed mind and described stories that would match descriptions for primary symptoms of schizophrenia, hallucinations, even more serious, you confirm again and again that you mean them serious and not metaphorically. So I am telling you now: go out and try to find some psychotherapeutical and medical help, I am quite certain that you need it. Posting in this forum just increases these symptoms, since their origin does not get examined, possible remedies do not get prescribed, and the forum serves as a valve for you to ease internal pressure that else maybe would push you to attempting to find a therapist.

There were two or three opportunities earlier in past weeks, where I wanted to say that already, but stepped back from that, since by forum communication with strangers you never can be sure. But you are pushing it too far.

I hope that there is somebody in your social vicinity that pushes you to go to a therapist, because I am quite certain that all by yourself you will not act until your world collapses around you.

Hope somebody can help you. Good luck.

Honestly, I have held the same theory for a while now. Claiming absolute certainty, in the face of all counter evidence, even when everyone else around you tells you you are mistaken (or worse), is a classic hallmark of schizophrenia, and I have known many people so diagnosed. There are other features too which I have seen him present in his writings which also suggest it. I have also stepped away from saying it too, more than a few times.

Castout, I am sorry, but I also have to suggest that you think about seeking aid, coming from someone else who in the field of mental health. I know it all absolutely feels as real to you, and is impossible for you to deny it, or its reality and separate it... but some of what you write about, is almost certainly not real. When everyone else around you thinks it is not true, there is a very good chance that they are correct.

[Sailor Steve]

Ultimately we all live in a fantasy world of our (and our biology's, if it exists) creation.
I think it was Raymond Chandler who said "Everyone is the star of their own third-rate novel". I can't find the quote anywhere, but I'm pretty sure I didn't come up with it myself.

What we know is minute and insignificant, what we do not know is vast and unending. My argument is that I (and by extension we) cannot know anything at all, except for one single thing... I exist. Claiming absoluteness in anything else is pure hubris.
I couldn't agree more. As I've said, sometimes I'm not even sure of that. And as I've tried to explain to Castout, the person who absolutely insists on his reality and his sanity is the person who needs to learn to question them the most. That, or at least to ask the question "If I think I know, exactly how do I know?"

I know I exist. How do I know? How can I be sure?

I know I'm sane. How do I know? How can I be sure.

I know God exists. How do I know? How can I be sure.

The same is true for the person who insists there is no God. How do you know? How can you be sure?

The only thing I know for certain is what makes me happy. I like steak. I like vanilla ice cream, and a lot of other things. I don't know why, and I can't analyze it, but I know what I like. That's about it.

I'm no expert, and I can't say whether someone else exhibits symptoms of this or that, but I don't trust my own judgement, and I don't have much trust in people who claim to "know" anything, even about themselves. I, and they, usually turn out to be wrong.

[August]

But there are also many many who do consider their book to be absolute, perfect, and from God, and follow it (or worse force others to follow it) to the letter.

Well "many many" can mean .01% if the group is large enough so you'll have to be more specific. As for being forced has anyone forced you to follow a religious law you didn't want to obey lately?

People have through out history, killed other people, for relatively minor differences of interpretation of the same book, and most of these people are just your average every day sort. The belief that you know, is so much more secure and easy, than facing the depths of our ignorance, which is almost total.

People kill each other for all kinds of reasons. Religion is certainly one of them but i'd submit that if all the earths religions suddenly vanished tomorrow (ain't gonna happen so atheists contain your glee) folks would just find other reasons to kill each other. It's human nature.

[Gerald]

True words August, :yep:

[Skybird]

Well "many many" can mean .01% if the group is large enough so you'll have to be more specific. As for being forced has anyone forced you to follow a religious law you didn't want to obey lately?

In Germany, church members pay a mandatory, state-collected church tax, pretty much a unique case in the Western world - the state conspiates with the church to make church projects an state issue, supporting it by state'S offices. By the Basic Law, this is not allowed, but people seem to not care enough. It is pretty much like in the medieval.

Church project also mandatorily get indirectly supported by people having left the church - through the regular taxes. A church may pay 5-15% in building a new hospital, the other 85-95% get payed by the tax payer, anmd the church may shoulder 20% of the maintenance costs - and the hospital then gets handed into adminstration and possession of said church, and gets massive tax reliefs, and is called a "christian hospital" where in fact it is funded by public money for the most part.

I need to indirectly finance the church, whether I like it or not, whether I am hostile to the church or not. Can you imagine why folks like me are pissed? Getting taxed for a religious institution we dispise and have turned our backs on?

Regarding your country, you remember that video "Why do I care for religion" by an atheist author which I have linked to maybe 6-8 times now in the past years, do you, you can't have missed it. It lists plenty of examples were Christians' belief discriminates against non-believers being unable to run for public offices or needing to live by believer'S laws and legislations. I could also refer to the fact - check youtube, there were so many films I watche dover the years - that in many communities in some areas of your country, mainly rural places, atheists are hiding their sentiments due to massive fear over the intolerance and discrimination by the Christian community dominating the place, which leads as far as public mobbing, threats of violence, excluding thekm from job oppoortunities, and even acts of arbitrary justice.

Im sure you know this. Threads about this there have been often enough, and you surely do not walk through your real life with closed eyes.

[Dowly]

We have mandatory church tax over here too. Think it's something like 1 or 2 percent
of your income or something like that. :hmmm: (if you are a member of the church naturally)

Wonder when I can be arsed to leave the church, been possible to do it online
since 2005 with no hassle, just too lazy. :O:

[Hottentot]

Wonder when I can be arsed to leave the church, been possible to do it online
since 2005 with no hassle, just too lazy. :O:

The church thanks you for your contribution to the statistics, I'm sure.

[Jimbuna]

We have mandatory church tax over here too. Think it's something like 1 or 2 percent
of your income or something like that. :hmmm: (if you are a member of the church naturally)

Wonder when I can be arsed to leave the church, been possible to do it online
since 2005 with no hassle, just too lazy. :O:

I'm amazed anyone would ever consider allowing you anywhere near a church...nevermind in one :DL

[Randomizer]

People kill each other for all kinds of reasons. Religion is certainly one of them but i'd submit that if all the earths religions suddenly vanished tomorrow (ain't gonna happen so atheists contain your glee) folks would just find other reasons to kill each other. It's human nature.
I would submit that "human nature" is driven by society and very changeable. Our actions are in accordance with the norms of our cultural terms of reference; persons deviating outside of those perimeters find themselves officially sanctioned or socially isolated from the main stream.

Think about it, for the vast majority of the history of civilization institutionalized pederasty, mass murder, slavery, torture, infanticide, human sacrifice and genocide were all common cultural practices and so natural in their societies. There's no "moral relativism" involved here, all of the above behaviors should be considered abhorrent today but all were entirely acceptable by societies in other places and other times.

Our societies change, modifying the nature of what was "right" and so changing "human nature" itself. Societies continue to change and most of the above behaviors are present somewhere in the world today, only now most consider them to be unacceptable. Such is the veneer of civilization and we would do well to recall that the idea of human rights as opposed to citizen rights was born a mere 250 years or so ago. Before the philosophical musings of the 18th Century, starting perhaps with Thomas Paine, the very concept of universal rights was essentially non-existent. Once one qualifies a "right to life" killing becomes socially acceptable. If taking a human life was as socially unacceptable as pederasty then no amount of reasoning would justify doing so.

The classic cop-out argument that people will always kill one another because it is "human nature" is just camouflage for "people will always find reasons to kill each other because it is so easy to rationalize doing so".

[Gerald]

"Human nature"...a pleasant word to use..:hmmm:

[NeonSamurai]

I think it was Raymond Chandler who said "Everyone is the star of their own third-rate novel". I can't find the quote anywhere, but I'm pretty sure I didn't come up with it myself.

Ya, that is a good quote, though I think it aims more at our own self centered behavior, versus the uncertainty of "reality".

I couldn't agree more. As I've said, sometimes I'm not even sure of that. And as I've tried to explain to Castout, the person who absolutely insists on his reality and his sanity is the person who needs to learn to question them the most. That, or at least to ask the question "If I think I know, exactly how do I know?"

I know I exist. How do I know? How can I be sure?

I know I'm sane. How do I know? How can I be sure.

I know God exists. How do I know? How can I be sure.

The same is true for the person who insists there is no God. How do you know? How can you be sure?

The only thing I know for certain is what makes me happy. I like steak. I like vanilla ice cream, and a lot of other things. I don't know why, and I can't analyze it, but I know what I like. That's about it.

I'm no expert, and I can't say whether someone else exhibits symptoms of this or that, but I don't trust my own judgement, and I don't have much trust in people who claim to "know" anything, even about themselves. I, and they, usually turn out to be wrong.The interesting thing with schizophrenics, is that doubt is not possible for them. Even when medicated they still often have views which cannot be changed by them, no matter how much counter evidence is offered. They exist in an absolute form of reality in a sense. They are also very logical too, as virtually everything spawning from the initial delusion often makes perfect sense, if you accept the base delusion as true.

Anyhow I am going to pull out that famous quote by Descartes, "I think therefor I am". It is actually a misquote, and not exactly what he meant (as he later wrote a footnote about). What he really meant was more along the lines of "I experience, I am", with the idea that the one thing you cannot doubt, or be deceived into believing you have, is consciousness (AKA the witness, not the medical definition). Content of consciousness (percepts, memories, etc.) however is something to be doubted, as we could easily be fooled.


Well "many many" can mean .01% if the group is large enough so you'll have to be more specific. As for being forced has anyone forced you to follow a religious law you didn't want to obey lately?

Well some of the others brought up some counter arguments, so I will not dwell long here. There are though plenty of countries, and also periods of history where you were forced to follow a specific religion, or risk death, torture, etc.

I will say that most organized religions that I am familiar with, tend to portray their holy books as being the absolute word of God, and that most devout people tend to believe as their religion demands (though not all, there are plenty of religious people who do not accept things verbatim, and there are plenty of posers who pretend, or turn the teachings on their ear).

People kill each other for all kinds of reasons. Religion is certainly one of them but i'd submit that if all the earths religions suddenly vanished tomorrow (ain't gonna happen so atheists contain your glee) folks would just find other reasons to kill each other. It's human nature.In a sense true, though you have to admit, religious belief has often motivated many wars and unspeakable acts, either on its own inherent nature, or by the manipulations of those in power. Religion is a very effective galvanizing force, and can even persuade people to willingly sacrifice themselves for that religion. That perhaps is one of the most interesting aspects of religion and religious fervor, as I have difficulty of thinking of anything else which could so persuade a person to give up their life with premeditation (this is also why Nazism became a religious entity in its own right, and on purpose). Religion seems to be the key component to fanaticism, as it offers unquestioning belief, which can then be shaped and directed.

I should though perhaps clarify something. I do not inherently hate religion on its own, I hate what people often do with it, and do to it. I would be happier if the world was free of organized religion, as I feel it tends to divide, breed intolerance (and violence), and isolates. This does not mean that I think the world should be free of personal religions or beliefs, nor do I feel that people should or should not believe in a creator entity. I do feel though that they should not be able to justify their actions because of what they believe.

I have also heard many things from believers that just make my jaw drop in shock. Where if it hadn't been said because of religious belief, most people would find the idea or statement either utterly absurd, worthy of total ridicule, horrifying beyond belief, or just utterly insane. Yet when cloaked in religion, it becomes acceptable, even protected. Case in point.

I knew this guy in university, he was a pretty nice guy, of good intellectual ability, and a devout Christian (Baptist if I recall), anyhow we got into a discussion about it one day, and he told me that anyone who did not believe, exactly as he did (the specific version of Baptist he is) would instantly go to hell, no matter the life they lead (good or bad), and with out any judgment. All that mattered is what you believed in at the moment of death. You could furthermore convert on your deathbed and be granted instant access to heaven. So naturally I took his argument to the extreme, and asked him that say if Hitler, who had caused the death and suffering of at least tens of millions of people, right before he died he converted to your branch of Christianity, he would go straight to heaven? With out blinking, he said yes. I shook my head and walked away never to speak to him again (At least I didn't tell him where he could go stick his God, tempting as it was).

You are right though, any old excuse often will do for people to do horrible things to each other. Religious belief though, does offer the perfect excuse, after all what is a better reason than "The creator of existence told us to kill the unbelievers".



Moving away from that, I am going to write a little about my views on God. My attitude, if it is not obvious, is that of an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve about the existence of a supreme creator. If one exists, such an entity is so far beyond our imagination or comprehension, that it is really pointless to try to grasp it. My fundamental issue with religion, is this arrogant view that we can know such an entity, and dare even speak for it. God cannot be the god of the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran, or all the other holy books. The gods we create are as deeply flawed, even contradictory, as they are entities of our creation (being deeply flawed ourselves, we cannot create perfect gods). They are also generally used as a means of control of the populace by people in power (or people seeking it).

I was lucky I guess, I was raised free of religion from the start, though if I chose I could investigate a religion freely as a child (something my sister did for a bit, though more for social reasons I think). As such I was free from the doctrines, and dogma, which I think clouds judgment. A question I often ask religious people, is if you had been raised under another religion, would you have honestly converted to your current one. They invariably say yes, usually not even pausing to really think about it. I think that they are deceiving themselves as most stay within the religion they were raised in (or are not strong believers to begin with and convert for reasons other than faith, like love), or leave religion behind.

[August]

In a sense true, though you have to admit, religious belief has often motivated many wars and unspeakable acts, either on its own inherent nature, or by the manipulations of those in power.

Like I said, religion is just the excuse. Easily substituted.

[NeonSamurai]

Sure, though sometimes it is the cause directly too, because of scriptures, or other things that command the faithful to kill or force conversion on someone else.

[August]

Sure, though sometimes it is the cause directly too, because of scriptures, or other things that command the faithful to kill or force conversion on someone else.

You really think that without those scriptures to justify their actions that people wouldn't still do all those bad things?

[Dowly]

You really think that without those scriptures to justify their actions that people wouldn't still do all those bad things?

Pretty sure they would. :yep:

But like NeonSamurai pointed, there's a lot of cases in history where the cause has
been religion. :hmmm:

Here be something to get a better picture:
http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html

Events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)Oh and no, I'm not claiming that site is 100% accurate, but it does list sources, so one can always check them out. :yeah:

[Skybird]

You really think that without those scriptures to justify their actions that people wouldn't still do all those bad things?

Violence would still take place if we stop calling for violence. But we see even more violence when we actively call for it, and motivate it by sending an according explciit message. Did I say "probably"?

It's bad enough that there is violence emerging for various reasons. But we must not even explicitly ask for it, and train groups of people for it, and lowering people's internal inhibition levels. Most people, if not all, have an inbuild inhibition level, and before they start to not care anymore for smashing open other people's skulls or hacking off their limbs or shooting bullets at them, they need to live in a social context that desensitizes and deafens their senses (for example the proverbial violent social low-class suburbian with youth gangs and high poverty, or a tribal primitive communityx where sacrificing humans is a cultural habit), or they need to get psychologically brainwashed (professional military training).

Spiking emotions, rage, passion, uncontrolled anger however always can make us lose our learned self-control or our inbuild inhibitions failing. Some sooner, others later.

But still - it is not the same.

[August]

I just believe that people who want to commit violence will look for a justification for their actions and while Religion can be used for this it is not necessary as just about any excuse will do.

On the other hand religion promotes a lot of good habits as well. Those who bemoan the negative aspects usually ignore or minimize the good that goes along with it.

[Armistead]

Was not our American Revolution a violent movement, the Civil War?

It's obvious we're coming close to some sort of revolution, it's certainly in the works, but I don't see any sort of revolution working in the US today.
In the next decades we'll see milllions of americans fall into poverty, as the numbers rise disgruntled people will start doing things.

The questions is will sold out corrupt politicains do enough to keep the masses at bay.

[NeonSamurai]

I just believe that people who want to commit violence will look for a justification for their actions and while Religion can be used for this it is not necessary as just about any excuse will do.

Yes I don't argue that, but religion (and politics for that matter) can lead good people to do horrible things, because of their faith and belief in something, and that is what I find worrisome. Fervor and blind faith are dangerous things easily manipulated.

On the other hand religion promotes a lot of good habits as well. Those who bemoan the negative aspects usually ignore or minimize the good that goes along with it.Yes, some religions do promote good values, and ethics. Problem though as I see it is so many people do not really follow those tenants and at best offer lip service (you know, the ones that pretend to be good Christians on the surface, but are really playing a status & power game). I would also point out that you do not need to be religious (or a believer of any kind) to be a good, kind, and caring individual. One of my pairs aunts & uncles are very devout Anglicans, and they are/were (my uncle passed away not long ago) the best of people. They were always involved in the community, would help anyone at the drop of the hat, and were Christians in the truest sense (they practiced what they preached and then some). That said, I think they would probably have been the same way, if they were pagan, agnostic, or atheist, it was their nature to be that way.

Plus also I would say that you can be a very spiritual person, and not be religious. As you can be a moral and ethical person without religion as well.

I have no real interest in tearing down others' beliefs, as long as those beliefs do not cross into my life in a negative way. But I get very angry when the religious try to force themselves on me, control my life, and take away my freedoms. I try very hard to be as tolerant of others as I can be, with out being suicidal or blind about it.

[August]

Yes I don't argue that, but religion (and politics for that matter) can lead good people to do horrible things, because of their faith and belief in something, and that is what I find worrisome. Fervor and blind faith are dangerous things easily manipulated.

We're talking in circles Neo. That's like saying a hammer can kill. That's not really true as it takes a person to wield it. Religion (and politics) can't make a person do horrible things. It always takes another person to convince them to do it.

[Kongo Otto]

In Germany, church members pay a mandatory, state-collected church tax, pretty much a unique case in the Western world - the state conspiates with the church to make church projects an state issue, supporting it by state'S offices. By the Basic Law, this is not allowed, but people seem to not care enough. It is pretty much like in the medieval.

Church project also mandatorily get indirectly supported by people having left the church - through the regular taxes. A church may pay 5-15% in building a new hospital, the other 85-95% get payed by the tax payer, anmd the church may shoulder 20% of the maintenance costs - and the hospital then gets handed into adminstration and possession of said church, and gets massive tax reliefs, and is called a "christian hospital" where in fact it is funded by public money for the most part.

I need to indirectly finance the church, whether I like it or not, whether I am hostile to the church or not. Can you imagine why folks like me are pissed? Getting taxed for a religious institution we dispise and have turned our backs on?


Your post is really the most utter Nonsense i had to read in the last days.
German Leftist Nonsense at it's best!!
If you don't want to pay the Church tax in germany, just leave the Church and you don't pay any Church Tax anymore, it's that simple!
I did that years ago, it took not even 5 minutes to fill the form!
So there is no reason to be pissed at all!

[Sailor Steve]

*Sigh* Here we go again. Kongo Otto, please read the rules of 'fake' swearing. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel, that is no longer being tolerated.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item_language

[Kongo Otto]

*Sigh* Here we go again. Kongo Otto, please read the rules of 'fake' swearing. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel, that is no longer being tolerated.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item_language

Thank you for pointing this out. I forgot, i do apolgise and have already edited the post.
:salute:

[Sailor Steve]

:yeah: Muchas gracias.

[Task Force]

Wait, did you all make Castout rage quit,lol. Or did the Singaporean government capture him?

[Hottentot]

He seems to be gone, or has at least been very quiet lately.

Also, best necro ever. I hope it doesn't try the limits of powers-that-be's empathy. :DL