Usually the Natural Law argument is a version of theistic ethics, but I actually think it is the other way around. I think religious ethics directly conflict with our in-built sense of good and bad (which is based on our survival instinct and our love for others in our group) by positing an authority who's desires are more important than our lives and the lives of everyone we care about.
Nice one, Kahoolin! You're my new favorite religious philosopher whose icon has at least 4 earrings (didn't want to give too much credit, you know).
Hey thanks - looks like it sucks to be Thomas Aquinas right now. I told him that even if he got all those piercings I'd still be cooler than him.
Last time I checked, severely handicapped people still have feelings and brain activity. Even comatose people have brain activity ... therefore it is wrong to kill them ... I am not an eugenist nor was my argument going in that direction ...
If all life should be preserved, then religious people should scream murder whenever a war is started ... but for the most part, as a sub-segment of the population , they are the ones who most vocally support it (in all countries, not just here) ... I do not get it ...
All life should be preserved because we are social animals and we rely on each other for happiness, growth and survival ... religion is useless to that argument because God does not seem to "value" human life quite equally (or even at all if I'm the one interpreting the scriptures) ... but he definitely plays favorites ...
OK sorry, I misread brain activity for "awareness" or some other similar concept, I didn't mean to push your argument in a direction you weren't going.
And I agree, that "religious" people SHOULD be the ones holloring the loudest against going to war. It grieves my heart whenever Christians don't stand against their governments going to war.
The fact that often (at least in the two countries I know the most about, Australia and America), it seems that Christians side with the "right" (understood politically, not morally) side of politics, regardless of policy is a great mystery to me. I think a lot of Christians have confused conservative policies with Christian policies. As such, they tend to pick the wrong policies to be vocal about. Why Gay marriage is such a big issue, compared to rampart consumerism, materialism, economic rationalism and the exploitation of the poor and vulnerable I will never know.
When it gets right down to it I think we all have our basic assumptions. We can learn the positions of others but we can't change someone's basic assumptions unless they want to change them. Reason can't do it.
I think you hit the nail on the head, and so propose we move onto a different topic, what's up next?
All the stuff I was stating comes from Leviticus ...
You are saying that there is a way to look at genocide, child murder and slavery that can make sense as seen from God's eye/perspective?
OK, if so, now I'm VERY SUPER scared ...
I will assume I'm misunderstanding your argument ...
No, you aren't misunderstanding my argument. I will freely acknowledge that that stuff is in there. But I would also say that there is a way to understand it that makes sense and can be reconciled with a loving God.
They each need to be understood in their individual context, it is not as simple as giving a neat answer that covers all of them. If you would like to discuss specific examples, we can.
I think the big issue here is misunderstanding the character of God. Yes, He is Love. But he is not ONLY Love. He is also Holy, and Righteous and Just, and Good, and Powerful, and Mighty.
His Holiness and Justice mean that rebellion must be punished. His Justice especially means he can not just "forgive and forget." But in his LOVE, he sent Jesus to die on the Cross, taking the punishment our sin deserves, and securing forgiveness for all who follow him. It is only on the cross that we see Love and Justice meet.
If the word of God is inerrant, why so many splinters in Christianity?
Shouldn't it be very clear? But the fact of the matter is things are not clear, totally self-contradictory and at times, simply antisocial (see above about genocide, child murder and slavery) ...Therefore, Hell will freeze over before I give any credence to a human agent interpreting colorful stories we inherited from the Stone Ages ...
There are a few reasons for the splinters in Christianity. The biggest is the sinnfulness of humanity. Yes, God is clear, but that doesn't mean all of us actually want to listen what he has to say.
Also, there are some things that Bible isn't completely clear on (such as the baptism of infants), and so there is therefore room for difference of opinion, while still remaining Christian.
I would argue however that the Bible is not totally self contradictory. For a vilume that was writtne by about 30-40 different writers over a period of 1500 years (about), I think it shows a remarkable level of consistency and wholeness.
All the stuff I was stating comes from Leviticus ...
You are saying that there is a way to look at genocide, child murder and slavery that can make sense as seen from God's eye/perspective?
OK, if so, now I'm VERY SUPER scared ...
I will assume I'm misunderstanding your argument ...No, you aren't misunderstanding my argument. I will freely acknowledge that that stuff is in there. But I would also say that there is a way to understand it that makes sense and can be reconciled with a loving God.
They each need to be understood in their individual context, it is not as simple as giving a neat answer that covers all of them. If you would like to discuss specific examples, we can.
I think the big issue here is misunderstanding the character of God. Yes, He is Love. But he is not ONLY Love. He is also Holy, and Righteous and Just, and Good, and Powerful, and Mighty.
His Holiness and Justice mean that rebellion must be punished. His Justice especially means he can not just "forgive and forget." But in his LOVE, he sent Jesus to die on the Cross, taking the punishment our sin deserves, and securing forgiveness for all who follow him. It is only on the cross that we see Love and Justice meet.
If the word of God is inerrant, why so many splinters in Christianity?
Shouldn't it be very clear? But the fact of the matter is things are not clear, totally self-contradictory and at times, simply antisocial (see above about genocide, child murder and slavery) ...Therefore, Hell will freeze over before I give any credence to a human agent interpreting colorful stories we inherited from the Stone Ages ...
There are a few reasons for the splinters in Christianity. The biggest is the sinnfulness of humanity. Yes, God is clear, but that doesn't mean all of us actually want to listen what he has to say.
Also, there are some things that Bible isn't completely clear on (such as the baptism of infants), and so there is therefore room for difference of opinion,...
All right, I'm out of this ... thanks for the clarifications though.
In my (humble) opinion,
1) no one can interpret God (if he exists, which I doubt).
2) the Bible reflect the values of a stone age society (with later re-editing to match the values of our midevial societies) which does not apply to us anymore in any relevant way, these were scary angry people with serious control issues.
3) the Bible is flawed and highly immoral in many fundamental ways; the few good parts are totally overtaken by the totally wrong parts; its God is an inconsistent schizophrenic psychopath and plays favorites. No argument can convince me that a good and just god would allow (and provide rules) for slavery, genocide and child murder.
4) human agents only direct their interpretations of the Bible towards their social policies and care very little about the common good. That is simply because there is no consistent way to interpret it at all. Therefore, any argumentation can only be constructed in terms of the conclusion it is trying to support, not in terms of the intended meaning (of which there is none).
5) the common good (shared survival, happiness & growth) is the only source of lasting and consistent values; religion (and I mean more than just christianity here) only ties into that when it fits the goals of its intitutions (and will take AMPLE credit for it). Otherwise, it has no qualm trampling over the common good (and then will downplay its involvement). The crusades, the inquisitions and the ethnic purgings religion has instigated through the ages are testimony to that. Other institutions are also responsible for similar (or identical) woes, but the fact that religion has consistently supported and/or instigated these speaks volumes about its relationship with/within humanity.
6) religious thought and belief foster credulity which fosters exploitation. Only hard facts and an inquisitive mind can rise to a true challenge.
Again, these are mere opinions which I will not defend anymore from this point on ... Thanks Mevers for your input, in many ways, yours is more civil dialog than mine :)
B.
So the Tibetan Dalli Lama is coming to my little town on my tiny little island in the middle of Pacific. He is visiting a Bhuddist shrine people made in our town. Anyway it is a big deal on our small island and a huge deal in my town. Anyway my father says it's like having the Pope come to town. Anyway how do Bhuddist feel about such a statement? How do Catholics feel about the statement?
Well I just think it's cool, he took the time to please the little bhuddist shrine in our little town.
Thanks Ben,
You've made some very interesting points and I thank you for spending the time to share them.
Well if Ben is out, Sebastian's out, haven't heard from Erian in forever. We are losing some star players here. Darn.
So the Tibetan Dalli Lama is coming to my little town on my tiny little island in the middle of Pacific. He is visiting a Bhuddist shrine people made in our town. Anyway it is a big deal on our small island and a huge deal in my town. Anyway my father says it's like having the Pope come to town. Anyway how do Bhuddist feel about such a statement? How do Catholics feel about the statement?
I suppose you could see it that way... as a Zen (non-Tibetan) Buddhist, I respect much of what I've read of his writings, but don't really go in for any of the Tibetan reincarnation mysticism stuff. Still, I'd for sure go and see him, given the chance.
|
I've been out of it for a little bit, but here are a few thoughts.
In my (humble) opinion,
1) no one can interpret God (if he exists, which I doubt).
I'll give you that one. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't try (assuming that he exists).
2) the Bible reflect the values of a stone age society (with later re-editing to match the values of our midevial societies) which does not apply to us anymore in any relevant way, these were scary angry people with serious control issues.
A few thoughts here. 1) Nothing can be gained from learning about history? 2) This might be a bit more valid if the Bible were simply a history book. 3) Of course we currently don't have "scary angry people with serious control issues" today.
3) the Bible is flawed and highly immoral in many fundamental ways; the few good parts are totally overtaken by the totally wrong parts; its God is an inconsistent schizophrenic psychopath and plays favorites. No argument can convince me that a good and just god would allow (and provide rules) for slavery, genocide and child murder.
There are a lot of assumptions here and I really don't have the time to do the research to find out what you are talking about. A few thoughts -- we actually only recently live in a much more "enlightened" time as far as slavery is concerned. As far as time and history is concerned, 200 years is a proverbial drop in the bucket and only recently do we feel that slavery is wrong. I am not saying that slavery is right. What I am saying is that slavery existed far longer than it didn't. Also, if memory serves me right, there are very explicit instructions on how to treat slaves and if a person treated them poorly, the penalty was rather severe. In either case, I feel that God is much more concerned about a person's soul rather than their job whether that "job" is a slave or a CEO of a corporation. As far as genocide -- when God tells people involved "if you can find me even ONE person worth saving, I will spare the entire city" and they can't even find one person, it seems to me that it was more than just "pretty bad". God knows people's hearts and souls -- if a group of people are truly beyond saving at all, why should they be kept around? I have no idea about the child murder and if you have a specific reference, I would be happy to do some research into it.
4) human agents only direct their interpretations of the Bible towards their social policies and care very little about the common good. That is simply because there is no consistent way to interpret it at all.
What is the difference between "social policies" and "common good"? If feels like you are talking about something very specific here that I have no idea about and so it is very difficult to address this.
Consistent Interpretations -- Does ANYTHING have a "constistent interpretation"? Yet this has been thrown out against Christians here time and time again. And still, as I have said before, there are a great number of things that (pretty much) all Christians are in agreement on. Most everything else doesn't really matter.
Therefore, any argumentation can only be constructed in terms of the conclusion it is trying to support, not in terms of the intended meaning (of which there is none).
I am not sure what you are saying here. What is the difference between "the conclusion" and "the intended meaning"? It seems that these are basically the same thing -- in which case your statement makes no sense.
5) the common good (shared survival, happiness & growth) is the only source of lasting and consistent values; religion (and I mean more than just christianity here) only ties into that when it fits the goals of its intitutions (and will take AMPLE credit for it). Otherwise, it has no qualm trampling over the common good (and then will downplay its involvement). The crusades, the inquisitions and the ethnic purgings religion has instigated through the ages are testimony to that. Other institutions are also responsible for similar (or identical) woes, but the fact that religion has consistently supported and/or instigated these speaks volumes about its relationship with/within humanity.
Of course this is kind of a "catch 22" situation. If the "goals of the institutions" match the "common good" and they don't "take AMPLE credit for it" how would you know that it was happening?
6) religious thought and belief foster credulity which fosters exploitation. Only hard facts and an inquisitive mind can rise to a true challenge.
I can understand what you are saying here. Although it seems odd to me that "only hard facts" ... "rise to a true challenge". I'm not sure how truly challenging "hard facts" really are.
Again, these are mere opinions which I will not defend anymore from this point on ... Thanks Mevers for your input, in many ways, yours is more civil dialog than mine :)
I am always curious about how other people think. This gives me valuable insight to many things.
is he gonna arrive in a bulletproof vehicle surrounded by armed guards; if not is not much like the Pope visiting; interestingly, the Pope is also a head of state as Vadican City is also a state; so is a bit different; that he will say some words of encouragement and try to put some life issues in perspective will be about the same. I would go see him even though I am a catholic as it is one of those once in a lifetime sorta things.
Personally, Big Ben, I dont think you have a clue and havent read the bible obviously. One of the impactful things I noticed reading the bible is the numerous times I read about someone who feels exactly like I do with the same concerns and all; it is amazing; 1400 years old and that guys is descibing my feelings to a T.
One of the impactful things I noticed reading the bible is the numerous times I read about someone who feels exactly like I do with the same concerns and all; it is amazing; 1400 years old and that guys is descibing my feelings to a T.
Isn't that likely because you were raised and/or influenced to believe those same things, by people who select their beliefs based on what's in the Bible?
is he gonna arrive in a bulletproof vehicle surrounded by armed guards; if not is not much like the Pope visiting; interestingly, the Pope is also a head of state as Vadican City is also a state; so is a bit different; that he will say some words of encouragement and try to put some life issues in perspective will be about the same. I would go see him even though I am a catholic as it is one of those once in a lifetime sorta things.
No Popemobile for the Dalai Lama, as he is not a head of state and has not been for quite some time. Politically speaking, he's an exile. But, yeah, he'll likely issue words of peace, encouragement, cooperation, and the like. Of course, that's kind of in a Buddhist monk's job description.
is he gonna arrive in a bulletproof vehicle surrounded by armed guards; if not is not much like the Pope visiting; interestingly, the Pope is also a head of state as Vadican City is also a state; so is a bit different; that he will say some words of encouragement and try to put some life issues in perspective will be about the same. I would go see him even though I am a catholic as it is one of those once in a lifetime sorta things.No Popemobile for the Dalai Lama, as he is not a head of state and has not been for quite some time. Politically speaking, he's an exile. But, yeah, he'll likely issue words of peace, encouragement, cooperation, and the like. Of course, that's kind of in a Buddhist monk's job description.
From what I understand he is the head of state for the exiled government of Tibet. Tibet was illegally overthrown by the Chines government in the 1940s, or was it early 1950s. Anyway he is still recognized arround the world as the head of state for the exiled government of Tibet.
From what I understand he is the head of state for the exiled government of Tibet. Tibet was illegally overthrown by the Chines government in the 1940s, or was it early 1950s. Anyway he is still recognized arround the world as the head of state for the exiled government of Tibet.
Correct, except that I'd argue that "illegal" only applies if there's an authority to recognize it. In the case of Tibet, China annexed them and no other nation that I know of did anything to help. By accepting that as a fact of life, the rest of the world tacitly made that takeover "legal." Everyone pays lip service to the Dalai Lama's legitimacy by agreeing to harbor him, but no one dares to go far enough to tick off China over it.
I've been out of it for a little bit, but here are a few thoughts.
I'll give you that one. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't try (assuming that he exists).In my (humble) opinion,
1) no one can interpret God (if he exists, which I doubt).
Actually it is a stong argument not to try. We can't get closer to infinity just by counting. Trying anything will get you three things, lost time, mistakes, and success. But we've ruled out the success part.
2) the Bible reflect the values of a stone age society (with later re-editing to match the values of our midevial societies) which does not apply to us anymore in any relevant way, these were scary angry people with serious control issues.
A few thoughts here. 1) Nothing can be gained from learning about history? 2) This might be a bit more valid if the Bible were simply a history book. 3) Of course we currently don't have "scary angry people with serious control issues" today.
1) history has taught me that the bible and religion in general can get a lot of innocent people killed with no justification, so I'd like to think I have learned from history. The bible unquestionably is a historical reference but this alone does not give it merit. Example; Mein Kampf is also very historical.
2)True, it's a story book with a lot of morals that are destined to save souls. Meaning its writers had even more reason to tweak the "facts"
3)We do, but we have no reason to believe that they have more staying power than the bible. You don't have time to squat mosquitos when there's a mountain lion on your chest.
3) the Bible is flawed and highly immoral in many fundamental ways; the few good parts are totally overtaken by the totally wrong parts; its God is an inconsistent schizophrenic psychopath and plays favorites. No argument can convince me that a good and just god would allow (and provide rules) for slavery, genocide and child murder.
There are a lot of assumptions here and I really don't have the time to do the research to find out what you are talking about.
Fine. Gay people. They aren't hurting anything yet they are forbidden. All the gay people I've known were very nice, I don't like the idea of them sinning just because their hormones are triggered by the same gender.
|
|
In my (humble) opinion,
1) no one can interpret God (if he exists, which I doubt).
I'll give you that one. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't try (assuming that he exists).
Actually it is a stong argument not to try. We can't get closer to infinity just by counting. Trying anything will get you three things, lost time, mistakes, and success. But we've ruled out the success part.
Yes and no. I see understanding or interpreting God similar to making money. Our "goal" is to make money. How much? Depends on a lot of different factors. Is there ever a point where we have "succeeded"? Possibly, but I've never heard anyone tell me that they had too much money and were making too much money. And currently I don't feel like I will ever make "enough" money. Should I just quit then?
I like to ride a bike. I want to do it really well. I will never be as good as Lance Armstrong. I guess that I should just quit now because it will just be a lot of wasted time.
It is difficult to come up with a really good analogy, but I don't know why anyone feels that they have to understand 100% of God. There are a lot of things that you don't understand 100% and yet you accept that.
|
|
2) the Bible reflect the values of a stone age society (with later re-editing to match the values of our midevial societies) which does not apply to us anymore in any relevant way, these were scary angry people with serious control issues.
A few thoughts here. 1) Nothing can be gained from learning about history? 2) This might be a bit more valid if the Bible were simply a history book. 3) Of course we currently don't have "scary angry people with serious control issues" today.
1) history has taught me that the bible and religion in general can get a lot of innocent people killed with no justification, so I'd like to think I have learned from history. The bible unquestionably is a historical reference but this alone does not give it merit. Example; Mein Kampf is also very historical.
2)True, it's a story book with a lot of morals that are destined to save souls. Meaning its writers had even more reason to tweak the "facts".
BigBen's point seemed to be that there was absolutely NOTHING that could be gained from the Bible. My point is that, at the very least, it is a history book. And archeology is showing more and more how little of the Bible was "tweaked".
Also, if I were to "tweak" things about the Bible, I would have left out or seriously modified a lot of what was in the old testament. (There are some seriously disturbing things in there.)
3)We do, but we have no reason to believe that they have more staying power than the bible. You don't have time to squat mosquitos when there's a mountain lion on your chest.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. BigBen seemed to imply that the Bible doesn't apply today because there were "scary angry people with serious control issues" back then. I am suggesting that there are still "scary angry people with serious control issues" today and so I don't see how that is a valid point.
There is nothing in the Bible that says that being gay will send you to hell. There is nothing in the Bible that says that you can't be a Christian and be gay.
Per your interpretation, although it (sadly) seems that the majority of the U.S. population interprets it differently, as does apparently the entire Anglican community in Africa.
|
|
3)...No argument can convince me that a good and just god would allow (and provide rules) for slavery...
Ok, so I talked to someone about this one...
Leviticus was written a LONG time ago about a time LONG ago.
There were no prisons. You really need to read the "rules" that were given about slavery. Slavery was not how we think of it today. If someone did something bad to someone else, they became that person's "slave". There were VERY explicit "rules" on how to treat your "slave". They were a "slave" for a very specific set of time and then they were released. It was that time's way of paying back society for whatever wrong they committed.
Slaves were not bought and sold and they weren't really thought of as "property".
I hope that helps on the slavery issue.
|
|
Per your interpretation, although it (sadly) seems that the majority of the U.S. population interprets it differently, as does apparently the entire Anglican community in Africa.
I don't know why this is such a big issue, but it really is and it is a bit "sticky".
People (Christians and Non-Christians) really need to understand that God is not asking people to "get cleaned up before they take a bath". People need to simply "take the bath". After the bath, if God (I can't emphasize this enough -- GOD, not some televangelist, preacher, "friend", or someone else...) -- if you feel that God is telling you to change/stop X, Y, or Z, then you should probably do it. If you don't feel that he is saying that, then don't.
Even if homosexual acts might be considered a sin (a debate that I will NOT get into) -- it then falls into "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or "Why are you looking at the splinter in your brother's eye when you have a log in yours?" They are not in a better or worse place than anyone else in the world.
After the bath, if God (I can't emphasize this enough -- GOD, not some televangelist, preacher, "friend", or someone else...) -- if you feel that God is telling you to change/stop X, Y, or Z, then you should probably do it. If you don't feel that he is saying that, then don't.
Well said. I think a lot of the fervor is because God doesn't actually talk to people (unless, of course, you believe our president), so most people are not sure what to think... and most people are easily swayed by the opinions of others. A few vocal nutcases can easily start a nationwide movement of idiocy.
when God tells people involved "if you can find me even ONE person worth saving, I will spare the entire city" and they can't even find one person, it seems to me that it was more than just "pretty bad". God knows people's hearts and souls -- if a group of people are truly beyond saving at all, why should they be kept around?
So...what exactly do you mean by this? I thought part of the point was that potentially everyone was saved.
Most of my friends and I reject Christianity and organized religion in general, and that doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. So if we formed a town of our own, would you support God going all Soddam and Gammorha on it? Are we sinners truly "beyond saving"?
There is nothing in the Bible that says that being gay will send you to hell. There is nothing in the Bible that says that you can't be a Christian and be gay.Per your interpretation, although it (sadly) seems that the majority of the U.S. population interprets it differently, as does apparently the entire Anglican community in Africa.
The issue with this is that some people just don't like gays. It has absolutely nothing to do with thier religion, and more to do with their upbringing (nowadays) or just personal prejudices (different=bad). The reason this has been connected to religion is that soem people get it into their heads that everyone should think like they do, and religion is the fastest way to spread ideas throughout a community. By saying "God hates gays" (a rediculous statement just by the first two words), they can sway a number of people who are willing to beleive them (most easily done in the middle ages, when no-one was literate except the priests).
Plus, if we don't like something, it may just be natural that we assume our respective God does too (the reason for using religion as a basis for genocide). As it once said on Star Trek--"We all create God in our own image."
|
|
So...what exactly do you mean by this? I thought part of the point was that potentially everyone was saved.
"potentially everyone was saved"? I don't understand.
Most of my friends and I reject Christianity and organized religion in general, and that doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. So if we formed a town of our own, would you support God going all Soddam and Gammorha on it? Are we sinners truly "beyond saving"?
We are talking about a HUGE difference between a few people that want to be left alone and Soddam and Gammorha. Have you actually read the account? It is really messed up. Evil doesn't even come close to describing the situation. We are talking about something far more than simply "rejecting Christianity and organized religion". It was something that was even harmful to others -- VERY harmful to others.
In addition, there really seems to be a great difference with people between then and now. After taking a good look at the Bible (among other things) there almost seemed to be a "hive mind" mentality to so much of culture back then. The Hebrews were certainly not immune to this. I don't fully understand it -- but my point with this is that, aside from a very few minor extreme cults, people are much more as individuals. Today I think that you would have a harder time finding ten people truly worth wiping out in any given city than 100 people in any city worth saving.
I really don't think that there is anything today that can even come close to comparison.
|
|
The issue with this is that some people just don't like gays. It has absolutely nothing to do with thier religion, and more to do with their upbringing (nowadays) or just personal prejudices (different=bad).
Possibly. It could also simply be fear. It is very easy to be scared of something that you don't understand.
when God tells people involved "if you can find me even ONE person worth saving, I will spare the entire city" and they can't even find one person, it seems to me that it was more than just "pretty bad". God knows people's hearts and souls -- if a group of people are truly beyond saving at all, why should they be kept around?So...what exactly do you mean by this? I thought part of the point was that potentially everyone was saved.
Most of my friends and I reject Christianity and organized religion in general, and that doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. So if we formed a town of our own, would you support God going all Soddam and Gammorha on it? Are we sinners truly "beyond saving"?
...and Malthus turned from the path of Origin to eat the sweet, sweet berries. And as he stepped over the line in the sand, it became a great chasm, and the Prior said to Malthus "You have turned from the Ori, and so your village shall burn." Malthus tried to cross the chasm, but fell, and the village was saved. Yay.
Hallowed are the Ori.
- Jerk Gentry, evil parody twin
It is difficult to come up with a really good analogy, but I don't know why anyone feels that they have to understand 100% of God. There are a lot of things that you don't understand 100% and yet you accept that.
Yeah but most of those things aren't in complete and direct control of the universe and thus your immediate wellbeing. I think it's understandable that if someone believed in such a being they would be interested in understanding it so as to be able to predict it's actions. That is what every religious person is doing after all, ot a greater or lesser extent. Only the non-religious and agnostics truly live by the maxim that God can't be understood.
|
|
It is difficult to come up with a really good analogy, but I don't know why anyone feels that they have to understand 100% of God. There are a lot of things that you don't understand 100% and yet you accept that.
yah but most of those things aren't in complete and direct control of the universe and thus your immediate wellbeing.
I don't know that understanding God is either.
...and Malthus turned from the path of Origin to eat the sweet, sweet berries. And as he stepped over the line in the sand, it became a great chasm, and the Prior said to Malthus "You have turned from the Ori, and so your village shall burn." Malthus tried to cross the chasm, but fell, and the village was saved. Yay.Hallowed are the Ori.
- Jerk Gentry, evil parody twin
Ever have a chocolate Malthus?
Heh, sorry Moff, I added a bit while you were posting to explain myself because I felt it sounded a bit blunt. But you got in first. Aren't all you Americans and Brits supposed to be in bed or something? ;)
Heh, sorry Moff, I added a bit while you were posting to explain myself because I felt it sounded a bit blunt. But you got in first. Aren't all you Americans and Brits supposed to be in bed together or something? ;)
We are right now and it's incredible, once you get past the talking-wrong thing, that is.
Heh, sorry Moff, I added a bit while you were posting to explain myself because I felt it sounded a bit blunt. But you got in first. Aren't all you Americans and Brits supposed to be in bed together or something? ;)We are right now and it's incredible, once you get past the talking-wrong thing, that is.
Walked right into that one didn't I?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thanks Ben,
You've made some very interesting points and I thank you for spending the time to share them.
Well if Ben is out, Sebastian's out, haven't heard from Erian in forever. We are losing some star players here. Darn.
I'm back with an important announcement. I listened really hard and God spoke to me. He said (and this is an exact quote):
"Sebastian, you kick ass. Go forth and tell the wayward folk on the Paizo boards that I have spoken unto thee and given thee the truth, the way, etc, etc. You've been right all along, feel free to dispense my divine justice as you see fit."
So, I am now in the business of selling divine justice. Just send me a check for $25.00 and the name of the person to whom the justice is to be dispensed and I will guarantee them an eternity of punishment.
What can I say, he works in mysterious ways...
|
|
It is difficult to come up with a really good analogy, but I don't know why anyone feels that they have to understand 100% of God. There are a lot of things that you don't understand 100% and yet you accept that.
Yeah but most of those things aren't in complete and direct control of the universe and thus your immediate wellbeing. I think it's understandable that if someone believed in such a being they would be interested in understanding it so as to be able to predict it's actions. That is what every religious person is doing after all, ot a greater or lesser extent. Only the non-religious and agnostics truly live by the maxim that God can't be understood.
What actions are you hoping to predict?
Why do you feel that only the non-religious and agnostics truly live by the maxim that God can't be understood?
While I feel that I understand quite a bit, I also feel that there is a whole lot that I don't know. Pretty much every Christian that I know feels the same way (including quite a number of different denominations). I think a lot of people kind of joke about it saying something like "well I guess that I will ask him that when I see him" or something similar. One thing that I want an answer for is why did he create mosquitos? Of course, I don't know how knowing that answer will actually help me in any way.
While I feel that it is kind of a goal of all Christians, I don't know of any Christians that actually think that they will ever truly know 100% of God. In either case, it really doesn't change the end result.
Can we work out some kind of buyer incentive program where say, someone who pays to have nine people damned gets the tenth for free?
Oh, and I want to be able to customize each damnation!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Can we work out some kind of buyer incentive program where say, someone who pays to have nine people damned gets the tenth for free?
Oh, and I want to be able to customize each damnation!
I'm actually running a special this week: buy three damnations and the fourth one is half off. I'm looking into a punch card type thing to reward my frequent customers.
As for customization, you'll want to look into my new Platinum Level Divine Justice service. For an extra $9.99 per dispensing, you can specify the form of eternal damnation.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So, I am now in the business of selling divine justice. Just send me a check for $25.00 and the name of the person to whom the justice is to be dispensed and I will guarantee them an eternity of punishment.Is PayPal accepted?
No, but back issues of Dragon and Dungeon are.
Can we work out some kind of buyer incentive program where say, someone who pays to have nine people damned gets the tenth for free?
Oh, and I want to be able to customize each damnation!
I'm actually running a special this week: buy three damnations and the fourth one is half off. I'm looking into a punch card type thing to reward my frequent customers.
As for customization, you'll want to look into my new Platinum Level Divine Justice service. For an extra $9.99 per dispensing, you can specify the form of eternal damnation.
I was thinking about punch cards!
I can't believe there's a platinum level! You wouldn't happen to have an eternal eaten-by-voracious-hounds option, would you?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
No, but back issues of Dragon and Dungeon are.Not a chance. I'm taking them with me. :-P
Someone made a comment at work to me the other day about not being able to take their wealth with them. I said that I may not be able to take it with me, but I sure the hell can have a large and elaborate tomb constructed, complete with deadly traps and secret passages. They laughed as if I was joking...
|
|
Someone made a comment at work to me the other day about not being able to take their wealth with them. I said that I may not be able to take it with me, but I sure the hell can have a large and elaborate tomb constructed, complete with deadly traps and secret passages. They laughed as if I was joking...
I don't know -- have you looked at the cost of making a simple 10' x 10' pit trap? According to the DMG it is something like 10,000 day's wages.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't know -- have you looked at the cost of making a simple 10' x 10' pit trap?
It's not just the cost either, it's the time to build it. I figure that once this divine justice thing takes off I'll be able to afford a 20' long hallway with a 10x10 pit trap, a cardboard cutout of an orc, and a plastic pie.
Moff, I think maybe we have different ideas of what "understand" means in this context. By "understanding" God I mean pretty much the same as understanding a person. You know what they want and what they are likely to approve or disapprove of, and you can then see why they do what they do. You act accordingly depending on whether or not you care about their opinion of you.
I'm not sure what you mean, but it seems to me by "understanding" God you mean knowing how everything in his chain of reasoning connects, eg. why a baby dies of cancer while a murderer goes free. Please correct me if I misunderstand.
What actions are you hoping to predict?
Well, none, because I am agnostic not only about God's existence but about His influence on the world. But if I was a religious man I would want to know what God wants from me, and knowing why He wants it helps too. If I know (understand) what He wants me to avoid then I can also avoid His punishment. Understanding something leads to the ability to predict how it wll act.
Also, God's actions look very different depending on what His motives are. If He is ultimately motivated by love for us (which is the God I was taught back in catholic school) then that is very different from his actions being a test we must pass (eg. the God of Job).
Why do you feel that only the non-religious and agnostics truly live by the maxim that God can't be understood?
Because to me that's what religion is by definition: Someone saying that they know what God wants and why. If that's not a claim that God can be understood then I don't know what to call it.
The non-religious either deny His existence or deny every interpretation of His motives and desires. Agnostics deny that He can be understood in any way.