Topic awaiting preservation: God? continued... (Page 1 of 1)

Continued from here.

quote:

---

InSiDeR, what definition of hypocrite are you going by? I'm not understanding why you're calling them that.

---

Well bugs, read:

quote:

---

people just dont know how to interpret the bible and they start making opinions of their own on what "God wants" and they make themeselves belive that's right

---

yup, oh and:

quote:

---

..its just like i said people dont understand it.

---

Still don't see it? Just say so I'll talk.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Ok, tell me if I'm missing something but it seemed to me they're just saying we need to *study* the thing to understand it properly. That doesn't seem like a bad thing at all.

I think most people don't read it for what it says but rather they think it says what they want it to say. That's a very dangerous thing because the bible has been used to justify many horrible injustices when upon closer reading it did no such thing.

They say people don't know how to interpret the bible correct?

What fucking room do they have? The bible can't be interpreted.

The bible is a book, and it reads, like a book, like any historical/fantasy fiction novel, filled with fuckloads of contradictons. Ok? I thought we went through this already.

Yes, sit down with the hundreds of people and ask, what they meant....

AHAH but thats just it, hundreds of people wrote it. And you know what? They all wrote it in the same perspective, the same style, the same literature, everything. So it would appear to me that maybe these hundreds of profits and deciples, may just be a small group of people or even. ~GASP~ ONE FUCKING PERSON!!

Did you ever think of that bugs?


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

InSiDeR, that's just it. If you had studied even a little about it you would know that it is *not* written in the same style throughout. Anyway, I don't think those guys were being hypocritical, I think perhaps what you really mean is that you think it's arrogant to assume to know the *correct* interpretation. Is that closer to what you're saying?

Wow, InSiDer, I don't even know where to begin. The same style? The books weren't even written in the same languages! Then we've got historical documents, a census, wisdom literature, a love poem, prophetic literature, letters, etc. Not to mention that the writings span a tremendous amount of time. You may choose not to believe this, but these are facts.

As for the Bible not being open to interpretation, well, everything is open to interpretation. What I mean is that when you read the Bible (or anything, for that matter), you automatically interpret it--you attempt to find and explain the meaning to yourself. There are indeed many interpretations of the Bible, and I imagine that Bugs is probably right in his guess that it's the fact that someone assumes to know the correct interpretation that is bothering you (oy, how's that for a convoluted sentence).

I purposely avoided the last conversation, seeing as it's usually the same things that get said over and over again in these threads, but I was kind of surprised by your ignorance of the Bible's composition, considering you were once a Christian yourself (right?).

Scholar Touts Oldest Link to Jesus

Pretty interesting discussion going on so far. I was going to start a seperate thread for this article, but I'd imagine it would fit in fine right here.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Insider, The bible is definitely not of the same composition through out. It is a collection of documents arbitrarly put together to consolidate Rome's power over the other churches. There are books that were considered just as important to an Alexandrian christian as the book of Acts is to a Roman christian but were not included in the bible for political reasons. The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels is an excellent source of information on these excluded books.

I think you are speaking more out of frustration than reason here. Even if you had but a slight exposure to christianity you would see what a mixture the bible is. It is the lack of the same composition that causes so many disagreements. You have a group of letters and documents that were never intended to be put together as a whole. Translated, Mis-translated, and Edited by whomever was in power to legitimatize their power. Then pulled together by the Romans, slapped onto the five books and their commentaries, throw in some prophecies, and some poetry. Stirred together and then intentially mis-translated by an English king for his political purposes. And Voila! The holy book used by the christians. The same sort of things happened in Hinduism and Budhism with minor differences (No English king and No Romans )

Interesting article Jestah...thanks for posting. One thing is puzzling me though. I always thought that the 'trial' of Jesus was recorded in Roman script...is this then wrong? Are there, then, no Roman records of this? I always thought there was...on this, I based my belief that the man, Jesus, really did exist...maybe this is incorrect?

Do you know, Bugs?

Ahhh...answered in a different thread...thanks, Bugs.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-23-2002).]

Yes bugs, that was what I was refering too.

(No I wasn't being sarcastic either.)

man you guys are ding dong even korean people(shuho1004) know about bible more than you... Dude is the man! I like his opinion....
and insider no I didnt read koran or whatever but I did read a "Time" article about compresion between bible...koran or (Quaran) and some Jewish bible...there is a lot of similarities....well not 100% but they describe the same stories from diffrent point of view.



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 10-23-2002).]

Ruski, where are you from and what is your religious affiliation? And who is "Dude"???

Bugs, I think he was referring to Master Suho...

And I hope he wasn't including you and I in his....ding-dong 'club'...

I think Dude is in reference to Suho.

And yea, there are a lot of similarities between every single religion on the planet, because at one point in time there was no religion and everyone was in close touch with nature and the spirit of nature, and the power of our sub-conscious to travel inside of our own brains and dig up information that was unknown to scientists until recently.

quote:

---

What Narby suggests is that the shaman is, in some way, communicating with his own DNA, and this is where he is getting the information from. This may sound bizarre, but it must be remembered that we do not know the function of97% of DNA, which science terms 'junk DNA', but which Narby suggests we call'mystery DNA'. All the diversity of life is accounted for by just 3% of DNA, so it seems inconceivable that the other 97% has no function. But what couldit do?

---

From Site - FusionAnomaly

teamEarth ~~ Cell 816

Ok here is for a bit of background...I was born in Lithuania, but my family is Russian, my familie's religeon is Roman Catholic, but I also respect other religeons...even I like some of em'....I migrated to states like from now 4 years ago...I came here without knowing any English....even worse I am in Puerto Rica now learning the damn Espaniol...so I almost speak 4 languages...the first time I used computer was like year after I came to this place...photoshop just few month ago!.....well yes master shuho is the man!!!
I personaly respect asian people they are damn genius!
and Bugimus, WebShaman no your are not part of any dingdong club..
you are cool dudes but try not to missunderstand me...I am a damn Russian artist...

Ruski: Why thank you... I appreciate your comments. I have always wanted to be the man.

(Actually, though, I'm only 50% Korean... and that 50% would be my wife. )

No probs Ruski, thanks for sharing a little of your background with us. Here at the Asylum, we're really multi-culti...from every part of the spectrum.

Yup, and that includes 'DingDongs', as you call them...hehe...but what else would one expect to find, in an Asylum?

Back to the original topic...

Just thought I'd add this...

quote:

---

Flood myths that occur all over the world are the ?folk memory? of the experience of suffering 10,000 years of (slowly) rising sea level, and the continuous loss of hunting and foraging territory.

---

It would seem, once again, that Archeaology is 'eroding' (though if one doesn't take the Bible literally...or 'bend' it a bit...well, sometimes alot , supporting it) the Bible...and all other Religious Books that record 'a great flood'.

It would seem that these are 'recollections', handed down from generation to generation, telling of when the last Ice Age receded...

So, no 'Arche Noah', in that sense...but there truly was a 'massive flooding, over time, of much landmass'...

The main thing that comes to my mind is... People of all religions follow them without any form of good proof. Some use "miracles" as proof, but people of all religions have "miracles" happen to them. Every religion has had people who claim to have seen "God" or a "God".. and angels or demons or whatever else there might be.
What reason might you have for your beliefs? Many people would reply that "It is about faith." Faith is the reason? What does faith mean? Does it not just say that one wishes so badly to believe something that they are willing to ignore reasoning and logic to continue believing it? If you were raised to believe in another religion, would you be adamantly devoted to it? After all, there are others who have had the same thing happen to them.. maybe it wouldn't happen to you though.
What about your specific religion makes you believe in it? Is there any evidence to believe in it? No, all religions are based on hear-say, conjecture, and interpretation. Those things do not even hold up in court, why do they hold up as the foundation of one's morals?
Even if (a) "God" came down today and told us about the creation of the universe, how would we know that this being really is (a) "God"? It could give us all the evidence to prove it, but if it really was an omnipotent [all-powerful] being, it could have just faked it all and hide that it faked all of the evidence.
Also, even if we were able to find some mystical "throne(s)" where God(s) are supposed to reside and showed that no God(s) existed, would that really prove that one didn't or doesn't exist?
I feel that everyone should realize that we are agnostic.. not as a noun, but as an adjective. Agnostic Christian, Agnostic Muslim, Agnostic Atheist.... but that becomes redundant. However, anyone who doesn't realize that we cannot in any way prove that there is or isn't a God or Gods, is a victim of ignorance. I do not mean that as an insult, but rather, I mean it to say that they do not realize that there is no possible way for us to ever be certain if such a being does or does not exist.
Personally, I do not follow any 'real' religion, but I imagine you had guessed that. Mainly, I see no proof of any of those religions, and thus, I have no reason to believe them. Beyond that, I have scientific reasons to *doubt* the plausibility of the existence of such a being. More so, I have reasons of logic make the existence of such a being seem silly.. in ways, it makes a mockery of the universe.
Yet, I still accept the possibility that one could exist.. However, I would not view them or it as "Gods" or a "God" as others do... They may have created my ancestors and thus me, but I do not think that gives them/it a dictatorial position above me. Above that, I would not wish to worship them, despite their power, just I would not worship any human or other being. Not just that, I would not wish to worship a being who created the universe just to play "God". I wouldn't worship a being who created us simply to have us follow and worship it or suffer it's wrath. I would not look up to a being who eternally sentences people to relentless, extreme torture. I would see a being that made such black and white decisions, was so judgmental, and so vindictive as even making a good human.

Moving on [or maybe I should say back], I do know that this was actually started as a question about why did God allow man to sin..
"A sin is bad, a sin is evil. So why would God make the tree of all knowledge in the garden of Eden, enabling us to commit are first sin. "
Well, God, according to himself and his followers, is omniscient and omnipotent [all knowing and all powerful]. So, one could easily argue that God intended for there to be evil. God created and thus controls all evil. God made the angel who later became evil.. and thus became the devil. If God was all knowing and all powerful, he would have either not made that angel or he intended that angel to be that way. This also means that he intended humans to sin. He put is in the Garden of Eden and engineered everything in order to make us do exactly what we did.. He punished us for something he forced us to do. He created and controls all evil.
I'm not trying to make God look like a bad guy. A lot of people look at this as "God's plan".. and they say that everything he does has a purpose.. Others might say it's because he gave us "free will".. however, he must have known what we were going to do with it.
Moving deeper by getting into another complex and controversial subject, everything is either with reason or random.. there are either reasons, clear or hidden, behind things happening.. or they are random.. "free will" points to the former.. Science indicates that as well.. However, perhaps there is some level of randomization. No matter, though. In the bigger picture, randomization does not matter.. nothing can change or control randomization, and thus, it was bound to happen the way it did, and it becomes insignificant because it is not really a change, but just a new "circumstance".
If we really do work with "free will", we would be working with reasons.. Reasons and circumstances would lead us to make the decisions we do, perhaps affected by randomization. This is basically what "fate" is, though: a predetermined course acting itself out. Reasons and circumstance lead us down certain paths, but those reasons and circumstance were bound to be the way at that moment, and thus, they were bound to lead us to another specific position, which in turn will lead us to the next, possibly with some random speed bumps on the way.
Thus is not meant to say that we do not make decisions, and we do not choose who we are, but.. we were bound to be born, that was out of our control.. and when we were born, we were given the same circumstances.. and thus, our life progressed as it did and here we are.. we've made many choices on the way, but those were made because of reasons.. psychical reasons. Even if one believes in some spiritual conscience, there would be a "tangible conscience" somewhere. Thus, we've made our choices, used our "will".. but we were bound to be that baby, and we were bound to have the same people around us, have the reactions we did to their input, and grow up how we did.. we make the choices we do because of things such as.. memories of the past.. what we think will happen in the future depending on these choices.. what we desire.. what kind of outside influences there are at the moment [illegal drugs, caffeine, medication..].. mental "problems".. I quote problems because they are not specifically a problem.. one might enjoy their hyperactivity for example.. or maybe their insanity... Enough examples.. Basically, however our mind is at the moment determines what it will [try to] do. It was bound to be in that state because of the past, and if you trace it back far enough, we or whatever or whoever we are referring to has a point where it could not control anything.
What does all that have to do with God? A lot.
I'll just work on the issue that is [sort of] at hand..
Why did he make it that way, assuming that it was that way? He was bound to make it that way. He had no real way of stopping himself from doing it.. the proof is in that he did it, again assuming that he did.. God created all evil, God forced us to be evil, God punishes us for being evil, yet still continues to force us to be evil.
How can I be sure that (a) God, should one exist is victim to circumstance? Well, as I said, if you trace it back far enough, whatever we are referring to has a point where it could not control anything.

At what point does God have no control? Well, it is a simple as the limits of time. Infinite past is not possible. It works in the same way for the future, somewhat. If I was to say that "the universe would end an infinite amount of time from now", that would mean that it would never end, correct? Let's work on that backwards, assuming that God was the first being for the ease of this example.. Before the Universe, there would then be God. God was there before then, doing whatever he might have been doing, even if it was just sitting there and doing nothing.. Before that moment, he would have also been doing something.. and before that and still before that.. That line would continue to go back.. so, let's just imagine a time very far away from the creation of the universe.. Imagine that there would be nonillions of years before the creation of the universe [1 followed by 30 zeros].. That's a lot of time, but nowhere near infinity.. God was there a nonillion^nonillion years before then.. When you look at such big numbers, it becomes easy to see how quickly the creation of the universe gets farther away.. and then, we go back to how we said "infinite time".. that would mean that god had an infinite amount of things to do [even if it's nothing] before creating the universe.. that would mean that it would have been an infinite amount of time before the universe was created... and thus, it wouldn't have ever been created.. in fact, that event at nonillion^nonillion would not have happened, either.. because there's an infinite amount of time before that, too.. It is easy to see how in a universe with an infinite past, nothing would ever happen.. and thus, infinite past could not exist.. and it could not be created.. because it would take an infinite amount of time.
Why do I explain that?... It gives a powerful statement...

God would have to of been spontaneously generated.

This also means that God was "born" into circumstance.. determined by it's generation. It was bound to create the universe, the Garden of Eden, humans, evil, you, your great grandchildren, and the destruction of mankind [if it should happen].
There are still more reasons why this becomes even more important. Things have happened not because of "reasons".. No reason is good or bad, despite what religion or any God [real or imaginary] would have you believe. Good and bad are in the eye of the beholder.
God would have created all of the good and all of the evil in the world. However, they could have been generated just as easily without him. The answer of "did he or didn't he" will always just be speculation, however. Let us not try. I will continue to assume for a little longer that God exists for the sake of this answer...

Why did God do it?
He did it because he was bound to circumstance and he was thus bound to do it.
What reasons were in his mind when he did it?
It is hard to say. Regardless of how much we speculate or if he gave or if he gives an answer, we could not know if it was the true answer... However, I can say this.. an omniscient and omnipotent being probably knows exactly what they are doing and exactly what the end result will be. He created the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge either as metaphors in a book or metaphors in reality to represent things.. and he probably created evil out of his wish to give us free will.. If he were to just create "Good", then we would not have very much freedom, now would we? One is left to question why he would create free will and then judge and torture us for making the 'wrong' decision, though. I didn't say you'd like the answer, but there it is. God must have had some clue what he was doing, but what was it? I can reply with what his possible intents were.. they won't specifically make much sense.. Why does he create "evil" and then condemn it? Evil is only "evil" if one thinks it is.. God may, and he may consider "good" to be the purpose of life.. but that does not force it to be everyone's purpose.. with a true God, though, it would mean that it's the "intent" of life... That still does not make anything "evil", though.. Simply because something has created us does not mean that they can dominate us in whatever way they like... It might be hard to see it like that, but imagine if the devil had created us, and we didn't wish to follow him.. would that make us evil?
This God seems to wish us to follow him but only if we choose to.. We're given the choice to not follow him.. but I'm troubled by the threats of eternal damnation. It kind of seems against that purpose to say "I wish you to follow me, but only if you so desire... and if you don't, you'll burn in hell while experiencing eternal torture".. It's not really a very fair choice. Maybe god is just trying to be rhetoric.. maybe hell doesn't really exist and it's just a "marketing ploy".. Maybe God has/had noble intentions, but wishes to be followed/worshipped so much that he has resorted to scare tactics.. Can I really say? No... but I am troubled that God didn't introduce his same religion all over the word if he did exist... and he instead let different religions be introduced all over, and made it so that any majority of humans would mostly agree that any religion does not exist.
God's motive behind the tree? A lot of motives could be given. A lot of answers could be suggested. However, you'll only believe what you want to believe, and thus, you should think about it yourself. I hope that I've helped somehow, though.

whatever happened to mogg?
such a good question s/he asks
ao?
deep?
testing the water?

"God Is Observing You And Will Spank Your Arse When You Die"

holy frick.

hmmm.... i think i will read that after I get some sleep. stayin up all night workin just has a way of fryin dah nerves.

Welome any whoo.

Welcome to the Asylum ao...enjoy. I'm reading through your post...lots there. Thanks for posting...

"If there is good there is always evil"

I'm a ding dong, what was I thinking?

Of course a korean guy, who is at least twice my age, would know more about the bible than me. I am 14 Ruski, I have much to learn as people will tell you. But I know much more than you give me credit for, go check the debate we had on God a few months ago.

ao, I will read that this weekend after DoD, when I am finished with my epic battle.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

There is no Good, or Evil...it is just a matter of perspective, nothing more...from an 'I' perspective, it's really just a 'what is positive for me (perceived), is good...what is negative (perceived) is evil...on a grander scale, substitue Mankind for the 'I'...

Good and Evil doesn't exist in Nature...it's a man-made thing...

WebShaman...true...you are damn right, well see at least people can understand same thing in their own way!
And Insider dont worry we all are a little of ding dong in our own way...



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 10-29-2002).]

quote:

---

There is no Good, or Evil...it is just a matter of perspective, nothing more...from an 'I' perspective, it's really just a 'what is positive for me (perceived), is good...what is negative (perceived) is evil...on a grander scale, substitute Mankind for the 'I'...

Good and Evil doesn't exist in Nature...it's a man-made thing...

---

I do agree with you on many levels. "Good" and "evil" only exist in the minds of those who believe in them. This shows that one cannot assert that what they believe is "good" is truly good, because it is only their personal delusion, regardless of how many share it. If human kind completely agreed on what is good and evil, I'd say that certain things are effectively mankind's goods and evils. However, we all of course do not believe in entirely the same things. Who is right? Just being the majority doesn't make one right of course. Many things that the majority of today sees as obvious "evils" were not seen as evil by a majority of the world or the majority of a region long before. All kinds of oppression were carried out due to the feelings of the majority. It goes beyond that, even. It is not always the majority, but just the most powerful force in play. If the a country was advanced as the United States is today 100 years ago and wished to conquer that world as it was then, they could have probably done it. Does that mean they are good? No. Does it mean they are bad? No. It means they are able to dominate and force rules. Isn't the same true for the majority? There are still injustices all over the world, and I don't believe that most of the world agrees on anything. The most universal issue is death. Though people do not completely agree on who should die, they tend to agree that people they care about, people they see as good people, should not die. However, they greatly disagree on if their enemies should die, be imprisoned, or dealt with otherwise, diplomatically or rhetorically. Even though most of the world probably wants someone to die, it is hard to say if they would really wish to go through it. If they were given a good chance to imprison their enemy, would they? Beyond that, people disagree on who are bad people. They all point fingers in every direction. Though many people like every country, many people dislike it. Also, their reasons for liking and disliking it are different. Some people hate their country when they get a speeding ticket, and some hate it for imprisoning them for voting no for Saddam Hussein. How are we to weigh these options against each other? No reason is better or worse than another, regardless of what we personally think. A system to evaluate the validity of what people think would certainly be biased. Are we to completely educate people about the issue? We would have to take care to not favor either side of an argument in our explanation. What about people who have been brainwashed and people who are just so set in their ways and views that they are unwilling to let anything you say change them?

This conversation is a very good example of that. There is seemingly no concern as to what point of view we argue in most conversations such as this, as it is most likely that nobody will change from their standpoint. People wish to believe in their religion and do not wish their faith to waiver. Faith is based upon believing without the need for reasons or logic. People tend to begin believing because they are either naive children or for the reason why they keep believing.. They want to believe. They don't wish to just simply "end" when they die; they do not wish to be "alone" in the universe. People tend to just brush off criticism of their religion because they have become convinced that religion is beyond reason, beyond logic, and untouchable by science. Beyond that, even if they at times wonder what it would be like without God or an afterlife, they get a grim or saddening answer. There is nothing. You are alone. You will die; you will cease to matter.

Personally, I do not fear being without a God or having no afterlife. I would not look forward to "heaven" or some realm which is purely built to make me happy. It would be a universe devoted purely to my happiness, but what is the point in doing anything there? It would just be a game to amuse me. Reality would cease to matter; there would be no more reality. Hell would be the same way, except with pain, deception, and all of the other "evils" that some God would decide. Any afterlife would require so much obscure logic and reasoning to be created and such an intricate and abnormal system to even be able to work.. A network reaching across the whole of the universe in order to "pull" us out of our bodies as we die.. Also, the question of what happens to a person who loses parts, even most, of their brain - and thus such a large portion of their memories and personality - in their life but continues to live on, perhaps even through the bigger portion of it? What personality do they have? The one before the injury or the one afterwards? They could be completely different... There are many complex questions that could be answered, but the answers [and the questions], though possible and realistic, would show how obscure the system would need to be. Also, I'd like to think that my life isn't part of some chess game.. Even though I'd prefer there to not to be an afterlife and don't believe that one exists.. I would prefer it to be simply something like ours.. Without manipulation to suit me or punish me.

What of God and his thoughts on "good" and "bad"? Well, God could establish an "intent" for the universe, but that doesn't mean that we "need to" or "should" follow it... However, if he forced us to, we would "need to", but that would be obvious. All God can try to do is assert his thoughts on what is "good" and "bad" as we can. I get the impression that an omniscient being would certainly know that there is not truly "good" or "bad". So, that poses the question.. Does he simply wish us to be good? It seems to be more than that for the God we are talking about. He wishes us to become good, but his way of going about it is questionable. Why did he not just make us all good? Is it because he wanted us to have free will? Why didn't Adam and Eve's children and so on pass on the religion? Why were very different religions developed all over the world? Why does everyone not look like Adam and Eve if we don't evolve? Why has evolution been scientifically observed if it doesn't exist? That's off topic.. going back...

God seems to want us to be good just because we choose to be. If he wanted us to have reasons to believe, why not leave a true testament to his existence? Though it may not prove that he is God, it would prove that "he" exists. Also, at least telling us some things about science would prove that he knows quite a lot more about the universe than we do. However, all of the details completely contradict our observations, science. So he created a universe completely different than the one he claimed to have created... He left evidence of stars and galaxies being around for centuries... He left fossils giving very clear evidence that humans have been around for longer than the bible states. He left fossils of a countless number of creatures which existed long before man, even long before mammals, existed. I don't see why he would have covered earth in fossils that give more than enough evidence to disprove his own theories, and he scattered photons and other energy across countless billions of galaxies just to deceive us into believing that there were stars for billions of years before we existed... Why would he do this and then provide different evidence in scripture if he wished us to believe? It seems that he wishes us to believe obviously bogus information without reason. One might argue that we should believe because of faith, but this suggests that it would be entirely blind faith. It suggests that God had purposely lied to us in order to only get those who will blindly believe in him and/or "interpret" what the books say and make bogus theories based upon them. I do not see the sense behind this, mainly because of it's inefficiency. However, that doesn't make it the "wrong" thing to do. It raises interesting questions, though.

God seems to wish us to believe things that we obviously know to be lies, today. He seems to wish us to believe in "good" and "bad". However, those are only his own opinions. If he is deluded enough to believe in them, how can he be omniscient? If he does realize that they are delusions, why does he wish us to delude ourselves? Why brainwash us? If you're going to try to make us believe in something, why not give us the truth? Why not explain that, "Good and bad don't exist, but the creator of the universe would like you to act a certain way." Why not prove that he is God by leaving something that defies science and/or logic? Why not teach us something about a universe.. Tell us of science or something from the cosmos that we could not possibly know at the moment [or at that moment]? Why sentence us to eternal torture for being "evil"? Where is the sense behind that? What kind of being are you to do that? We don't even torture our prisoners at all, let along torture them for life or eternity. There are some people who break the rules and do it, yes. However, many of those use it to get information to save lives. The others are punished for doing it. Even those who do it to get information are punished. Yet, God would torture us for not believing in his bogus information? Even if I believed that such a God existed, I would not consider him "God". He would be more like a demon in disguise to me.

So...do "good" and "bad" exist? You can convince yourself that they do, but they do not exist "in nature", they don't exist without delusion. There is no true good. What about good for mankind? Well, is what the majority says is "good" really good? Not really.. if one convinces themselves that following or listening to the majority is "good", though, then it can seem that way to them. Do the majority of humans agree on anything notable? No. Should we look beyond the decisions of the moment and look at how it would affect us in the long run? Well, that's an opinion.. However, I imagine that most people would probably not do something if they knew they would deeply regret it and wish they hadn't done it. Almost had you there, didn't I? Deep regret isn't a "bad" thing. Issues like that is where emotions are complicated. However, if we were to decide to give information on the issue, as I suggested earlier, long term results would likely be something that would be included. That's still an "if". Perhaps we could ask if that person would like to listen to the information? However, should we consider if they would regret not listening to the information later, or if they were given the information, would they regret not wanting to listen to it? Should we consider their mental state? Depression, sadness, anger, drugged, drunk.. An altered state of mind isn't bad. At what point is "good" justified? What level of "evil" is acceptable to achieve "good"? If we looked at the long term, and worked with the majority's opinions, then brainwashing everyone to think the same way, even though the majority might not like that, could easily have very beneficial results. No war, cooperation, an poverty and many diseases.. especially due to advanced in medicine. Is this justified, though? We would have to weigh people's "dislike" of this measure compared to the "advantages" of it. Who is to judge what amount of good over what amount of time? If we measured it over millions of years, it could easily be viewed that the "evil" would have "good" results. We could again try to ask the majority. However, how do we dismiss the views of people who "don't know what they're talking about"? We would need to ask a lot of questions to determine how much they really understand their answer.. But even though all of this, do we have a "good" system? Is it a "fair" system? To the people who are the majority, sure. However, that of course doesn't make it good. It is quite unfair to the minorities who would not see it as "good". Perhaps we should consider how neglectful the majority is of the minorities wishes? However, neglectful is not really a bad thing. It all becomes very complex, and we still don't get good and bad from it, just a forced version of it... One dare might ask, "How fair is a forced sense of 'right' and 'wrong'? How is that 'good'?"

On one hand, I agree with you, but on the other, I disagree with you... I guess my first hand would be my side of opinions. I prefer my side of reason, even though it makes things much more complicated.

Thats just more for me to read after DoD .

For those of you who don't know what DoD is, it is the Day of the Dead. A spanish holiday celebrated in most parts of mexico (and some parts of spain too). To the Mexicans it is a day to make fun of death, so on saturday, Day of the Dead, I will be defying death. The usual, jumping off of buildings, playing with fire, anything that can piss death off without having to provoke death.

This will all be video-taped so in the event that Death takes the best of me please enter me in the Darwin Awards, thanks.

Can you post the videotape? I'd love to see your hand get blown off!*


*ok, so not really, but can you post the video?



[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 10-30-2002).]

Be sure to take CFB with you...then he won't need the video...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-30-2002).]

ao,

I think that without a supreme being the concept of good and evil would be just as you and WS say. But if the God of the bible exists, then not only do good and evil become possibilities, but they also become necessary. The entire theology of the bible is based upon good and evil being real.

Would you agree with that?

Well, as I was trying to state in my message is that... Regardless of if any God [or Gods] exist.. It doesn't make anything "good" or "evil". The most that it could establish is an intent. "God intended us to think that this was good and this was evil." A person could believe that this makes certain things good or bad, but I would disagree. Mainly because the people would need to decide that they personally agree with those "rights" and "wrongs". So again, it still is a matter of personal opinion. One could say the same about a country. For example, "Our Founding Fathers created the constitution and stated what is right and wrong in America." Well, that establishes what they intended America to be like, not specifically what it will be like or "should" be like. The best that one might argue is that we "should" do what God [or a God] tells us because it created us, but I would disagree. Imagine if the Devil [or something like it] created the universe and wishes us to follow it's demands. Would you follow them? Personally, I wouldn't. I don't think that a real "God" would be so opinionated, self-important, and deluded, but if it was, I wouldn't look up to it. Even if I agreed with and practiced all of those opinions, I would realize that they are only opinions, and they're nothing near "good" and "bad". Now, I'm not sure what's on your mind until you respond, but let me try to simplify this and see if we can agree on that... Not only can there not be a sense of "good" and "bad", because they are only opinions, but there can be no good or bad because a person's opinion of what makes things "good" and "bad" are different. For example, one person may think that things are "good" if "God" says so, but that's just because of their opinions on what makes something "good".

Does this explain what I mean better?

Yup. The Devil (if it exists...) definitely thinks that God is evil...and that it is good...and vice versa...though on a grander theme...

I've resisted this thread so far because i'm so opinionated *L*. Not sure if i want to wade in or not. I can see a lot of the reasoning and i agree with a lot of it. Nobody is entirely wrong and nobody is entirely right. Much like most religions.

I think what you have to do is look at the grand scale of things and not look at it all though a mircoscope...sort of..kinda...btw what are you all on and where do i get some. *L*

Lol!!

Nice call, ettie...peacepipe? *puff, puff*

Now you will get in tune with the sounds of the universe...ahhh....

So roll up those sleeves, and plunge right in!

ao,

My point is that if a supreme being (single ultimate all powerful... yada yada yada) exists, that is the *only* way that an absolute "good" and "evil" could possibly exist. So if the the God of the bible isn't there, then I totally agree with your point about it all being relative.

Everything else you described in your last post about intent and opinion cannot have any bearing on the good and evil because those would be objective realities *independent* of anyone's opinion or willingness to follow them.

I don't mean to keep wondering off topic...

Yes I will post the video if I can .

Well, it looks like the Big Bang Theory is getting a little more support in the way of evidence.

Don't you just love it? I do...

Hmm...intresting topic...I rather like it.